we can't control -- simply paying interest on the debt -- and covering the entitlement spending -- social security, medicare and medicaid -- it's unsustainable. those efforts have failed, and it's a pox on all of our houses. we tried mightily, had no ability to bring it to conclusion. that has been kind of pushed off the table. we really didn't talk about that much in the last year of this congress. the focus was on other issues, but this looming catastrophe that will happen based on nothing but numbers,' right met i can and facts, happening sooner than anybody can anticipate, cannot be put aside. but having failed in those major efforts and as long as this president is in office, it appears that we're going to not be successful this year. it's going to be up -- this

catastrophe will be dumped on the next president's lap, whoever that president might be, i thought the very least we could do is continue to look at how to make government more efficient. how do we prioritize our spending? how do we eliminate and address the issue of -- of waste and fraud. so at the start of this program, waste of the week, just trying to educate the public in terms of there's money out there that can be more wisely spent or wouldn't have to be taken from them in the first place or that can be used to reduce our debt. and so i now have up to 30 examples of ways in which we can address that, and so today i'm doing, i believe, number 30. and this is something that has to do with our foreign policy. these waste of the weeks have been everything but the ridiculous such as the hundreds of thousands of dollars that went up to a grant for a university to study whether or

not massageing white rabbits from new zealand after strenuous activity after a massage machine gave those rabbits a massage, they actually had a faster recovery from the strain of their injuries. this is what they're spending your tax dollars on. now, i think you could ask any person, whether it's little league, high school, professional sports, college, that after strenuous exercise, does it help if you have a massage? and i think the answer would be yeah, of course. everybody knows that. but no, we had to issue a grant of several hundred -- i think it was 300, almost $400,000 to somebody who filled out a form and said this is a great idea, send us some federal money, and we'll produce this study and then we'll give you the conclusion. everything from that ridiculous

to issues that are very serious, such as the duplication of effort on two programs to help people who are out of work, either because of disability or because they can't get a job. one is called unemployment insurance and the other is called social security disability. now, to qualify for social security disability, you have to prove you can't work. to get an unemployment insurance payment from the government, you have to prove you can work, but there isn't a job. you don't get both. and yet, we identified $6 billion of expenditure of duplication, people who were getting a check for both, for both being disabled and not being able to work and saying well, i'm able to work but the job isn't there. and so two checks arrive every month in the mailbox for -- to the total of $6 billion, $6 billion. now, you would think this day and age where everything is computerized, it would be easy

for the unemployment insurance agency to call up or to contact through media, through networking or whatever, whether it's picking up a phone and calling and saying, you know, john smith here is applying for unemployment insurance. can you check your records to see whether or not he's also receiving social security disability? it would be easy to match, get the social security number and match. but no, one agency is working over here, another agency is working over here. both are sending out checks, one of which is illegal, and they're not communicating with each other. it ought to be an easy fix, but this is the federal government. and on and on it goes. well, let me talk about number 30 here. number 30 involves the task force for business stability operations in afghanistan. it's a pentagon advocacy agency that has formed to provide contracting work in afghanistan

through rebuilding. we did this in iraq and now we're doing it in afghanistan. it was established for a valid purpose, to encourage foreign investment, and they have a task force and the task force lives over there. what we have found is that potentially through the inspector general who is looking, a special inspector for this to ensure that this money that is being spent over there is spent wisely, he has found that millions on private housing for staff of this task force has been spent instead of allowing those people to utilize excess space at existing department of defense bases. so here is the department of defense program. the department of defense has housing and provisions for food and shelter and so forth, and they have excess capacity because we have drawn down troops, but instead of putting those people in this area where they can occupy unoccupied

space, where they can get food through the department of defense process, a much cheaper process, they have put them in specially furnished, privately owned villas and spent $150 million doing it. so they have also hired contractors to provide -- because they are separate now from the department of defense base, the department of defense base, they have to have private security, they have to have food services provided to them, they have to have bodyguards for staff and visitors. and so they have to have on-site laundry service, food and drink services, private transportation, cultural advisors and housekeeping services. all of this could be avoided for this task force which is there to provide investment counsel and advice for afghanistan. so not surprisingly, reports of this spending drew the attention of the special inspector general

for afghanistan reconstruction, who has spent time digging into finding out exactly what's happening here, and he noted that the exorbitant costs of villas are especially concerning, as i have said, because there are other facilities through the department of defense that have been planned for this specific purpose are not being used and how much cheaper it would be if they were used. because it's already there, they don't have to have all this collateral support. he said 20% of the task force budget provided housing and security for no more than five or ten staffers. former task force employees told investigators the inspector general estimates that housing a staff of ten at the u.s. embassy in 2014 in kabul would have cost $1.8 million and a little or nothing if they had bunked with troops at a military base. now, the i.g. also noted that

poor oversight and the complete lack of coordination -- where have we heard that before? where have we heard about federal programs with a complete lack of coordination with other programs to see if there is duplication like the social security disability and the unemployment insurance is an example. that has not been provided, he said. he's still investigating all this, but what we're going to do today is take that $150 million price tag to the taxpayer for these afghanistan villas, and that and we're going to add thaa picture of the villas. they are actually fairly attractive. i can see why people might want to live in something like this at an army base, but folks, this is tax dollars going over to afghanistan. we have a mission over there to complete, but i don't know, this could be in washington, d.c. or

this could be in indianapolis, indiana. it's pretty nice digs. is it really necessary to spend that kind of money when other facilities are available, when all the services and food and services are available to maintain these and the security is within a department of defense military base, do we have to go to this level of support with taxpayer dollars? so we're adding $150 million to our ever-growing list of waste. dropping that is probably an example of what's happening to your tax dollars. we're now -- we're now adding $150 million, and our total is now well over $130 billion of costs. that is this week's waste of the week.

now, mr. president, i also would like to talk a bit about the syrian refugee issue. i had the opportunity to spend some time both in jordan as a member of the intelligence committee and in turkey looking at the situation as it exists in syria but also time in both italy and greece relative to the humanitarian crisis that has taken place with the literally hundreds of thousands of people who are fleeing iraq, northern iraq and fleeing syria because it's a war-torn area, and their migration and all the issues involved with that migration and the implications and consequences it's having on europe. it's an issue here in the united states, resettlement of refugees. it's overwhelming. these countries cannot even begin to process people coming to their borders to determine

whether or not they are legitimate or whether or not they are inserted terrorists who are using this flow of migration to gain access to europe, to gain access to the united states, to gain access to other places. they are legitimate people who are leaving with their families to avoid the consequences of this war, and yet we know, because we have already ascertained this, that included in that effort are terrorists who want to insert themselves into that flow so that they can come to europe -- come to our european capitals, come to the united states and continue their brutality and jihad against americans and against western civilization. and so i think the issue that we just voted on here unfortunately fell short. we didn't get support from our colleagues across the aisle and didn't have the necessary number

of votes to pass what the house has already passed, and that is to provide a suspension of time to comply with what our f.b.i. director has said needs to be done so that we can assure that people on this refugee flow that are going to be admitted to america under the administration's plan are truly war-torn refugees and not representing a terrorist threat to the american public, and because the f.b.i. director and our intelligence agencies have said we don't have the necessary tools in place to be able to ascertain this and until we do, we cannot guarantee that these refugees do not include people who legitimately are coming for asylum reasons but are in fact connected in one way or another to terrorists. so i thought it was a very

reasonable thing to do to provide for security for americans and assure them that we're not just simply opening the gates here to terrorist access to pause and get these screening procedures in place before we allowed this to happen. and we just had this vote, within an hour or so, and came up short, which is unfortunate, and we did not gain the support we needed to get the necessary votes from our colleagues, and so the effort that the house has made once again dies in the senate because while we had i think virtually every republican vote, we couldn't get any other votes to get to the necessary level, which to take up the legislation and move forward. there may be another attempt to do that. well, the conclusion i came to after going -- looking and talking to u.n. officials, talking to our government officials, talking to officials

from these various countries and particularly those entry points from northern africa that comes through italy and from greece which comes from syria and iraq, the conclusion i came to was that this flow which is now well over a million people temporarily slowed here because of the weather will start up again in the spring when it warms up, this flow is overwhelming europe. you don't have to watch too much of cable news or read too much of the newspaper to see what's happening in europe with the massive inflow of refugees, asylum seekers and the incorporation of people who are not abiding by the laws and overwhelming the system. and so as open arms welcome germany was under its

chancellor's proclamation that bring them here, we'll take care of them, even that now is under question of germany's capability of doing that. in other countries, denmark, hungary, a number of other countries are basically saying we can't handle all this. it's just overwhelming us. and the social consequences and the financial consequences of all this is a great political threat as well as a financial threat to europe. and we've seen that. and no one really is talking about a possible alternative that could deal with this problem. several months ago came to the senate floor and basically said, i think this -- a better solution -- and perhaps an even more financially feasible solution -- is to provide for safe havens for these people, either within their country or simply across the borders of other countries. now, turkey and jordan are

taking millions of people as refugees, but they are overwhelmed. there is a precedent here in terms of providing safe havens. i was serving in the senate at the time of the balkans war, and the brutality there was equal to some of the brutality that's taking place in syria. it was a desperate situation, but through the u.n. agencies for refugee ree relief and knew- and through the use of nato provide security, we created, as a coalition of nations, we created safe havens for people in the balkans. and there were a few mistakes, but in the end it worked very significantly. these people wanted to go back to their homes. they wanted to stay citizens of their country. they had hundreds of years of history through their family, the line of their family in these countries, and they didn't

want to try to take a different language and different skills to other countries anymore than we would want to move our people out to another country if we were in that situation. and by creating these safe havens, by involving nato to provide the security to keep these safe havens from being attacked or misused, by providing a coalition of financial support and humanitarian support through the united nations and through the world's nations that say this is a better way to handle it, i say why not use the same model for syria? it solves the immigration issue because those people are housed in a humanitarian way with safety provided by my suggestion, nato involvement. after all, turkey is part of

nato. it is a mission from nato that would address the problem in europe where most of the nato nations are housed. obviously the united states would be taking part in this. it provides a financial situation to the issue. surely -- and i haven't been able to calculate this, but the cost of providing those safe havens can't exceed the cost of all the transfer and movement and assimilation into the culture and training and education and learning the language and everything that has to be provided for those who are going to foreign nations from their homeland. so i'm once again bringing to my colleagues sing' attention -- ad hopefully to nato's attention and other countries that are caught up in this refugee problem -- why don't we reopen the discussion and the debate about what the cost would be,

what it would take to do this and accomplish it, but create these safe havens in areas close to or within the borders of the countries from which they're coming? it addresses this multitude of problem, which is overwhelming the capability of european nations, which has croate has ca political storm of opposition, both in europe as well as in the united states, and gives those refugees -- legitimately refugees -- gives them safe harbor, gives them humanitarian support, gives them housing conditions, and gives them food and gives them drink and gives them humanitarian and medical support through -- at the safe haven rather than have them flowing into other countries. so once again i'm calle callingr

this. germany estimates the cost of the refugee crisis last year alone as $21 billion euros. in dollars, it's even more. italy spent $620 million euros in 2014 and more thank $800 million in 2015. they can't afford it. the e.u., we all know greece can't begin to afford this. i was in greece talk to people there. they said, we got enough problems financially on our own, taking care of our own people, let alone this massive influx of sometimes 10,000 a day coming into their country saying, we're here. we want a place to eat. we want a place to sleep. greece is saying, we can't even take kiefer outake care of our . it is causing political

consequences for many of the e.u. nations. this money can be used to address the problem of funding for these safe havens and avoiding all the cultural, political, social dynamics that are coming as a part of this refugee flow that's creating so many problems there. so i've kind of given an outline here of what i think we ought to seriously consider as we're looking at the refugee crisis. for those who say america is not a welcoming country, that's not true. my mother is an immigrant. i am the son of an immigrant. she came here as a young child with her sisters and brothers the legal way, learned the language, worked hard, my mother and fathers so that we could get a good education, we could

assimilate into our -- into the united states. but we just simply don't have the capability. we don't have -- it's not wise, i think, to just simply open our borders and say, one one, come all. now maybe before isil was formed and al qaeda and these treeft groups. but today we have a major national security issue combined with the ability to assimilate refugees from other countries. and so the security issue alone puts us in the position where we just simply can't provide the kind of security for the american people without screaming, without brac ground checks, without -- without background checks, without making sure because isil has said, sure, we're doing this. look at california or these places where they're either inspired over the internet or

injected in our kufnlt the f.b.i. director says we're overwhelmed in terms of trying to keep track of people whom we suspect are trying to do harm to the american people. so for that issue alone, i think, as well as the others that are involved here, this is a model that we ought to take a serious look at. so once again i'm calle callingr that and i'll be talking more about that as we go forward. mr. president, i am now finished with my two presentations here. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

6 a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from is kansas. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president,

thank you. historhistory has a way of protg manmade rights. we've protested things over a long period of time and our history is significant in that regard. after years of bloodshed leaving to the civil war, kansas was born a free state. and though we lament the use of any violence, residents of our state have acted on the firm conviction that human beings, regardless of their stage in life -- their state in life could be regarded as property by other people. mr. moran: we take pride in the fact that one of the first sit-ins of the civil rights movement took place at dacham's drugstore in wichita, kansas, leading the peaceful way in protests and the struggle for equality. today i want to call to the attention the somber anniversary of our -- in our nation's history that will be observed this week. 43 years ago, the supreme court determined an unborn child had no guaranteed rights to life under the constitution, paving the way to destroy the lives of

57 million unborn children since 1973. many kansans this week, most of them very young, will continue a decade-long tradition of standing up for the civil rights of an unprotected class of people as they come to washington, d.c., with their chaperons. they will compromise one of the nation's largest groups attending the annual march for life. they come each january when it's rarely warm and as is forecast for this friday, it will be snowy, cold and probably very miserable. despite these elements, despite the weather, when the hundreds of thousands of youth walk down constitution avenue past the capitol and the supreme court, they give witness to the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. they protest abortion providers receiving taxpayer dollars. they object to government policies that violate freedom of conscience. these kansans have made a 20-hour bus ride and will yet

again brave cold weather to demonstrate their commitment to the right to life, a right that those of us in positions of power have an obligation to protect. when visiting with these young advocates, i've been struck by the clarity with which they march, motivated by a joy for life, a love for life, they come to washington, d.c., not to condemn but rather to affirm that all life is sacred and to encourage a broader realization of that in our nation. every opportunity they have while they're here, they will use to educate and to encourage a point of view that protects life. as other times in our struggle for civil rights in our country, they will make progress to pursue and secure the right to life, and none of those things have happened as quickly as we would like. as we work to expedite the day

when the unborn are protected under law, i welcome to our nation's capital all kansans as well as the hundreds of thousands more who will join them as they march for life. every great movement begins with a first step and these young kansans can be certain that their march will not be in vain. madam chair, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today with my friend and colleague, the senator from missouri, senator mccaskill, to inform our colleagues of an important development in the investigation

underway by the special committee on aging as we examine the sudden and dramatic price hikes for certain decades-old prescription drugs. first, madam president, let me provide you and our colleagues with some background on our investigation to date. given that 90% of seniors take at least one prescription drug every month, the egregious price increases that we have witnessed on these older drugs that are no longer under patent protection could inflate the cost of health care by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. concerned not only about the high cost but also about the potential risk that patients

would not be able to access the prescription drugs that they need, we launched a bipartisan investigation early last november into the causes, the effects and the potential solutions to these massive, unjustified price increases. our investigation is focused on four companies that recently acquired six drugs that were decades old, drugs whose patents had expired long ago and then these companies, after purchasing these drugs, dramatically hiked their prices. the four companies are turing pharmaceuticals, valiant pharmaceuticals, retrofen incorporated, and rodalius

therapy itherapeutitheirtherap. turing is the company that has received the most attention. in august of last year, turing acquired the drug deraprim. it's considered to be the gold standard for the treatment of toxoplasmosis, a disease resulting from a parasite infection that can be particularly harmful to infants born to infected mothers. despite the fact that deraprim has been on the market for 63 years, turing brought the drug and then promptly raised its price from $17.63 to a whopping $750 per pill.

the other three companies also dramatically increased the prices. prices of the drugs they acquired from between 300% to 2,000%. on november 4, we wrote to the companies asking for detailed information regarding their pricing decisions. i ask unanimous consent that our letter be included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: around the same time, the turing c.e.o., scorelli, was actively engaged in on line postings and other communications discussing turing business using what appeared to be his own personal electronic devices. on november 12 of 2015, the aging committee asked the

council for turing to take reasonable steps to ensure that any business records on mr. scorelli's personal devices be properly preserved and produced. turing still has not provided the aging committee with clear assurances that it will do so notwithstanding the fact that they have told us that mr. scorelli was -- quote -- "principally involved for turing in all aspects of the transactions and the decisions covered by 'our november 4 letter.'" on december 29, 2015, we issued a subpoena for documents to mr. scorelli in his capacity as c.e.o. compelling turing to produce the information that had been sought by our november 4

letter. on december 17, 2015, we learned that mr. scor are elli had -- that mr. scorelli had been indicted on seven counts unrelated -- unrelated -- to turing and predating the company's corporate existence. the next day turing announced mr. scorelli's resignation as c.e.o. but left unclear whether or not he remained on its board of directors. the fact that the company has not made it clear that it would act to preserve turing business records in its former c.e.o.'s possession left the committee deeply concerned that we might not receive all documents relevant to our investigation. therefore, on december 21 of last year, the committee

requested that turing provide detailed information on the steps it was taking to preserve these records. once again, however, turing failed to produce an adequate response to our request. consequently, the aging committee issued another document subpoena, this one directly to martin scorelli himself on december 24. it directed him to produce substantially the same documents sought by the committee's december 9 subpoena. by letter dated january 12, 2016, counsel informed our committee that mr. shkreli was invoking the act of privilege under the fifth amendment to the constitution and was, therefore, refusing to produce any

documents in response to the december 24 subpoena. so this is the important new development, madam president, that he has chosen, in response to a document subpoena for turing documents that are in his personal possession, he has invoked the fifth amendment. to be clear, mr. shkreli is essentially arguing that the very act of producing and authenticating documents that are seemingly unrelated to the charges filed against him may incriminate him. so the committee has asked him through counsel for an explanation of the rationale for this argument, and we are awaiting a response. the committee is troubled by his

unsupported invocation giving that the turing documents we have requested appear to be unrelated to the charges brought against him. absent a valid justification for the grounds for invoking the fifth amendment, mr. shkreli's assertion could hinder our important investigation. madam president, our committee is seeking to understand how companies can acquire prescription drugs, drugs that they had nothing to do with the research and development for, drugs that in some cases are more than half a century old and then suddenly impose dramatic price increases on those drugs at the expense of infants,

vulnerable seniors and others with devastating diseases, diseases for which in some cases these drugs are the gold standard for treatment. so far the aging committee has received nearly 20,000 documents over the course of this investigation. but, madam president, the documents that the senator from missouri and i are seeking on behalf of the committee likely include information that is essential in order for us to fully understand why this phenomenon is happening and to develop the legislative and regulatory solutions to end this disturbing practice.

madam president, i would yield now to the ranking member on the committee on aging, my colleague, senator mccaskill. mrs. mccaskill: first i want to thank the senator for her remarks which presented a complete look at what the committee is doing and why we are doing it. there's different ways that people can do business in the united states capitol. there is the one oft press conference. there is the topic of the day that everyone scurries to get attention for. and then there is the professional plotting, complete investigation into a very important public policy issue. that is the kind of investigation that chairman collins is leading, one that is

responsible, thorough, and, frankly, grounded in a deep belief that the american people have the right to know why these obscure drugs and the companies that develop them were purchased , and then explode in price. this is something we need to understand. these drugs are life savings, lifesaving drugs. this is something that adversely affects many americans with these drugs. but the problem that is represented here could have much broader implications. prescription drug prices have increased by 13% in 2015, and they're up 76% over the past five years, more than eight

times the rate of inflation. a recent national poll show that the affordability of prescription drugs was americans' top health concern, and this problem appears to continue unabated as we speak. just last week there were reports in the "wall street journal" that several major drug companies have all raised prices on drugs, some by double digits in the last month alone. we need to get to the bottom of why we're seeing huge spikes in drug prices. in the course of our investigation, we received quite a bit of push-back from lobbyists and insiders. one industry lobbyist even said if we wanted to cure cancer, we better leave the drug companies alone. well, that's absurd. we want to encourage innovation, and that's why this investigation is being handled so responsibly by chairman collins and the staff of the committee. we want to protect those investing in research and development, but we can do so

while taking a hard look at price gouging and the hedge fund-like behavior of some pharmaceutical companies. i believe congress has boability the ability and -- both the ability and the duty to conduct a thorough investigation of this issue, and i'm proud to be part of this bipartisan investigation led by chairman collins so that we can find policy solutions that will help americans. as she indicated, we have already requested and received over 20,000 documents from multiple sources and have conducted more than 60 interviews with relevant stakeholders, and we plan to continue our investigative efforts until we have assembled a sufficiently complete picture that we can be confident that any proposed policy solutions are well informed and targeted to the specific problems we have identified. in order to do that, it's important that we get all of the documents that have been requested. the privilege against

self-incrimination is an extraordinarily important and sacred constitutional right. it's a right that this body believes in protecting, and we in no way want to erode it. but as a former prosecutor, i am also very aware of its limitations. in order to invoke the fifth amendment, there needs to be a nexus between the documents and the information that one is refusing to provide under the privilege, and an actual fear of self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding. here we are asking for documents that on their face have no apparent connection to any ongoing criminal proceeding, and there is no connection. and if there is no connection between the documents and a criminal proceeding, or if the documents are corporate documents, the courts have been very clear that they should be

turned over to authorities. i appreciate the chairman's conscientious and dogged pursuit of this investigation. i will continue to cooperate and assist in any way possible. i look forward to continuing the important work of the aging committee's investigation into drug prices, and i can assure the public that the work that chairman collins is doing along with our staffs and the other members of the committee, we will get some answers. thank you, madam president. ms. collins: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado.

mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president, all across the middle east and europe, hundreds of thousands of refugees are fleeing the medieval barbarism of isis and the violent cruelty of the assad regime. out of a population of 22 million, more than four million syrians have fled to neighboring countries. these refugees, almost all of them women and children, have been living away from their homes for years, in jordan, turkey, or other host countries, just struggling to survive. struggling to be free. hundreds of thousands have decided to make the dangerous journey to europe. many perish along the way. according to the united nations, over 3,200 refugees attempting to reach europe died or went missing in 2015 alone. throughout our history, when we have been at our best, the united states has accepted the world's most vulnerable seeking

refuge from violence and murder. our principles don't really mean very much if we jettison them when we find them politically inconvenient or difficult to live by. the legislation we voted on today represents a significant departure from our proud history. it would require the secretary of the department of homeland security, the director of the f.b.i., and the director of national intelligence to personally certify that each refugee from syria and iraq poses no security threat before admission to the united states and would effectively halt the refugee process. it's worth noting, mr. president, this is not the reason i oppose the legislation. it's worth noting that those three officials, it is likely they would be able to do nothing else during the course of the day to keep us secure because they would be busy signing these certifications. it is very clear from all the testimony that we've heard at

our committees from people that are experts in this area that a blanket prohibition like this doesn't really actually make us safe. refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group than any other in the united states. the united states first screens them and collects biometric data. only those who pass are then referred to the united states and refugees don't even know which country they're going to be referred to when they approach the united nations. then multiple agencies, including d.h.s., the f.b.i., the state department, and our intelligence agencies conduct a rigorous screening process. this includes health checks, repeated biometric checks, background screenings and interviews. out of the 23,000 individuals referred to the united states, only about 2,000 have been accepted. it should be understood by people in this body -- and i hope it's understood by the

american people -- that no refugee enjoys a presumption of acceptance i into the united states. the reverse is true. they are required to pass the most stringent standards of any group seeking to enter the united states, a process applicants must endure with uncertainty for over two years. so instead of playing politics, in my view, we ought to be having a serious discussion about how actually to keep our country safe and what will make it safer. one of the things i learned, mr. president, when we were working on the immigration bill in the senate, which still hasn't passed the house -- i real estate mind everybody, the only bill to secure our border, the only bill to provide internal security when it comes to imdpraition waimmigration wat passed through the senate that has never been taken up in the house in any form. of the 11 million undocumented people in the united states, 40% of them, almost half, are people

that came lawfully to the united states but overstayed their visa. and we have no way of tracking that. we have no way of understanding who those people are. this legislation would have fixed that, and i would have loved to see the house pass a companion piece of legislation. but that concerns me because there are a bunch of people in here that haven't been vetted at all. so instead of playing politics, we ought to figure out really what we can do. another example: a group of us have introduced a bill that strengthens the visa waiver program which terrorist terrorin exploit to enter the united states. currently over 25 million people come to the united states every year through this program. our legislation addresses important security vulnerabilities and closes the program to foreign fighters. the omnibus we just passed, mr. president, in december included some important parts of

our bill. it prevents people who have traveled to terrorist hot spots including iraq and syria in the last five years from even using the visa waiver program. it also requires all travelers using the program to have electronic passports, which are harder to fake. these are big changes to make -- to make the american people safer. together these changes will help stop terrorists from coming to the united states. but there are still important parts of the bill that we must pass, including requiring individuals using the visa waiver program to submit biometric data like fingerprints and photos before board planing to the united states. working with our european partners to close their borders to the flow of foreign fighters heading to isis and back. requiring better information-sharing on foreign fighters and dangerous individuals. this is not to say that a refugee or even a u.s. citizen

is not vulnerable to radicalization, and we need to be vigilant about that. americans are justifiably concerned about the reality of the threat and the dangerous world in which we live today. we must counter terrorist groups ability to radicalize using both social media here at home hand abroad. our country needs a much better strategy for countering and degrading isis propaganda and its recruitment machine. we have to develop creative and agile technologies to effectively degrade the ability of terrorist organizations like isis and others to persuade, inspire, and recruit by using social media. and congress should also pass the senate immigration bill i mentioned earlier, which included an historic investment to secure our borders and enhance our interior enforcement. just a reminder to everybody here, this bill would double the

number of border agents, expand fencing, implement new technology and resources, address the visa overstay, as i mentioned earlier, and provide for full monitoring of every inch of our southern border. by addressing real vulnerabilities and investing in smart security solutions, we can protect our borders and also -- and also live by our values. we cannot allow ourselves to return to dark periods in our history when americans debated turning away throws fleeing cruelty around the world. my mom was imor born in poland n 1938 while nazi tanks amassed at the border. she and her tanks miraculously survived. polish jews miraculously survived one of the worst human events in history and they survived it, mr. president, in and around warsaw. they lived there for two years after the war and then went to

stockholm for a year and mexico city for a year and then they came to new york city and they came to the one country in the world where they felt they could rebuild their shattered lives. and on my first burj day, when i was one year old, in 1965, 15 years after my parent -- my mom and her grandparents came to the country, my grandparents sent me a birthday card, and this is what they said in that card. they wrote in enly, b in englise way, mr. president, 15 years after they came to the united states, they wrote, "the ancient greeks gave the world the high ideals of democracy in search of which your deer mothe dear mothe came to the hospitable shores of beautiful america in 1950. we have been happy here ever since, beyond our greatest dreams and expectations, with

democracy, freedom, and love and humanity's greatest treasure. we hope that when you grow up, you will help to develop in other parts of the world a greater understanding of these american values." mr. president, we have very few opportunities to live by our values. this is one of those times. and in this case, it's not about developing them, as my grandparents worried during the cold war and other parts of the world. this is making sure that we hold on to the values that have defined us as a nation, that have separated us from so many other nations in the world and made this a place where my grandparents and my mom were able to come and achieve the american dream, a dream that would have seemed unimaginable to them during the holocaust. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

i yield the floor to my colleague from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. president. it's a basic american value: families. americans are kind of particular about our families. we love our families a understan-- and welove our kids. it is one of the struggles we've had as a nation because we've seen this collapse of the american family, of this basic value that we see that unit struggling. families begin, a husband and a wife, and that incredible moment when a lady looks at a pregnancy test and sees that little line

and realizes there's a baby on the way. 43 years ago as a country there was a decision made by the supreme court, a decision that forever changed the structure our families, forever changed a valuing within the country because, you see, the value shifted 43 years ago and it changed from "there's a baby on the way" to "that family gets to choose if that's a baby or not." to lurltly be able to say -- to literally be ail to say based on the preference of the mom, it's tissue or it's a baby. you should handle those two things very, very different. i can remember in my family 19 years ago, plus, now when we saw that little line and started getting a house ready and started getting things organized and how to get our finances in order because there is a baby on the way. because in those first moments,

before my wife could even feel that she was pregnant, we found out that she was. and that was a child coming to our family. she has a name now. her name is hanna. and the first of our two daughters, we understand full well what things were like in those earlier days. s.we should know if we don't do something now, what planned parenthood and other folks would say, just to remove the tissue, that if something wasn't done from that moment an, there was a baby coming. a baby that would look up in our face and smile and would have a name. americans have lost track of this basic thing. that's not tissue in the womb. when that pregnancy test comes up positive, that's a baby. regardless of the preference of

any individual, that's a baby on the way. cells are dividing. for many they don't find out for maybe a couple of months even and they begin to figure out somebody is changing here and they do a quick test and by the time they do the test there's a beating hearted. they look in with a sonogram and count ten fingers, ten toes. if you were to reach in and actually do a d.n.a. test, you would find out that lump of tissue that's in there is not tissue. it has d.n.a. different than the mom, different than the dad. that's a child. and it's a unique life. and that life is not determined based on preference. that life is determined based on that dividing cell's child with ten fingers and toes. i really can't think of anything else we have in america where anyone can just say based on their preference, i che choose r that to be a life or i choose that not to be a lievment i can't look at this desk and say,

i choose that to be a life. we know that life has basic criteria. it is dividing cells, can function on its own, can reproduce. it is life. we know what life is. and we can't casually say one thing is life and one thing is not. just like we casually don't just fight off the destruction of tissue in other ways. i always smile when i hear some folks on the other side of this argument say they want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. i hear it all the time. safe, legal, and rare. i always ask the question when someone says that to me, why rare? i understand safe and legal. why would you care if it is rare? if it is just tissue, why does it matter if you remove it? no one mass an individual movement to fight off individuals from taking warts off their hands because if you have a wart on your hand, it is just tissue and no one cares if you take that off. it is a wart on your harntiondz so take it off. everyone is fine with that. but for some reason there is a

push to say, "safe, leelg legald rare "when it comes to abortion. they understand it is not just tissue or you wouldn't say it had to be raimplet you understand it is an incredibly painful, difficult decision that a mom is making. because she knows in her gut that's not tissue. that's child. a child that would one day have a name and a smile. that's a child. in china, the government gets to decide whether it is just tissue or a child. because the government will step in and say, if you have a second child, you can't have that. you have to destroy the second child. now, in their ben neferlence, china has shifted to say you can have up to two children in certain asian in certain

regions, but if you have a third one, you have to destroy that child. in america, for whatever reason, if individuals with the freedom to say if i prefer for this not to be child and suddenly somehow our culture says okay, you can pick. the supreme court in 1973 looked at this issue and they argued a lot about viability or what they call quickening. this conversation about viability really circled around could states actually make laws protecting the lives of children once they reach viability. now, in 1973, viability was very different than what it is today. there are many children that are born, if you'll go to nic-u units, neonatal intensive care unit, that you'll go and you'll find a very large area in most hospitals. you ought to go by and visit and walk into nic-u area. because you'll find many rooms

and many beds there where decades ago that wasn't true. because children at 22 weeks and 24 weeks didn't survive before. and now a higher and higher percentage are. you see, there are children that are in oklahoma city right now in nic-u that weigh just a tiny bit more than two iphones. that's their weight. when they're born. just a tiny bit more than two iphones in weight. and yet they're growing up to be healthy, productive kids. they're children. we're getting better in nic-u as well, learning how to be able to provide oxygen so their developments -- lungs develop. we're getting better as i visited at o.u. children's hospital over the christmas break and visited with some of the physicians there in the i.c.u. saying what have we learned, what have we gained? and they're talking about how we feed now more thane used to

decades ago. they receive food and we want their digestive system to develop. things are very different now in science and it's forcing us to rethink the issue again -- when is a child a child? and in our basic american values, should we stand up for them? i believe we should. and i'm amazed at the number of moms that if they will get a sonogram and see the picture of their child in their womb, they understand clearly that's not tissue. that's a face looking back at me. that's fingers and toes that i can count. there's a beating heart there. that's not random tissue. in fact, i don't know if you knew this, mr. president, but they can now do 3-dsonograms and then send the sonogram to a 3-d printer and actually print out a model of what the child looks like in the womb in that exact

position. now, not only is that cool as a parent, to be able to say i can actually hold a model of what my child looks like right now at 20 weeks of development, 28 weeks of development and to be able to see and look at their face, but it's revolutionary for physicians that at 20 weeks are reaching into the womb, giving anesthetic to the child and they can actually see exactly what the imperfections are so when they go in and do surgery, they can practice on the outside before they reach into the inside. the technology continues to advance. and i say to my colleagues, at what point will our law catch up with our science? how long will we deny the clear science here? and understand that's a child? i think in the decades ahead our nation will catch up to the

science and we'll look back on a season in our country when we ignored the obvious. when a pregnancy test says "positive" that's not positive for tissue, that's positive for a baby. mr. president, i also want to affirm the thousands and thousands of volunteers around the country, many of them coming this week to the march for life, that serve every single week in crisis pregnancy centers around the country, that lovingly walk with moms through some of the most difficult days of their life. as they make hard decisions. and with great compassion, they walk them through a tough pregnancy and then they're with them in the days after delivery, bringing diapers to them, bringing formula to them, helping them in those early moments. thousands of volunteers around the country do that every single

week. good for them. good for our country. good for our value for life. i'm always proud when americans stand up for other americans no matter how weak they are. with that, mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the tariffs and tax that we have seen over the last couple of months including those tragic and in san bernardino, california, have made it all too clear that terrorist threats to americans and to our allies are very real. i believe the best way to combat the threat of isis across our globe is to continue to degrade and destroy their forces overseas and show the world that

they're not as powerful as they claim to be. our success will not only rob them of their safe haven, it also undercut their recruitment narrative that isis is on the rise. but in addition to stroises isis overseas -- isis overseas, we must also focus on defeating the threat of isis here at home. now, i realize that many americans, mr. president, and many of our colleagues are concerned about terrorists traveling to our borders as refugees from syria or maybe some other country. as many of my colleagues may recall late last year, we debated the question regarding the resettlement of 4 million syrian refugees and whether we in this country should open our doors to even a small fraction of them. the -- we debated actually right here on the senate floor, as some of you will recall. we debated it in our committees, including the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, where i serve as the senior democrat. and during that debate, i was reminded of the words of pope

francis' historic and moving address just over in the house chamber when he said in a joint session address to congress last year, last fall, he said, during his remarks, "remind us all of the golden rule." i think there was more applause when he did that, "to treat other people the way we wanted to be treated, to love our neighbors as ourselves." he also invoked, some of you may recall, matthew xxv, deals with the least of these, how did you feed me when i was hungry, when i was thirsty, did you give me something to drink, when i was a stranger in your land, did you take me in? i think we have a moral imperative to provide for the least of these, but at the same time we have a moral imperative to protect americans from extremists who may seek to come to the united states to cause us harm. as we learn to address this tension, our nation has rigorous screening procedures in place for all refugees as well as

enhanced screening for refugees that might be coming here from syria. it's a process that takes an an of two years -- an average of two years to complete. i just might say for those who aren't familiar with the proce process, people -- in this case, formerly refugees who've left the fighting in syria to try to get away, to save their lives, they are -- they end up in refugee camps in that part of the world. and the united nations has a special mission which includes to vet them, to get to know them, to talk with them and to see if they would like to stay in refugee camp or try to get settled into some other country. in vetting the 4 million refugees, a small fraction of those are folks who had indicated that they would be interested in maybe resettling in this country. and at the end of the day, after

wiwinnowing down from 4 million refugees, i believe the union sent us i think 7,000 names. and out of the 7,000, we selected 2,000, mostly kids, mostly young families, mostly old people. not very many men of fighting age, if you will. but the president has called for increasing that 2,000 to something like 10,000 over the next year, the course of this year. think about that. out of 4 million, what percentage of 4 million is 10,000 people? even if we took them all, if we took all 10,000? and it's one-quarter of 1%. that's what it is. one-quarter of 1%. and there are obviously imernz whether -- concerns about whether any of those people are dangerous, pose a danger to -- imminent danger to our people. i would just keep in mind, 2,000

have come since last year, not one of them has been arrested or convicted of terrorist activity, plotting or trying terrorist activity. and one of the reasons why that happens is if i were an isis person and i were in syria and i wanted to get over here, i sure wouldn't spend two years trying to come through with the refugees. that's the most stringent vetting of any group of people who want to come to this country. they have to go -- undergo biometric checks. they're interviewed by people who are trained not just by the u.n. but also by us overseas. they are vetted by people and interviewed by people who are trained to -- to detect deception. we have the ability to check these people against any number of databases which relate to potential terrorist activity. so if i were an isis person wanting to embed myself with a terrorist group, i'm not going to wait two years to do that and face the most vigorous vetting process of anyone trying to come to this country.

for those of syrian descent, the process could be even longer than that. it's a long time to wait for terrorists if they are going to try to use the refugee way to access the u.s. if i were a terrorist trying to come here, the last thing i'd do is go through those two years o. and while i understand my colleagues' concern, the refugee bill that we dealt with today will do little to address our nation's security needs. and that's why many of my colleagues join me in opposing this bill. the bill that was before us would require the head of top national security agencies to personally certify -- to personally certify that each refugee from syria and iraq poses no security threat before admission to the united states. not now, not ever. if this bill had passed, it would have served as a backdoor way to shut off the refugee program by requiring our national security leaders, head of the f.b.i., director of

national intelligence, secretary of homeland security to promise something they would never promise. as currently drafted, this bill would require these three national security leaders to guarantee that the refugee will never, never become a security threat. that is not how these leaders or their organizations evaluate security threats. they don't have a crystal ball and they cannot predict the future. simply put, the safe act would effectively stop the resettlement of fully vetted refugee women, children, families, older folks from syria and from iraq and weaken our national security. again, that's one of the reasons why i believe we must focus our attention on threats that pose a greater risk to our homeland. democrats put forward a series of commonsense solutions, alternatives, if you will, that would strengthen our security and help protect us against isis. a couple of which i had the

pleasure of coauthoring. instead of vilifying refugees, the proposals that we put forth imposed tough, new sanctions on financial institutions if they knowingly facilitate financial transactions with isis. that particular proposal closes loopholes that would let terrorists legally buy guns. this bill improves intelligence sharing with our allies who join us in the fight against isis. the bill also includes several provisions to better protect the homeland. for example, the bill, our proposal strengthens the security at our airports. the bill provides better training for law enforcement to respond to active shooter incidents. the legislation also makes several improvements to the security of low-level radiological materials so that potentially dangerous material does not fall into the hands of terrorists who might use it to create a dirty bomb. one particular area that i want to focus on, though, is countering violent extremism. as the tragedy in san bernardino, california,

underscores, one of the greatest threats we face is homegrown terrorism and self-radicalization. and that's why the democratic alternative includes language from legislation that i introduced that would strengthen the department of homeland security's ability to counter violent extremism here in the united states. this proposal authorizes a new office charged with helping communities across the country, muslim communities across the country,stop their young people from being recruited by isis. the legislative proposal would also create a grant program that would help the department of homeland security to work with nonprofits, with local officials, with religious leaders and youth groups to work together to counter the narratives offered by terrorists groups like isis. mr. chairman, if you look in the recent years at folks in this country that are inspired by isis, to commit terrorist activities against those of us in this country, you won't find

them having come over embedded, to my knowledge, with any refugee organization. or any refugee group. the biggest threat to us is not that. it's not people necessarily coming through under the visa waiver program or student waiver programs or student visa programs or tourist visa programs. the biggest threat to our security here is folks that in many cases were born here. or in some cases folks who could have come from syria, iraq or some other place. but they came here and became radicalized after coming here, maybe after becoming a citizen here. those are the threats that i think are the, pose the greatest danger. we call them lone wolves. one of the best ways to address those folks is to see if there's, look around our history and what's going on in other countries and see if there's some way to reach out to those people who are in danger of

becoming radicalized or becoming lone wolves. if we could reach out to them and reduce the likelihood that they're going to be radicalized, take out their frustration, their anger on people in this country in harmful ways. when i was governor of delaware, my last year as governor of delaware i was involved in standing up a foundation called the american legacy foundation. it was funded by a tobacco settlement between the tobacco industry and all 50 states. the idea behind the american legacy foundation was to use this $1 billion that was provided to the american legacy foundation to develop ways to message, communicate to young people in this country who either were smoking or were thinking about becoming smokers. and some of us familiar with our youth, the idea of smoking when i was growing up was thought to be a desirable thing. we were not aware early on about the health consequences to it.

and so on television there were all kinds of advertisements and commercials with people smoking and thought that would be a cool thing to do. the american legacy foundation comes along in 2001 and develops a counter message to all that and we called it the truth campaign. the truth campaign. the truth campaign is a multimedia campaign, include radio and tv commercials. it included the internet. it included magazines, that sort of thing that young people read or that young people listened to. it wasn't -- the narrative and the messaging, communications were not developed by the board members like me. they were not developed by the paid staff of the american legacy foundation. they were developed by young people. it could have been 11, is 12,

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 years old who developed a narrative and said this is the message you need to send out through all these different medium to try to convince them not to smoke or if they're already smoking, to quit. that's what we did. it's amazing. if you look at the incidents of smoking in people who are preteens and teenagers in the country, it's amazing how well it worked. it's called the truth campaign, hard-hitting. the messages developed by our target audience. ask your customer, talk to your customer. what do they want? in this case we talked to our customers. a lot of these about the age of our pages that are sitting here today. the department of homeland security stood up, was attempting to stand up an

office, they call it the office of community partnership. and it's an office that would work with the muslim community across the country, with families, with religious leaders, with other young people in order to try to make sure that the young people do not become radicalizeed and undertake activities that are going to harm other folks in this country. i think it's a very promising initiative, a very promising initiative. and we're putting in touch folks at the department of homeland security who are leading this effort, this partnership office and with the american legacy foundation to see what worked and really changing the game with respect to young people smoking in this country, using tobacco in this country and see if there's some lessons that might be available to us for trying to deter the likelihood that people of muslim faith would somehow be convinced that

their faith directs them to undertake these violent activities. i'm encouraged by this prospect. the last thing i'll say is we've got about 500 million people around the world who are muslims, and they believe -- i'm protestant and we've got people in here of different faiths in this body -- protestants, catholics, jews, others. among the things we have in common, as well as folks of muslim faith is something i mentioned earlier, is the golden rule. almost every major religion on earth, almost every major religion on earth has similar things in common. one thing is the golden rule. love thy neighbor as thyself and treat other people as you you wt you want to be treated. i don't care if you're protestant, catholic, hindu,

muslim, somewhere in your idea is that motive, that direction. there are some people who take my faith, christian faith and turn it on its head to say we're doing things we should never do. take the bible in the old testament and new testament. instead of like embracing matthew 25, the least of these when i was a stranger in your land, you take me in, basically saying we're not going to let people in this country of, say, are the muslim faith. that's not a christian thing to say or do. and people take my religion and my faith and this turn it into something that is not even close to being. and not surprisingly there are people who do that with the muslim faith. and we need to counter that. a vast majority of people who are muslim in this country, to help them better counter that in ways that frankly i could never do, but which people in the muslim community, in a faith across the country would like to do and want to do.

and we need people to partner with them and help them be successful in that effort. doing that, frankly is a whole lot better alternative than the legislation that was before us today. and that's one thing we ought to be able to agree on. and i hope my colleagues, democrat and republican, and independent will find a path to join me and others who think this is a good idea and join us to make that happen. with that, mr. president, i pass the time to my friend from another big state. that would be rhode island; and to yield to him and thank you for this opportunity today.

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'll ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 17 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. i rise for time to wake up speech number 124. today let's talk texas. polling from the university of texas at austin shows that more than three out of four americans , 76%, now believe that climate change is occurring. 59% of republicans say it's

happening, while most poll respondents say they would support a presidential candidate who supports reducing coal as an energy source, the number goes up to 65% for voters under the age of 35. so we might expect republican presidential hopefuls to acknowledge the problem and incorporate climate action into their campaign platforms. we might, but we would be wrong. republican candidates for president have a key constituency. fossil fuel billionaire donors. so the candidates ignore the clear tide of public opinion. they mock the warnings of our scientific and national security experts. they dismiss climate disruptions in their own home states.

and they dismiss the world-class climate research of their own home state universities and scientists. even in texas. when asked if global warming is real, the junior senator from texas responds that -- and i'll quote him -- the data and facts don't support it. science should follow the facts. okay. let's follow the data and facts. noaa and nasa just announced that 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded on earth. that's a fact. and it's not an anomaly. it's the continuation of a clear trend. 15 of the warmest 16 years ever recorded by human kind on this planet are the 15 years of this

century. texas a&m has a department of atmospheric sciences. the faculty there have unanimously adopted this statement. i'll quote it. "one, the earth climate is warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 1.5 degrees farenheit between 1880 and 2012. two, it is extremely likely that humans are responsible for more than half of the global warming between 1951 and 2012. and, three, under so-called business as usual emissions scenarios, additional global average warming relative to a

1986-2005 baseline would likely be 2.5 to 7 degrees farenheit by the end of this century." end quote. that is texas a and -- texas a&m's scientific assessments supported by the data and facts. the texas state climateologist was appointed to his position by governor george w. bush. he's concluded, and i'll quote him, "fossil fuel burning and other activities are the primary cause of the global scale increase in temperature over the past decades." according to a yale university poll released last fall, most texans, 61% of texas adults, support setting stricter limits on coal-fired power plants. well, the president's clean

power plan would do just that. it's projected to both cut carbon emissions and save americans money on their annual energy bills. and yet, the junior senator from texas rails against the plan, urging people to stand up against this administration's dangerous agenda of economic decline. economic decline if you're a big polluter maybe, used to polluting for free. but the clean power plan will save the average american family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill by 2030. not to mention preventing death and disease through reduced soot, smog and other harmful pollutants. a 2014 study found strong limits on carbon pollution similar to those in the clean power plan would prevent 2,300 deaths in texas between 2020 and 2030.

texas emits the highest amount of carbon pollution in the country. yet, texas is well positioned to meet its clean power plan targets. an environmental defense fund study based on data from texas' primary electric grid operator shows existing market trends alone will get texas to 88% of its compliance with the plan as a result of increased wind power capacity, improved energy efficiency results and switching from coal to natural gas. in fact, texas' wind farms have become so good at generating power that some utilities are giving away energy. here's an article from "the new york times" on this unique situation in texas, headlined "a texas utility offers a nighttime special: free electricity." i ask unanimous consent that this article be put at the end of my remarks in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: scott burns,

the senior director for innovation at reliant energy, the texas utility with plans to incentivize night and weekend electricity use, says "you can be green and make green." with texas so strong in wind energy production and solar energy potential, texas is actually in a position to use its clean energy real estate sources to help -- resources to help other states comply with the clean power plan, a win-win with even more texas clean energy jobs. so, in texas there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists at their own state universities. there is a desire for action among the majority of texans, and there's vast economic opportunity from texas renewable energy. but the junior senator from texas