wrap up debate and then onto a procedural vote on a bill that bars syria and iraqi refugees until background checks have determined they are not a threat to national security. the house did pass the bill in december. the white house says it opposes the measure. now for live coverage on the senate here on c-span2. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, who has set our fragile years in the heart of your eternity, we find gladness and peace under the shadow of your wings. today, provide our lawmakers with wisdom to embrace the right priorities. may they strive to sacrifice

for the things that will live beyond their years, so that history will celebrate their foresight and courage. grant that their lives and labor will reflect your greatness, compassion and love. keep them from embracing a false patriotism that would render unto caesar what belongs to you. stir them to new heights of excellence, as you open their eyes to the unfolding of your loving providence. we pray in your great name. the presiding officer: please

join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the 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.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., january 20, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom cotton, a senator from the state of arkansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: our republican leader has said that he is going to bring and has brought to the floor a house-passed refugee bill, as he calls it, the senate immigration bill, of course. he said yesterday that the debate over the bill should be based on -- quote -- facts and common sense. mr. president, i agree with that. the facts speak for themselves. our enemy is clearly defined. isis is the defined organization. it's a terrorist organization

that poses a threat to the united states, women, children and families fleeing persecution are not the enemy. it's isis. we should be focusing all of our efforts on defeating our real enemy, the brutal, evil isis. yet, this bill the republican leader is bringing to the floor scapegoats refugees who are fleeing war and torture instead of creating real solutions to keep americans safe. you're going to have to take my word for it. the junior senator from arizona has said he will oppose the bill because it is, i quote, intended to knock out all refugees, and i'm not there. i quote -- intended to knock out all refugee entrants, and i'm not there, so says the junior

senator from arizona. national security experts from democratic and republican administrations have warned against advancing bills like this. i said national security experts, both democrats and republicans. former secretary bill gates, former secretary gates, he was such a good person. i enjoyed working with him very much. he said yesterday, in words that are much stronger than i will say right now, that the republicans running for president don't understand the issue, don't understand the issue. and he's much stronger and more firm in saying how ridiculous it is what they're talking about. by the way, he was republican. president obama's already been very, very clear that he will veto this legislation.

as written, this bill will not be signed into law. some say it's a waste of our time. by advancing this bill, republicans are creating a terrible distraction for the sake of embracing the hateful rhetoric, vitriol, the republican party standard-bearers, donald trump and ted cruz. this i guess should come as no surprise to anyone. over and over again, republicans remain committed to pledging loyalty to the divisive platform that has been built by republican people running for president, led by at this stage donald trump. we believe we must destroy isis. everyone on this side of the aisle believes we should destroy isis and defend our nation, but we believe we can accomplish this goal without compromising american core principles. sadly, many leading republicans

opposed policies that compromise our fundamental values and threaten the identity of our great nation. democrats are committed to opposing the views of donald trump and providing the american people with solutions that make our nation safer. we think it's way past time for the senate to vote on these policies. my friend, the republican leader, has pledged over and over again the republicans when they led the senate would thrive under an open amendment process. for example, he said at the beginning of my time as majority leader that the open amendment process is going to be the rule rather than the exception. my friend continued to say that tough votes should be expected, and i quote. we'll just take our chances. you know, we're big men and women. we're prepared to vote on proposals that are offered from

both sides, close quote. if senate republicans are prepared to abide by this, senate democrats will seek to advance a limited number of amendments on this bill that's before this body. not tons of amendments, not scores of amendments. but four or five amendments. for example, we could have one that dramatically increased the funding for local police antiterror efforts and airport screening. that's one we want. they are overworked and underresourced. we could close the terror gun loophole to prevent those on the no-fly list from being able to buy firearms, explosives or radiological material as has been attempted. we would offer an amendment to denounce donald trump's reprehensible proposal to propose a religious test on admission to the united states. and there is a bill that has

been filed -- it's called the democratic isis security bill. it's a very important piece of legislation. it would say our antiterror -- it includes keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, stopping radicalization here in the united states. it would -- it includes active shooter training. as i indicated already, but it's in part of this bill that we want to move forward as a substitute, airport security, preventing dirty bomb, working abroad to take care of refugees who are over there. now, these are the amendments that we feel confident based on the statements that my friend has made. we're not asking for unlimited amendments. i listed four here. now, mr. president, republican leaders, including this speaker, and the republican leader have pledged loyalty to donald trump

and his disgraceful policies. he's the nominee. of course they have said we will support him. as the frontrunner of the republican nomination, donald trump and his proposals are leading the public debate in our country. republicans who support these illogical plans should be prepared for the next ill illogl step, voting on his vision of america. we over here believe that all these measures are deserving a vote. i have talked about four of them. we're ready to vote on the proposals now, this week. if for any reason the republican leader needs more time to discuss the proposal with his caucus, we're happy to reschedule the vote. now, i know it's a big day in the senate because on my news briefing on the way to work here this morning i heard the big day is going to be we had the junior senator from florida is going to be here to vote and the junior senator from texas. they're going to actually be in the senate to vote. it's a big day here.

so i know we have a tight schedule because they're only going to be here probably for an hour or two. but perhaps we could -- so we could have a debate on these amendments that we suggest and i'm sure if we offer these amendments, that republicans offer these amendments, we will have some time here to deal with these amendments. but we'll not allow republicans to hijack the senate floor to play politics with our national security. the american people deserve better. i look forward to offering these amendments. and i o'mr. president, publicly want everyone to know that i did not try to jump ahead of my friend, the republican leader. i was told by staff that i should go first. so i -- if i had known you were going to be here so quickly, i would have sat. i'm sorry about that. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the president's veto message on s.j. res. 22 which the clerk will read and which will be spread in full upon the journal.

the clerk: veto message to s.j. res. 22, providing congressional approval under title 5 of the united states code of the rule supported by the corps of engineers and the environmental protection agency relating to the definition of waters of the united states under the federal water pollution control act. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the veto message on s.j. res. 22 be considered as having been read, that it be printed in the record and spread in full upon the journal. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business until 12:30, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, our country has a proud record of admitting the oppressed as refugees to our shores. yet the debate about how to safely admit refugees from syria and iraq is a serious conversation that deserves a serious response from washington. it's difficult to effectively

vet immigrants from a war-torn country where records may sometimes no longer exist at all. senior law enforcement and intelligence officials have expressed concerns and d.h.s. secretary jeh johnson has said that organizations such as isil may try -- may like to try to exploit the refugee program. so is it any wonder that the citizens we represent are concerned? according to one recent survey, nearly 80% of americans and 77% of democrats say that refugees should go through a more robust security process. president obama seemed to suggest these americans are motivated by some animus towards widows and orphans. i would suggest they are motivated by love for their families and communities.

i'd remind the president that this country has a proud tradition of compassion, and we have settled millions of refugees from around the world. many americans are telling us they want to continue helping others, but they want to do it in a smarter and more secure way. so i want to say this, mr. president, before moving forward. in his state of the union address, president obama decried the political divisions that have widened during his presidency. he called for cooperation and a more elevated debate. he warned that democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter. democracy, he said, doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us with all motivated by malice. so i would ask him to reflect on those words.

we each have a choice in this discussion. we can glibly dismiss the sincere concerns of middle-class families, or we can work to unify americans by pursuing bipartisan and balanced solutions. democrats and republicans in the house of representatives chose bipartisan and balanced solutions when they worked together to pass the american safe act a few weeks ago. democrats and republicans in the senate should choose bipartisan and balanced solutions by working together to advance the american safe act today. the bipartisan bill would allow washington to step back, take a breath, and ensure it has correct policies and security screenings in place before moving ahead with the refugee program for iraq and syria.

no wonder dozens of democrats joined with republicans to pass this balanced bill with a veto-proof majority over in the house. it is certainly worrying to hear that senate democrats are now being pressured to block us from even debating it. i understand that the political pressure to oppose this balanced bill may be intense, but it's also intensely shortsighted. and i would urge our democratic friends to resist it. boostingconfidence in our nation's vetting process is critical just as it is critical for every refugee who truly needs our help. our democratic friends know that a cloud of unfair stigmatization -tizationthreatens to hold over. if our democratic friends are serious in what they imply about promoting tolerance for widows and off fans and in

strengthening security for americans, they won't vote to block the senate from gailting balanced, bipartisan gelings that can -- legislation that can advance both priorities simultaneously. let's enact t work to enact then safe act and then let's work together on the root of the problem. refugees are fleeing syria because of a brutal civil war, and they're fleeing iraq because the terrorist group al qaeda in iraq has evolved into the largest terrorist group in history, isil. so the ultimate solution is to make the region regions somewhey can return to. here's what has not helped: the precipitous withdrawal of our advice and assist force from iraq. the indecision attached to drawing and erasing of red lines in syria. mocking the genuine concerns of american citizens here at home.

here's what will help: the administration cooperating across the aisle to finally develop a serious plan to confront isil. that's what the american people continue to call for. that's what the american people deserve. and it's what the administration will pursue if it's truly serious about helping both our country and the victims escaping this brutal terrorist group. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i think that we have the makings of an agreement here, at least the way i understood the republican leader. we agreed that refugees should go through a robust screening process. the bill we're talking about here before the senate, though, has -- is stressing bureaucracy and paperwork.

each refugee that comes to this country -- and there's about 1 d there's about 100 a day, would have to be signed off by a cabinet secretary. what we have said is we want four amendments to change the underlying bill. we're not going to be demanding days of debate time. we'd be happy -- whatever the leader thought appropriate. but we believe we should move forward with real solutions, not paperwork. society we'rpaperwork so we're e want to get on the bill. we're willing to get on the bill. we want four amendments, that's it. four amendments. and so i'm sure the leader will look this over, get back to me at an appropriate time, but we're willing to work on this bill. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: obviously, we'll be talking to the democratic leader about a way forward on the bill, and we'll have those discussions and report back later. mr. reid: thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. reid: mr. reid: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, like most americans listening to president obama's state of the union address last week, i found his take on national security and world affairs rather surprising. according to a poll in december, 60% of the american people see national security and terrorism as a major concern. and they have good reason to be worried. as president obama finishes his last year in office, syria is racked by civil war, iraq is in turmoil, russian aggression is growing, north korea has tested yet another nuclear weapon,

saudi arabia and iran are immersed in a cold war, and isis continues its campaign of terror. yet according to the president, we have nothing to worry about. america's leadership is strong, and we're headed in the right direction. mr. president, fortunately, this fairy tale version stands in stark contrast with reality. in the state of the union address, the president did acknowledge "the world will look to us to help solve these problems and our answer needs to be more than tough talk." end quote. well, i couldn't agree more. but, unfortunately, tough talk but no action has been the hallmark of this administration. the 2011, after the onset of the syrian civil war, both president obama and then-secretary of state hillary clinton stated unconditionally that syrian president bashar al-assad had to go. the president drew a line in the

sand. if assad used chemical weapons, america would act. but when assad flouted this red line killing his own people, including women and children, with the large-scale use of sarin gas, the president chose to forego a decided military response and instead pursue negotiations involving the russians, working out a compromise that ultimately strengthened assad's position. and the results of the president's decision have not been pretty. in the wake of the negotiation, an emboldened vladimir putin invaded crimea and eastern ukraine and the situation got worse. it appears now the assad administration will outlast obama's. worse, our allies i in the midde east no longer trust us to come to their aivmentd the president's failure to back up his tough talk with action has undermined american leadership, and this may take years, if not decades, to repair.

mr. president, this week the senate is taking up the american security against foreign enemies act, which addresses the syrian refugee crisis, another bipartisan, i might add, of the president's failure to uphold his red line. with syria, both the united states and the european powers have had to learn a lesson the hard way. if you don't take action to solve the problem, the people who are suffering will end up on your doorstep. mr. president, hundreds of thousands of syrians have been killed in this conflict. assad continues to use chlorine bombs indiscriminately to kill his own people, and isis executes anyone it does not consider loyal. it is no wonder that the syrian people want out. yet with the mass exodus of refugees comes other security concerns including the threat of isis infiltrating the refugee population. intelligence officials have made it clear they are concerned that we don't have the ability to adequately vet syrian refugees.

and as we know from reports, at least one of the terrorists responsible for the deadly attacks in paris passed through a refugee processing checkpoint in greece. to quote james clapper, "i don't put it past the likes of isil to infiltrate operatives among those refugees. that's a rouge concern of ours." end quote. well, mr. president, the american safe act helps address this concern by requiring the f.b.i., the department of homeland security, and the director of national intelligence to certify that syria and iraqi refugees have been thoroughly vetted and do not pose a security risk before they are allowed to enter the country. this is a reasonable request, and if the administration wants to assure the american people that these refugees are not a threat, then it should have no problem providing such certifications. i plan to file an amendment to

this bill that would also give more authority to individual states when it comes to the resettlement of refugees. last year many governors expressed a desire, shared by their constituents, that syrian refugees not be resettled in their states. my amendment would grant governors the presence at weekly resettlement meetings in the government and give those governors veto power over the resettlement of certain refugees in their states. under under my amendment, if a governor's office is not satisfied that its security concerns have been addressed by the required security checks, the governor can veto the resettlement in question. any refugee once admitted to the united states would still be free to travel from state to state as he or she pleased. this amendment would simply increase states' rights by giving governors a say in any decisions by the federal government to resettle large populations of refugees in their

states. this is a reasonable solution to the concerns that were raised by the governors of over 30 states. and i hope that we can have a vote on this amendment. mr. president, over the weekend, the world witnessed another by-product of president obama's failing foreign policy. thanks to a provision of the president's flawed nuclear deal with iran, more than $100 billion of frozen iranian assets and oil revenue were made available to the islamic republic of iran this means that iran's revolutionary guard, including the kuds force which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of american soldiers in iraq, just received a big influx of cash. again, this is thanks to the deal that president obama considers to be perhaps the major foreign policy achievement of his presidency. and while i'm glad that the

hostages held by iran are coming home to their families, it is a mistake to think that this means iran all of a sudden will now play nice. iranian leadership knows very well that it won the lottery with this nuclear deal and it desperately wants iranian assets unfrozen and sanctions lifted. now that the iranian leadership has received its payout, iran will be further emboldened. when negotiating this deal, the obama administration assured congress that the united states would make sure iran kept its end of the bargain. well, it's already clear from october's ballistic missile te test, that iran is determined to test the president's resolve and flout international restrictions. we cannot let those provocations go unanswered. mr. president, president obama is right that when conflict arises, the world looks to the united states for leadership.

however, it takes more than talk to provide the leadership the world needs. his last year in office, i hope president obama will move beyond rhetoric and start offering realistic solutions to the growing number of security concerns that face our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise on january the 20th, 2016,on the floor of the united states senate to acknowledge that today is the 35th anniversary of the return of 53 americans by the iranian government to the shores of the united states of america after their captivity for 444 days in iran. as the members of the senate will remember, they were the employees of the united states embassy in tehran who were brutally attacked, sent through mock executions, subjected to beatings, sunged to brainwashing, subjected to torture. and for 444 days they were out of communication with their loved ones, with our country. fortunately we successfully negotiated their release and on

january 20 of 1980 -- 1981, they were released back to the united states. but that release included the execution of the algerian accords between the united states and the iranians which prohibited any hostage from suing the nation of iran for compensation for their captivity. since that release, many americans in the united states house and senate, including myself, have worked hard to try and right that wrong and i'm very pleased to acknowledge that on the passage of the omnibus in december, we were able to secure funding to be able to compensate those hostages as they should have been compensated 35 years ago. we were able to take money from the paribus bank forfeiture of iranian funds to the united states government to see they were compensated in some measure for the sacrifice they made for our country. a lot of people have said, why would you pay people, compensate people for their captivity. why would you go for to have the effort for 35 years to see these people got some kind of money to compensate them for their captivity. why would we not do it,

mr. president? there are americans all over the world serving in very dangerous places as ambassadors and diplomats through the state department. they should know we've got their back not just on the day they're serving but 35 years later if they were tortured, if they were beaten or if they were held captive. we all know from last weekend we were enjoyed to see the americans that were released by the iranians now. we also know that there were americans taken hostage in iraq in baghdad just two days later. taking hostages and taking american hostages and using them as tools of war is something that's been happening for years and years and the iranian government have been he head of it. these americans deserve fair treatment, they deserve compensation, they deserve recompense for all they suffered and i'm fraud say that because of a bipartisan effort of the house and the senate we were able to do so. i want to thank senator corker, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator car dirntion the former chairman, senator menendez from new jersey, senator reid from nevada who were instrumental in helping and all the other -- and senator blumenthal, my ranking member on the veterans' committee of the united states senate and help run this bill for all the help

they brought and the entire body of the united states senate who in december voted unanimously to see to it the paribus money is made available to the survivors and the people who were taken hostage in 1979. you might remember, mr. president, the show "nightline" that we see on television started with the original reports in 1979 by ted koppel about their taking. became a television show. they were held that long. i'm glad now the ending of that show is a successful ending when we brought them home. we saw to it they were compensated. some of them have passed away. some of them have taken their own life. some of them had difficulties. some of them have never been able to rid themselves of the scars of captivity, torture and brainwashing. but fortunately this senate and this congress did what it was supposed to do, it stood up for america and sent the signal to everybody who works for our state department who's a diplomat for our country, who works overseas that if you're taken, we'll stand behind you and we will never, ever, ever forget. whether it's 444 days or 35 years, once an american serving our country alleges an american

serving our country and we will always be there for you and go to every effort and every length, even if it does take 35 years. so on the anniversary of their release in 1981, when they came back to the united states of america, we pay tribute to those brave americans who served our country and were held hostage in iran. we give thanks that we have the kind of men and women who are willing day in and day out to sacrifice on behalf of our great country. may god bless each and every one of them and may god bless the united states of america. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: might i inquire, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. kaine: i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to talk about a pending legislative matter that we will be

discussing later in the day, the american security against foreign enemies act of 2015. this is the title of the bill that was passed by the house in november that was now pending before the senate and we will be discussing later. i want to talk for a few minutes, but the punch line is as indicated on this board. we're talking about who are america's foreign enemies. this is a bill that deals with iraqi and syrian refugees, and i assert that refugees are not our enemy, isil is our enemy, and yet for some strange reason, in the 18 months of a war against isil, congress has been unwilling to debate our real enemy. first, refugees are not our enemies. the refugee crisis with refugees coming from syria and now iraq has been called the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. four million syrians have left

their native country because of being exposed to the atrocities of being barrel bombed by bashar assad and now the atrocities of isis and other terrorist organizations. those four million have left to find haven just as any family would from this horrible violence. over 200,000 syrians have been killed by this violence. probably the number is now approaching 300,000. in addition to the four million syrian refugees who have left syria to escape violence, there are an additional eight million syrians who have left their homes and been displaced within the country who could leave the country at any moment as the violence continues. this is who these refugees are. victims of violence, victims of unspeakable atrocity perpetrated first by the horrible dictator bashar al-assad and second by terrorist groups like isil. and yet this bill would say

these refugees are enemies, they are enemies. there is a story that means an awful lot to me personally, and i hope you'll indulge me. a jewish man was traveling from jerusalem down to jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. they stripped him of his clothes, beat him up and left him half dead beside the road. by chance, a priest came along, but when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. a temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. then a despised samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. going over to him, the samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn where he took care of him. the next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins,

telling him take care of this man. if the bill runs higher than this, i'll pay you the next time i'm here. now, which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits, jesus asked. the man replied, the one who showed him mercy. then jesus said yes, now go and do the same. this is a story that was written 2,000 years ago, but it's not a story about yesterday. it's a story about every day of human life on this planet. there are beaten up people lying by the side of the road, and the choice that we have to make as individuals or as a society is do we pass by or do we act as the good samaritan did in a compassionate way? in fact, i would argue that the good samaritan story actually isn't tough enough. if we call the refugees of the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii our enemies, it's as if we were going over to the

bandit and not passing by but kicking the man who had been beaten and robbed by bandits. let me move away from scripture and talk about american values. the statue of liberty that stands in new york harbor is graced with a powerful poem, the new colossus, written by an i am gran--imdrants immigrant -- emma las ruses. there was a fund-raising campaign to build the petament on which the statue stands and the federal government didn't have the money. emma lazarus wrote a poem about the statue of liberty for a fund-raising contest to help raise money and that's why the statue is there now. the poem is called "the new

colossus," the colossus of rhodes. and emma lazarus wrote this calling it the new colossus, not like the giant of greek fame, here at our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand a mighty woman with a torch whose flame is the imprisoned lightning and her name "mother of ex-silence" from her beacon hand glows worldwide welcome, keep ancient land your story crisis she with silent lips, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the researched refuse of your teaming shore. send these the homeless, tempest tossed to mings. i lift my lamp beside the golden door." the debate that we'll undertake

about this bill about whether we call refugees enemies is a debate about who we are as a nation. let's honor our history. let's honor our values. and let's do what americans have always done: been willing to extend a hand to those who are victimized by atrocity in other lands rather than extend the back of our hand and label them as enemies. now, mr. president, i don't dislike everything about this bill that we're about to debate. i actually really like the title. the conat any time i don't like the the -- the content i don't like. the title "american security against foreign enemies act of 20915." because we have an enemy. we've been at war with isil for 18 months. we've spent $5 billion in this war. we deployed thousands of american troops in this war.

11 members of the american armed services have been killed while on deployment in operation inherent resolve. we have an enemy. the enemy is not refugees from syria. the enemy is isil. you all know the facts about isil. this organization that claims to be inspired to create a worldwide caliphate. they have slaughtered christians and other religious minorities by the thousands. they have sold women into slavery by the thousands. they have beheaded american hostages, including american aid workers. if there's a modern-day equivalent of a good samaritan, it is an american aid worker who's trying to help somebody out. isil has kidnapped, captured, and beheaded american aid workers. the number of deaths just this

weekend, 400 more people kidnapped by isil. in iraq and syria, the number of deaths have been in the tens of thousands by isil. and as i've said, beheading american hostages, 11 american service members killed. but it's beyond iraq and syria. isil has claimed credit for bringing down an airliner, killing tourists in sinai. isil has claimed credit for killing hundreds in paris. isil has claimed credit for a bombing at a peace rally in ankara, turkey. and then a bombing outside the blue mosque in i istanbul two weeks ago that killed 50 and injured dozens more. the shooters in san bernardino were inspired by isil, even if they weren't directly connected to them. ing within the last few days we saw another attacattack, an expn

in jakarta that was claimed by isil. that's who an enemy is, not a refugee who is flyin fleeing is. isil is the enemy. isil must be defeated. and yet we're not debating isil. and we haven't been willing to debate isil in 18 months. instead we're trying to claim that refugees are the enemies of this statue of liberty nation. why has congress been silent about isil for 18 months? our president has asked congress, congress do your job and declare war against isil. he even sent to us a proposed authorization 11 months ago -- 11 months arc th months ago, tht sent a proposed authorization against isil. there has not been a vote on the floor in the house, there has not been a vote on the floor in the senate, there has not been a

debate on the floor of the house or senate. there's not been a debate or vote in committees in the house or senate. for 11 months since the president asked us, let's get involved and take action against isil, there has been no action. and it's not just the president. general dunford, the american general who is now head of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the armed services committee -- i asked him, should we do an authorization against isil, and he said it would send the strong message to isil -- it would send a strong message to our allies. but here's what he said that really grabbed me, coming from a state that is a heavily military state. he said our troops deserve it. there are thousands deployed away from home risking their lives. and i asked general dunford, would it be good to have an authorization against isil? how would our troops responding. "what our young men and women need -- and it is virtually all that they need to do the job

that we ask them to do -- is the sense that what they're doing has purpose, has meaning, and has the support of the american people." our troops think congress is indifferent to this. virginia is very military. we're very closely connected to t i have a child in the military, one of my three kids. i know what our troops are thinking about congress right now, which is that while we're deployed overseas fighting this battle and risking our lives, congress doesn't care and would rather not talk about it. secretary panetta has recently give an speech saying that congress should act. so our president, the head of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary panetta and others have said, congress, have this debate. there's an enemy out there. have the backbone to name it as an enemy and authorization action against this enemy. constitutionally congress should act. one of the most important powers in the constitution is in

article 1, in the definition of the roles of congress. it is congress that declares war, not the president. and that was put in the constitution by the framers. virginians like james madison who knew that before 1787 war was a matter for the monarch and the emperor and the sultan. in america we're not going to make war for the executive. we're going to make a declaration of war for the congress. it is congress' job. congress is not dock wha doing e constitution commands. imagine if you were one of the family members of the one of the 11 service members who have been killed while deploying in operation inherent resolve, killed when your jet is taking off from an aircraft carrier or otherwise killed while in deployment. you sent your best and brightest and then they were sent overseas to fight an enemy that we all

agree is conducting atrocities and that pride of your life is killed while serving a country and yet congress won't even have a debate, won't even have a debate about whether isil is anen mi and whether we should declare war against isil and instead wants to have a debate about whether refugees from isil should be called our enemies. the imagine how you would feel if you were one of those families and congress was unwilling to even dignify the loss of your loved one by two minutes of debate or vote on the floor of either the senate or the house. david ignatius wrote a piece yesterday in "the washington post," "the ugly truth: defeating the islamic state will take decades." last line says this. "the next president is going to inherit an expanding war against a global terrorist adversary. the debate about how to best fight this enemy -- this enemy

-- hasn't even begun." after 18 months, after deaths of american troops, after all these atrocities, after bombings in cities all over the world, the debate hasn't even begun because we refuse to have it. -- in this chamber. why has congress, as i conclude, why has congress been silent about this since we began military action against isil in august 8 of 2014. we will hit the 18th anniversary in a couple weeks in february. i got a lot of criticisms of the administration's strategy. i think they waited too long to send the authorization to us. i don't think the authorization is particularly well-drafted. but that's no obstacle to us acting. the presidents send authorization frequently and the congress redrafts them. so i am not light on criticism for the administration but i am asking this question in this chamber where i am a member and so my question is actually critical, but it's also self-critical. why has congress been silent in the 18-month battle against isil? it's because of fear.

fear of not isil, fear of accountability. a war vote is hard. it's the hardest vote we will ever cast, and it should be. and it should be. how much easier is it to criticize the president and say, we don't like your strategy, you're doing it wrong? how come you don't do more airstrikes here or put more boots on the ground there? that is much easier for congress to do than to actually have a debate about isil and craft a strategy and then say, we, members of congress, individually are putting our names on this. members of congress have been lookinlooking actively to avoide on this for 18 months because a war vote is tough. under the best of circumstances, there's going to be consequences that will be painful and tragic. there will be american lives lost.

and that's under the best of circumstances. war isn't always fun under the best of circumstances. there will be surprises. there will be twists and turns. we'll go down a path, like trying to train and equiv a moderate syrian opposition and it doesn't work out the way we hope. and so people, i think, in congress, both houses, both parties, have had a sense that, well, maybe if we don't vote and we just kind of criticize the president and we just kind of turn our eye while we're essentially forcing people to risk their lives in a war we're not willing to declare, people won't hold us accountable. i've seen that tendency throughout my 21 years in elected service when a tough vote is on the table, when something is hard on complicated, and this certainly is. if i can avoid it, well, i'd like avoid it. but that is so disrespectful to

the oath that we took, where we pledged to live up to the laws, including the article 1 responsibilities of congress. it is so disrespectful to the volunteer military who is deployed overseas risk being their lives and the families of those who have already lost their lives. and after all, what is our fear of a tough vote in the grand scheme of things as against the sacrifice that our troops are making overseas? now, that's something that's really hard, having to cast a tough vote, i.t it's not that h. it's not that hard. we can do this. we can do this. the only action that's been taken since this war started 18 months ago was on a bill i introduced, an authorization for military force against isil. i introduced it in september of 2014, one month after the war started. it got a vote in the senate

foreign relations committee, a 10-8 vote. sadly, it was a partisan vote. it was right at the end of the previous congress and expired with no,. a number of those who voted against it said, look, the majority is about to change, so why do this now with two weeks left in the session? when the majority changes, we can take it up. some said the president hasn't even sent us a draft authorization yet. it is premature to do t well, now we have the president's draft authorization. we've had it for 11 months and done nothing. now we've seen -- and there can be no doubt at this point of the evil nature of this threat that we face and the expanding and complicating nature of this threat that we face. now is the time finally for congress to step up to our responsibility and do our job. i've use add couple of literary references. let me close with one. a great poet, irish poet -- i am

biased -- william butler yates -- wrote a poem at the end of the world war i. world war i in a lot of historians' views was kind of one of the most needless wars in some ways. it was unclear what it was about. but what it was really about was decaying monarchies that wouldn't change and i stead of changing they led a terrorist action in the assassination of a nobleman, a leader in the balk balkans trigger the start of world war i. are and it was mem newsed slaughter and millions lost their lives and the u.s. came in and played a very important role and at the end of the day came in being the peacemaker that had to come in and resolve it. and yates wrote a problem after world war i surveying these wreckage of the world war i called "the second coming" and he expressed a real concern about the state of society at

the time. because what he noticed was at that time, the best lacked all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. we have an enemy, isil, and i think we can all agree they are filled with a passionate intensity. they are the worst in their human rights violations and their atrocities, in their complete disrespect for human life. they're the worst. they are the enemy. we should be debating about th them. and the best lack all conviction. we are the best nation in the world. i firmly and deeply believe th that. i've believed it every day i've been alive for 58 years. we are the best. we have the best system of government in the world. and while that system of

government is often described as three coequal branches, there's a reason they put the legislative barrage in article e judicial branch in article 2 and the executive in article 3. we are the direct remi direct representatives of the people and that's how it was structured so we would be the best of the best. the best branch in the best government in the best nation in the history of the world. do we lack all conviction? if we're willing to call refugees fleeing from violence our enemies but we're afraid to take up a debate about whether isil's an enemy, to support our troops in harm's way? that's the question that i'm asking today. i know we're the best. where is our conviction? and so i ask my colleagues in connection with this bill, let's keep the title to it. let's secure america against foreign enemies.

let's secure america against isil. but let's not turn our back on the victims of the worst humanitarian crisis since world war ii. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'm glad i happened to come to the floor when the senator from virginia was speak on this topi. i didn't come to speak on this topic but i know how passionately he feels about it and i find myself agreeing with much of what he has to say about what our military deserves in terms of the support not only of the president but also of the congress and, thus, through congress the american people. whenever we send our troops into harm's way, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that they have unified support of the united states government and hopefully the american people.

i would just tell my friend from have virginia who has been on ts topic for some time, i think there's some practical impediments to what the senator is suggesting and maybe we can find a way to work together to address them. first of all, there is the question of what is the strate strategy. and i think congress is reluctant to issue an additional authorization for the use of military force until we know what the president's strategy is. not just in syria, in iraq but also with the travel and the movement of people back and forth from those war-torn countries to the united states or to other parts of the world, including the visa waiver countries, the 38 of them, people who can travel freely from that area to those visa waiver countries and then come to the united states. but also the third part of it that we've been addressing and which the f.b.i. director has brought to our attention on the senate judiciary committee has to do with radicalization of people back here at home through the use of social media or the

internet. so this -- i would say to my friend, this is a serious problem and i find myself in sympathy with i think what he's trying to do, but, again, the practical problem is the absence of a real strat. and then i -- of a real strategy. and then i fear with one year left for this president in office, one of the goals of some of the proponents -- i'm not casting aspersions, i'm just saying i'm concerned about this, that one of the goals would be to issue an authorization for the use of military force that would actually tie the hands of future presidents. because apparently this president thinks he has all the authority that he needs. it is true they issued -- they've got a draft that they've sent over here for us to consider but that -- but the president seems, at least to me to be suggesting by his actions and most of what he's doing is that he thinks he has all the authority he needs.

so i just want to say to my friend that i don't doubt your sincerity and i ad admire the points you're trying to make but i do see those as practical problems, the absence of a strategy from the commander in chief and the proposal -- one of the proposals, i think it came out of the foreign relations committee, that would actually limit the options available to the next commander in chief where this to be passed. but those aren't insurmountable problems. those are things that once identified we can focus on and work on a little bit more. so i thank the senator for his continued advocacy on this issue and admire his determination to see this through to a good conclusion. mr. president, what i came to the floor to talk about is a bill we're going to be voting on this afternoon called the american security against foreign enemies act, also called the american safe act. now, i wish he was still here.

i know he just left. but i just want to make one point on the chart that the senator from virginia had where he suggested that refugees are the enemy. that's not true. that's the opposite of true. the american people are the most generous people in the world when it comes to admitting refugees, to naturalizing new american citizens. we naturalize anywhere in the past few years, if my memory serves me correctly, between 800,000 and a million new citizens a year. america's the most open, welcoming country in the world because we recognize this is a source of our great strength. the brains, the ambition and the hard work that go together with people who are unhappy with their current circumstance and are looking to live the american dream and what they have to do in order to come here to america to be a part of that through a legal system of immigration i

think is something to be applauded and celebrated. but this bill is about something else. this is about our national security. this is not an antirefugee bill. that's immediately where the president went and where some of the other folks on his -- on the president's side of the aisle went, was suggesting that somehow by being concerned about our own national security that we were somehow antirefugee. and that's -- that's demonstrably false. all we're asking for and all this legislation provides for -- passed by a bipartisan vote of the house of representatives -- is to enhance the screening of refugees so that this system cannot be exploited by terrorists, a tactic that isis has encouraged.our adversaries, particularly the islamic state, recognize the fact that they can

exploit our system to advance their cause, which is to kill innocent men, women and children in this country. so this legislation doesn't close the door to refugees or go back on america's great traditions and who we are as a people. all it does is add safeguards to our refugee admissions process and updates it in light of the threats we currently face. now, the distinguished presiding officer was probably in the same hearings i was in or the briefings with jeh johnson, the director of homeland security, who said, following some of these threats, the administration unilaterally enhanced some of their screening mechanisms. and i applaud them for that. that's important to do. but they can't sit here and tell us with all seriousness that

congress can't weigh in or we can't have a debate and we can't have an amendment process on legislation which is designed to do what they themselves are trying to accomplish, which is to protect public safety by enhancing some of the screening process. all we're trying to do -- and it's not a small thing, it is our number-one responsibility as part of the federal government -- is protect our national security. our chief goal in this legislation is pretty simple. it's to make sure that we're doing everything we can to prevent terrorists from entering the country. to prevent terrorists from entering the country. now, why would our friends across the aisle want to filibuster this legislation by voting "no" this afternoon at 2:30 and deny us an opportunity to actually debate the legislation? under the rules of the senate, they're free to offer

suggestions by way of amendment about how we can improve the legislation. i've heard a number of them, including the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee, senator feinstein, among others say, well what she would like to see us do is to beef up our protections to prevent people from exploiting the visa waiver system from coming into the united states without going through adequate screening mechanism. and i think there would be a lot of support on this side of the aisle and on a bipartisan basis to -- to modify this legislation to include some of her ideas. at least we ought to have that debate. we shouldn't shut it down by a filibuster on the other side. this bill would ensure that the f.b.i. and other national security and intelligence agencies have actually certified to the security of the refugee screening program. it's called accountability, something people don't think we have enough of here in

washington, d.c. something bad happens and it's some nameless, faceless bureaucrat that's blamed. what this would do is put the responsibility and the accountability where it belongs. there's no doubt we live in turbulent times. our national security experts tell us that they've never seen a more diverse, a more complex array of threats around the world. our refugee admissions program should be examined and updated to respond to those threats, and that's what this legislation attempts to do. and unfortunately we don't have to look very far to see examples of why this legislation is necessary. earlier this year in houston, a man born in iraq entered the country as a refugee and was later charged with providing material support to isis.

that's one example, i'm sure it's not the only example, of why this legislation is important. we're still learning more about that particular case but what we already know is alarming. according to media reports, he was associated with members and sympathizers of isis. we know that investigators found an isis flag at his home in houston, texas. and just last week, it was reported his plans included setting off bombs at two popular malls in houston, texas. houston's one of our most populous metropolitan areas certainly in texas and in the country. can you imagine what two bombs going off at shopping malls, what kind of carnage that that could wreak. according to reports, this individual was communicating with another man also born in iraq who entered the united states in 2012 as a refugee, who had ties to terrorist groups,

fought twice in syria, and allegedly was trying to go back to syria to fight alongside his lamb i can militants so this individual was communicating with another person with terrorist ties that certainly should raise all of our suspicion and concern. both of these men were refugees from iraq. now, that doesn't mean the refugee program should be dismantled or abandoned entirely. but what it should tell us is we better be darned sure that whoever comes in through the refugee system has been adequately vetted to protect innocent potential victims here in the united states. fortunately in this instance, our law enforcement officers acted effectively and quickly to prevent a tragedy. but they can't be right 100% of the time. and if they aren't -- if they're right only 99% of the time and innocent people are hurt or

killed, if we don't do everything in our power to stop it, then i think we're partially responsible. so this is not a theoretical problem and congress has the opportunity to act to try to enhance public safety. so knowing all this, it's baffling to hear the discussion among our democratic colleagues that they may not even allow us to get on the bill this afternoon. i've seen some news reports suggesting that the democratic leader is saying well, if there is some sort of amendment process that could be agreed to, that maybe we could -- they would allow us to do that. and i would encourage those discussions to go forward, but we shouldn't just say well, you get three or four amendments on your side and you get three or four on our side. we ought to invite and welcome all constructive suggestions on how to make this legislation as good as it can possibly be, and we don't need to come up with some back-room deal to do that. all we need to do is to bring the bill to the floor and to

allow an open amendment process under the rules of the senate. this is a debate worth having, and this is one that our constituents deserve to hear. so i hope the latest news reports are some reason for encouragement that our democratic colleagues are going to allow us to get on the legislation. again, this is not a partisan issue,. it shouldn't be. last fall, several obama administration officials testified about their concerns about radicalized individuals and what threat they could pose as a refugee to gain entry in the united states. homeland security secretary jeh johnson testified before both the senate and house homeland security committees. he said -- quote -- "i am concerned that we do the proper security vetting for refugees we bring in this country, close

quote. i agree with him. that's what this legislation addresses. mr. president, i would ask consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: he went on to say that -- quote -- it is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about syrians that come forth in this process, just given the nature of the situation, and that's understandable. syria has been engaged in a terrible civil war for the last two years. it's hard to imagine we know a lot about some of the people who want to come here as refugees. that doesn't mean they shouldn't come across the board, but that does mean we need to enhance the security screening and make sure that the ones who do come, we are confident that they won't be a threat to the public. the director of the f.b.i. also shared his concern saying we see a risk there. that's what he said. quote -- "we see a risk there."

so if you have the f.b.i. director and the director of the department of homeland security saying there are risks and concerns about refugees coming from syria to the united states, i would say we ought to listen to them. so i hope our colleagues across the aisle will reconsider their at least reported plans to block this legislation. we vote on it at 2:30. there is plenty of time to talk more about it, have discussions about maybe there is a path forward. but if, in fact, ultimately what happens is that there is a filibuster and our friends across the aisle decide to block this american safe act, they have decided -- if they decide to do that -- and again, i hope they don't -- i don't think we're doing our job here or protecting -- doing everything in our power to enhance the public safety. so with that, i would yield the

floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. the year was 1939. the nazis were in control in germany. kristallnacht had occurred. it was the night of broken glass. it was the night when nazi storm troopers literally invaded the shops and the homes of the jewish citizens who were living in germany. they harassed them, they beat them, they killed them. it was pretty clear where this was headed. the nazis had targeted jewish people, and those jewish people, innocent people were going to be their victims. some of them decided that the only place to go was to leave germany, to come to the united states of america. they boarded a ship called the s.s. st. louis, and they set

sail for the united states. they first arrived in havana, cuba, seeking refuge to escape the nazis. the cubans turned them away. and they next came to miami, florida, and they asked the united states of america if these 900 innocent jewish citizens of germany could seek refugee, to become refugees in the united states. they were turned away. with no other alternative, they went back to germany. the holocaust museum in washington, d.c., kept track of what happened to those passengers on the s.s. st. louis, those people seeking refuge in the united states. at least a third of them died in the holocaust, killed by the nazis. there was a senator on the floor, senator robert wagner of

new york, and he said couldn't we at least as a nation agree to allow 10,000 jewish children, children to come to safety in the united states to escape the nazis in germany? his efforts were stopped and defeated, bringing even these children who would be jewish victims of nazi owe -- oppression was rejected by the united states senate. it was a sad moment in the history of this chamber and a sad moment in the history of the united states. after the war, we reflected on what had happened. we realized that this great, strong and caring nation had made a serious mistake. innocent people had died because we rejected these jewish refugees from germany.

and so after world war ii, the united states decided to take a different approach to show leadership to the world when it came to accepting refugees, and since then we have. there have been exceptions, but we have said that our country is open, as most civilized countries on earth are open to those who face oppression, suffering and death come to the united states to be safe. we've established a process for this that it isn't easy. each year it becomes more and more difficult, more and more challenging. if you were a refugee wanting to come to the united states, be prepared. it will take at least a year, one year of investigation, sometimes up to four years investigation before you might be allowed to come to this country. we go through background checks, fingerprints, biometric

measurements, photographs. it's a lengthy, frustrating, difficult process. for people who come to our shores from foreign countries, there is no higher standard than the standard we apply to those who seek refugee status, and each year about 70,000 refugees are accepted in the united states. there are many more who want that opportunity, but only 70,000 can clear this process. we come to this debate on the floor of the united states senate aware of what has happened in syria. over the course of the last few years, this war that has waged in syria has claimed over 200,000 lives, killed in syria. half of syria's 23 million people have been forced out of their homes, half of them. i have a friend in chicago. he's an extraordinary man.

his name is dr. muhammad salul. he is a practicing doctor, well respected. he came to the united states as an immigrant and now has an established medical practice. his family is from syria, the hamas section of syria. he feels so strongly about the war that is killing these innocent people in syria that dr. muhammad salul literally risks his life every few months to go to syria and to treat the victims of that war and violence. his wife, suzanne salul, works with the syrian refugees who come to chicago. the two of them have made this a personal commitment to syria, which was the birthplace of their parents. dr. salul returns from his visits to syria and asks to meet me regularly, and i always say

yes. as painful as it is, i sit there, as i did yesterday, at a restaurant in downtown chicago as dr. salul brought out his ipad and went through the photos one after the other of the children that he treated in syria, the victims of barrel bombs by president assad, the victims now of russian bombing, children. he goes to communities where people are literally starving to death, starving to death in the year 2016 in syria, and he shows me their emaciated bodies until i turn away and i can't look at it anymore. i say to my colleagues in the senate who follow this debate and know what we're voting on, the syrian crisis we face today i would argue is the most serious humanitarian crisis of our time. what is happening to these

people is unimaginable. a few months ago, i joined several of my colleagues and we went to greece to an island calls lesbos. this is the stopping point. once the syrian refugees have gone through turkey, they cross a span of eight to ten miles of the agean sea and they do it in these plastic rafts. they put more passengers in those rafts than should be in there because the smugglers are getting paid 1,000 to 2,000ure owes -- that's about $2,000-pluf the refugees they can cram into these boats, and they push them off from the shore in turkey and point them toward that island of lesbos. there are babies in those boats. the passengers wear life jackets that you're familiar with. what do the babies wear? you couldn't put a baby in a life jacket.

well, i saw what they wore. many of them are wearing plastic water wings, the kind that we put on our little kids when we put them in wading pools, and off they go into the agean sea. some of them don't make it. some of them drown and die. what would cause a family to pick up and risk their lives, to spend $2,000 per person, to take this deadly journey? it's because they know that they're desperate and they need a place to be safe. it is that basic. and so the president has said the united states will accept some of these refugees. 10,000 was the number he said. and of course each one of them has to go through a lengthy background check asking all these important questions before they're allowed to come into our country. 10,000.

we know that there are millions displaced, and we know that that number continues to grow. isn't it ironic -- 10,000. the same number that senator wagner asked for when it came to jewish children in germany, the president has asked for the same number when it comes to syrian refugees. but sadly for these refugees and many others, they couldn't have picked a worse time to try to come to the united states of america because, frankly, we are engaged in a presidential campaign where many strong statements have been made about these syrian refugees. it is hard for me to remember what i saw on the island of lesbos with these families with children and to square that with the descriptions that i've heard from many calling them terrorists, terrorists in training. it couldn't be further from the truth. so this afternoon, at 2:30 on

the senate floor, we will be asked to vote on a measure relative to the syrian refugees. let's call it for what it is. this is an effort to stop any, any syrian refugee from coming to the united states, regardless whether it's a mother and a child, regardless, because what it says is that before they can be allowed to come to the united states, you have to have the personal signature, the personal certification of the secretary of homeland security, the director of the federal bureau of investigation and the director of the bureau of national intelligence. that is physically impossible. to ask the director of the f.b.i., who has the responsibility of monitoring f.b.i. activities all across the nation and around the world, to literally sit down and sign 100 personal certifications a day

that would bring us to this goal. it's not designed to make us safer. it's designed to stop syrian refugees from coming to the united states. madam president, i know we're living in dangerous times in this world. i want us to do everything that is thoughtful and sensible and everything possible to protect the american people from any possibility of terrorism. i still remember well when i was a member of this body on september 11, 2001, and what america endured, and i have not forgotten. and i read, as all of us do, about terrorism in the united states and what i it does to innocent people in san bernardino and many other places. but to exclude syrian and iraqi refugees and to say that we're just not going to allow any of them to come in or put them through a standard of proof that we know makes it next-to-impossible is unfair and inconsistent with the values of

the united states. i made a point of meeting these syrian refugees who made it here, and that's families. i've invited my governor in my state of illinois and my colleagues to do the same. get beyond the screaming rhetoric of the presidential campaign and sit down and listen to their stories, and you will realize that these are people who are desperate, who are looking just for an opportunity to be safe. yesterday a number of them came to my office. offman el ani from iraq arrived in the u.s. in the year 2013. how long did it take him to clear the background check as a refugee? four years. four years. he now works as a caseworker for the iraqi mutual aid society. i met wadan ilalli and her

mother, mrs. ilalli. in 2012, wadad's father was killed bay sniper as he came home from work in syria. the family moved out of the city for fear that they would be the next victim, went to damascus, and then waited literally for over a year and a half to go through the clearance. wadad is now a freshman in high school in the city of chicago. she is a sweet, young girl who has seen more tragedy in her life than any of us would ever want to see. she and her mom want to make a life here, and she knows it's up to her to get a good education to make sure she can make that happen. mariella shocker, the incredible story of a young girl who was growing up in the hamas section of syria whose parents were afraid that she was going to die from the bombing that was taking place. she applied and was accepted to

go to a downstate college in illinois, monmouth college. she is a master violinist. she completed her degree there and is now at depaul university working on a master's degree in music. an amazing young woman. a terrorist, no. just a young woman looking for safety and a fiewmp. -- and a future. the stories go on and on. and when i hear the statements made on the floor about potential terrorists, i think to myself, they haven't met these families. they haven't heard their stories. and if they did, they might reconsider. i am opposed to this bill that came over from the house. i think this personal certification by the head of the f.b.i. certifying every single person, the certification by the director of the bureau of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security just put in the path of these people to slow them down and

stop them again and again and again. what we have said, not out of compassion but common sense, let's address the things that will make america safer. instead of zeroing in on a handful of syrian refugees who are no threat to the united states, let's look to those things that actually are a threat. let me give you one, for example. do you believe that a person whose name is on the no-fly list, the terrorist suspect list, should be allowed to buy a firearm? i ask unanimous consent for three additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: do you believe that a person who is on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to buy firearms in the united states? do you believe a person on the terrorist watch list should be allowed to buy explosives in the united states? how about dirty bomb components?

i don't think there's any question about it. the answer the vast majority of americans would give is "no." that's one of our amendments. do you think we should put more resources into protecting the united states through the department of homeland security, through law enforcement, even local law enforcement and the f.b.i.? i think so. that's another one of our amendments. the third amendment is going to change the effort and zero in on what we consider to be gaps in the law that allow the possibility of foreign travelers to come to the united states and engage in violence and terrorism. and the fourth one is pretty controversial, but i think we need a vote in the senate. there's been a proposal by one republican presidential candidate for the first time in the history of the united states of america to exclude any immigrant of a specific religion. and that religion, of course, are those who are ad adherents o

the muslim religion. those raiment are amendments wee to offer. we've said to senator mcconnell, if you'll give us these four votes, of course you'll want to offer some of your own amendments. but let's have a real debate on making america safe. let's zero in on isis, terrorism, and on the real threat to the united states. that's what we'll decide between now and 2:30. will senator mcconnell, who's said over and over again, he wants to open the senate floor to an amendment process, allow our votes on these measures? if he will, we can engage in this debate. if he won't, then frankly there's going to be resistance to nothing of this measure. so i hope that senator mcconnell will join us, open this debate to a real, sincere effort to stop the threat of

terrorism in the united states. i yield the floor. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in passing this house bill to improve the syrian refugee resettlement program and take a first really important step towards protecting americans here at home with regard to this refugee and homeland security question. frankly, i think we should be going further, but given the gravity of the issue and the urgent need to address stated and documented shortfalls within the refugee program, i support passage of this bill as a start. you know, we can't just forget, ignore the facts, and the fact is that those responsible, for instance, for the tragic attacks in paris just a few short months ago took advantage of the influx of syrian refugees into france and at least one of them got in

that way. and if that isn't disturbing enough, we must also remember the facts that the majority of the 9/11 attackers were granted admission to the u.s. on temporary immigration status. there were holes and problems in that program. clearly, we need to update and reform the current systems in place. and i assure you that i won't stop pressing for complete and adequate safeguards, as the president continues to invite additional refugees onto american soil. voting in favor of this safe act brings us one step closer to improving the security of our nation. it would be a mistake to retreat to some sort of pre-9/11 posture or mind-set. 11 years ago the 9/11 commission wrote that many of the vetting programs were -- quote -- "dysfunctional" -- close quote. they remain dysfunctional in far

too many cases, and i'm not willing to take on and continue the risk of that dysfunction. we need reforms. we need a far higher standard of safety and coordination. now again, these are facts we need to look at. we have seen examples of the refugee situation and other situations directly impacting and threatening our security. what am i talking about? well, number one, on december 2 of last year, husband and wife attacked the inland regional center in san bernardino, and their coordinated attack inspired by isis caused the death of 14. they wounded 21 others. as of now, it appears to be the most deadly terrorist attack on u.s. soil since 9/11. now, the wife malik, was not a

u.s. citizen and was in the u.s. on a visa related to her husband. the government didn't verify her address in pakistan during the visa application process. there are reports that a full vetting was not completed, including checking for other possible signs that she had been radicalized or was a terrorist operative. fact number two: a recent f.b.i.-joint intelligence bulletin has confirmed that individuals who resettle in the u.s. as refugees have already been arrested for willfully providing material support and resources to the islamic state of iraq and syria, isis. that is documented. clearly, this program is a vulnerability. fact number three:, the national

counterterrorism center has identified individuals with ties to terrorists in syria who attempted to enter the u.s. through the refugee program. again, it's been verified that this is an entry point for possible terrorists. fact number four: the horrible and coordinated assaults in paris last fall, in the words of the president of france, was -- quote -- "planned in syria, organized in belgium, perpetrated on our soil with french complicity." close quote. and a fact related to that: at least one of those terrorists got in through the refugee resettlement program there. fact number five:f.b.i. director james comey has testified that the federal government doesn't have the ability to properly and fully vet 10,000 or more syrian refugees. recently during a hearing before

the house committee on homeland security, he stated -- quote -- "we can only query against that which we have collected. so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in syria in a way that would get their identity or interests reflect odedin our database, we can inquirery our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing to show up because we have no record of them." close quote. and fact number six:the reflections on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 commission report released in 2014 state that -- quote -- "it is unclear whether the united states and its allies have sufficient resources in place to monitor foreign fighters' activities in syria and neighboring iraq and to track their travel back to their home countries." close quote. those are documented facts which make perfectly clear what common

sense should suggest: this refugee resettlement program is a vulnerability, and we need far better security to protect our homeland. to do this, i'll introduce a very strong bill to require a suspension of admissions of syrian refugees until the obama administration properly evaluates the protocols and procedures it has in place to relocate them here and certifies not just in the department of homeland security and the department of state but also with intelligence and law enforcement agencies that these procedures are adequate. my bill has seven cosponsors. i plan on continuing to move it hopefully through an amendment process related to this bill so that we can make sure that we have proper, adequate reforms in place. so that puts today's vote in

simple, straightforward terms, in terms of the real danger. we can't properly vet all of these refugees right now. this is documented. this is from experts. we need to put proper measures in place before we continue accepting this flood of refugees. we need to protect american families, secure our borders, keep out all terrorists, and voting for the safe act and voting to put it on the floor and engaging in this debate is an important first step in doing that. for that reason, i urge a positive vote to put this important measure on the floor and to pass it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and at this time i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

mr. vitter: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: and i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unan i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these reports be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: madam president, i again suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: