a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today because -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i appreciate that there. i appreciate you effectively doing your duties. therefore, i will ask to have this quorum call, sir, if you would be so kind to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the

senate will be in a period of morning business till 12:45 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the senator from new jersey. a senator: to my good friend, thank you, senator. appreciate that. and the presiding officer, i appreciate the way you conduct your duties. i'm rising today because of what i believe is the urgency of the moment or really the test of the times. we know that we are a constitution that was designed with three coequal branches of government. mr. booker: and we know the importance of each of those branches and the roles that they have spelled out in the constitution. now, a functioning supreme court, one of the coequal branches is of the utmost importance to the proper functioning of our democracy. judges decide cases that decide and shape the daily lives of americans, even one justice can deeply affect the rights and liberties of the american people

for generations to come. yesterday the united states president nominated chief judge merrick garland to the supreme court of the united states. now, a clear plain reading of the text of the constitution says in article 2, section 2, that explicitly that it is the duty of the senate to provide advice and consent to the president on key nominations, particularly justices to the supreme court. now, i'm one of those folks with my 99 colleagues that took an oath of office. we swore to support and defend the constitution of the united states and to faithfully discharge the duties of the offices we hold. there was no addendum to the oath that excused us from our responsibilities during a presidential election year. i was elected to a full six-year

term, and my work in the senate should not be interrupted, my duties and obligations of any of the hundred of us should not be interrupted by a presidential year, especially when those duties are explicitly laid out in the constitution and involved the coequal branches of government like the supreme court. now i've only served in the senate since october of 2013. this is my first supreme court nominee to consider, and i'm looking forward to reviewing thoroughly judge -- chief judge garredland's -- garland's record to meet with him face to face and hopefully i believe rightfully vote up or down on his confirmation. this is what all of us swore an oath and signed up to do when there's a vacancy on the supreme court. that's the duty that the american people expect us, to abide by the constitution and provide that advice and consent

regarding a presidential nomination of this import to the united states supreme court, that coequal branch. we may not ultimately agree on chief garland's nomination. the senate can vote no. senators have that independent choice. it happens almost every day here where we disagree on issues. there's no guarantee in the constitution that the person that the president nominates should get confirmed. but we should agree at least that this process spelled out, the process that we were elected to do, should move forward. no issue of a supreme court justice's nomination process, none of this is bigger than any one party. now, as i understand it, we already are seeing that chief judge garland is highly respected. experienced and a deliberate jurist who the senate overwhelmingly confirmed in 1997 to the u.s. supreme court of

appeals for the district of columbia known as the second highest court in the land. his nomination to be an associate justice on the supreme court of the united states is certainly deserving of our consideration. chief judge garland in fact has more federal judiciary experience than any other supreme court nominee in history. he currently serves as chief judge on the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia where he's worked since 1997 serving under both democratic and republican presidents at the department of justice. he first worked as deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division and later as the principle associate deputy attorney general. in those posts he served major cases at the department of justice like the prosecution of the oklahoma city bombing which ultimately brought timothy mcveigh to justice. to call his qualifications impressive is an understatement. chief judge garland has

dedicated his life to public service and his lengthy career reflects his commitment to the high ideal etched on the supreme court itself. equal justice under the law. he has said that the role of the court is to apply the law to the facts of the case before it, not to legislate, not to ai arrogate itself the executive power, not to hand down advisory opinions on the issues of the day. no wonder he's known in legal circles and around capitol hill for his careful opinions and his lack of overt ideological bias. he's so highly regarded and so accomplished that his appeal transcends the typical partisan divisions that really are all too often seen in washington. there is no possible explanation based on this nominee's reputation, their experience,

their dedication, their service, and their work. there is no possible justification to ignore or blockade or stonewall chief justice garland's nomination in hearings and a process. there's no reason for that and there's certainly no historical or constitutional precedent for what is being suggested. there's no precedent at all for this kind of blockade. since committee hearings began in 1916, every pending supreme court nominee has received a hearing, except for nine nominees who were confirmed within 11 days. so what is being suggested to not even meet with the justice, to not even give them a hearing is unprecedented in the history of our country since we were holding judicial hearings. history shows us that the senate has previously confirmed supreme court nominees during a time of a political climate similar to

ours. the excuse that this is a political election season or divided contentious political climate simply falls flat in the face of our history. in a presidential election year, 17 separate times during the presidencies of liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats alike, we have held supreme court nomination hearings. in fact, the president's -- president roosevelt and recently ronald reagan saw their supreme court nominees confirmed in a presidential election year. since 1975 the time that has taken thinking maybe perhaps we don't have time to consider a supreme court nominee, since 1975 it's taken on average a little over two months for the full senate to consider a nomination before voting. it is only march right now. so there is plenty of time to

consider and confirm a nominee. there is no reason why chief justice -- chief judge garland can't be confirmed by even the end of may given the average time, which is more than ample time for the next judge to be on the court before the next supreme court term begins in october. when the supreme court, that coequal branch of government, has a body of work to do, to not do this process is to deny that coequal branch of government its full functioning compliment of members. -this is a time that's a test of this body. it's a time that's going to test the dignified process for the next supreme court justice and it provides us as an opportunity amidst all of the partisanship, amidst all of the rhetoric. it's a time for this body designed to rise above that, to

show that we will operate with a level of dignity and honor and commitment, indeed a duty to the constitution that shows we are not susceptible to the winds of the time. now look, i believe chief judge merrick garland deserves this, but in honesty, that's up for each and every senator to decide whether that person should -- whether he should be a supreme court justice. but for me, it's not about the individual. i've heard some of my colleagues saying simply, let the people decide. that sentiment seems to resonate at first letting the people decide. we are in a mighty democracy. but the reality is the people have already decided. they decided when they voted for a hundred members that we should do our duty. they decided when they voted for barack obama that he shouldn't be a one-year president or a

two-year president, that he should serve a full four-year term and conduct his duties, his sworn duties. neither any individual in this body nor the president should shirk from fulfilling their constitutional obligations. the people decided in the democracy when they elected us. it is time for us to complete our jobs. it's time for us to do our jobs. now we have deep histories of fights, not only in this body but in our larger democracy. there's been divisions in this country, factions, literally written about in the "federalist papers" was an acknowledgement that there would be divisions and fights but we designed a constitution to call from our differences, a nation that is mighty and strong and i'm so proud of that because as much as our differences matter, we've always seem to understand that our country matters more.

the people who founded our nation understood those two you don't hdueling understandings. differences of thought are going to make our country great. but they also understood for our nation to be successful to endure, there must be times when we have a loyalty to ideals and principles enshrined in the constitution itself, reflected in our democracy. that there are times where we must come together. in fact, it hearkens to the very hallmark ideal of our country, e pluribus unum, from the many one. it is written into all the cultures. if you want to go fast, go alone. but if you want to go far, go together. it is why in the very declaration of independence, where we are affirming the idea of individuals being endowed with their creator, with inalienable rights, where we are talking about individuals written into the declaration of

independence was a nod towards what it would take for our country to remain strong. those individuals ended that document pledging to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. there is no greater honor of my life than to have stood in this well before the vice president and swore my oath that i would uphold the constitution. in fact, that i would at times when i have to sacrifice self for country. these are the ideals, this is the honor that i believe has helped our great country to persevere. and now we have this test, this moment where two conflicting ideals have been put forth: whether a president and a senate should fulfill their obligations all the way to the end of their

sworn terms or should we begin to truncate the powers of a presidency and the powers of individual senators to suspend their constitutional obligations because it is an election year? to me, that undermines the purpose, the thought, the spirit of our constitutional institutions. so now here's the test: i worry that we will fail this test and we will descend deeper into the kind of divisiveness that undermines our constitution. this is a time i believe that calls for an honorable stance, that, hey, there is a supreme court justice of extreme competence. i'm not going to blockade, i'm not going to even meet the person. hey, we're going to hold hearings, where we may decide

that this person is not good enough, but each individual senator will honor that process and that precedent that's been continuous for years and years and years, and then we will have anup-and-down vote. the purpose written into article 2, section 2 written into that test. right here on this floor, we should let the president, through our vetting, that we should put forth our ideas in an up-or-down vote about the confirmation of a nomination. again, we're here because greater americans pledged to each other, as different as they were, they came together and wrote a constitution. they wrote a declaration of independence. we're here because people greater than us pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

in this process, let us hearken to that honor. let us put forth our sacred honor now, not allow this country to lurch even deeper into divisiveness. let us unify and show that, yes, there are differences; yes, they are divisions; yes, there's part sangship; but in the understand we will unite around those bonds that hold this nation together. and that will ensure that our democracy functions for years and decades and general rawings to come. -- and generations to come. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. mr. president, and my friend see that there is an 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 hawaii. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i also request nawment for a fellow serving in my office be granted floor privileges for the remain -- repaindzer of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, march is women's history month so this morning i'd like to highlight progress women have made in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math or stem fields. ms. hirono: challenges that persist and legislation that i will be introducing to help overcome these challenges. today we rely on computers for much of our modern life. for that we thank pioneer admiral grace hopper who was one of the first computer

programmers. space travel is one of the most technologically challenging endeavors that humankind has undertaken. the road to becoming an astronaut requires intelligence and toughness, not to mention fortitude. astronauts like sally ryde, the first american women in space have shown that women belong in every endeavor. hawaii is home to women leaders in stem fields. dr. isabella abbott who was raised on the island of maui. she became the first native hawaiian woman to receive a ph.d. in science and went on to discover over 200 species of algae. she remains the leading expert on pacific algae. these women persevered and rose to great heights and success in the stem fields. however, we must do better to make sure that many more women have the opportunity to pursue

stem careers. while girls and boys express a similar level of interest in stem at an early age, studies have shown that women start to lose interest in stem as early as in middle school. this loss of women and minority continues at nearly every stage of the stem career trajectory. for example, women are more likely to switch from a stem to non-stem major in their first year of college than their male counterparts. girls and women report many reasons for losing interest in stem. these include negative stereotypes about women and stem, perceived gender barriers, peoplings of isolation, -- feelings of isolation and a lack of female role models and mentors. gender bias and institutional barriers still slow the vastment of girls and women. issues show that issues of bias can hinder interest in stem,

influence academic performance, and influence whether faculty encourages female students to pursue stem careers. furthermore, bias, whether conshus or unconscious can harm the hiring, promotion and career advancement of women in stem. bias can even hurt female researchers' chances of winning competitive science grants. approximately half of the u.s. population and work force is made up of women, but women make up just over a quarter of the stem work force. as our economy becomes more global, our entire population, men and women, must be engaged in fields that will keep america competitive on the world stage. expanding the number of women and minorities in stem fields is essential to meeting that challenge. the importance of growing the u.s. stem work force is acknowledged by leaders and

businesses in all fields at all levels. for example, this recognition was very evident in the senate's immigration reform debate. when i served on the senate judiciary committee in 2013, increasing our stem work force through immigration policy drove major sections of the bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the senate. in hawaii and elsewhere, there are programs that expose students to stem careers through mentoring and interactive activities, such as robotics. i want to focus on one school in hawaii that created these opportunities for their studen students. mulstudents. the school struggled with math scores but when the teacher sponsored robotics programs, students from all backgrounds got interested in science.

the year the program started, the middle school robotics team overcame all odds to represent hawaii in a national robotics tournament. this year they will compete in an international robotics competition in kentucky. mulakai is an island of only about 7,000 people. their students have thrived and succeeded through their stem experience. while programs like these have a positive impact on encouraging students to stay excited about stem fields, there are not enough of such programs. that's why today i'm proud to be joined by senators gillibrand, murray, feinstein, heinrich, baldwin, stabenow, and brown to introduce the women and minorities and stem booster act to improve the recruitment, retention, and success of women and minorities in all stages of the stem pipeline. this bill authorizes the

national science foundation to award competitive grants for outreach, mentoring, and professional development programs. the stem booster act also authorizes funding for stem education outreach programs at the elementary and secondary school levels. funding fomenterring programs and -- funding for fomenterring programs and programs for increasing retention of women and minority faculty. i'm also working on another bill to address the cultural and constitutional barriers that i've mentioned today which impede women's and minorities' advancement in stem fields. in addition to increasing mentoring and outreach program, this second bill will improve guidance, training, and coordination among federal stem agencies and universities to pro actively combat bias and discrimination. we are on the right track to grow our stem work force in the

united states, but we still need to move forward faster. we must act now to speed this process. my bill will help expose more girls, women, and minorities to opportunities in stem fields and accelerate their participation. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting women and minorities in stem now. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i 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 kansas. a senator: thank you. i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i just want to take a moment or two to speak about our nation's veterans. you and i have the honor of serving together on the senate veterans affairs committee. i take that as you do that responsibility very seriously. there is no other group of people that we should old in higher regard than those who served our country and today i want to talk about some of the challenges they are facing as a result of our failure to do that. mr. moran: who would we expect to get the very best health care

in our country. we want everyone to have good quality, affordable health care but of all the people we want to make sure they receive the health care services they were promised, it clearly would be those who served our country, the men and women of our military who are now veterans. and they deserve timely, high quality health care, and that's true whether they live in an urban, suburban center or a rural place like your state and mine. there are more than 221,000 veterans who call kansas home, and the vast majority of them live in very rural parts of our state. before being elected to the united states senate before the honor that kansans allowed me to serve them in the united states senate, i served in the u.s. house of representatives, and i represented the first district of kansas, generally known in our state as the big first. that's a congressional district larger than the state of illinois, and there isn't a v.a.

hospital in that congressional district. veterans in this part of kansas, they drive hours on end to get care or they simply go without it all together. over the past year, congress has repeatedly passed legislation designed to ease the burden for veterans who struggle to get health care from v.a. facilities in my state and yours and across the country. we were able in the wake of the scandal in which we learned across the country about the false waiting list in which veterans, the v.a. put people on a waiting list that didn't really exist. the scandal across our country allowed us as members of congress and the senate to come together, republicans and democrats, and we passed legislation called the choice act. this legislation allows veterans who can't get timely service to access that with an

outside-of-the-v.a. provider. importantly for what i want to talk about today, if you are a veteran who lives more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility, then you can at your request have those services provided by a local, a hometown physician, admitted to a hometown hospital, be treated by your local chiropractor. all of those things make a lot of sense to the veterans from where i come from. in addition to providing quality and timely services for those who live in rural places, part of the theory -- and i think rightfully so -- in passage of the choice act was to give -- lift a bit of the burden of the v.a. off the v.a. it has been difficult for them to have the necessary health care providers, to meet the needs of veterans and so if we can provide services in the community, we're also speeding up the process by which a veteran who still goes to the v.a. hospital or still goes to a

v.a. clinic gets services in a more timely and effective way. this past july congress passed legislation to amend that choice act, and we did so because of the number of problems that we were encountering, the stories that i heard from my veterans across our state, and i know true of many, many senators, if not all, about problems with the way the choice act was being implemented by the department of veterans affairs. we amended that legislation to try to make it work better, and my view shouldn't have been necessary. the v.a. could have solved this challenge by they are own but didn't. what it says is it's not a facility. , i've used this example before. my town is a town of about 1,900 people. it is about 23 miles from a community of about 20,000 people, hayes, where there is an outpatient clinic of the department of the veterans

afrairs. and the -- affairs. and the v.a. was saying you cannot access the choice act if you live within 40 miles of a facility. the problem was, they were saying even if that facility doesn't provide the service the veteran needs. so we changed impi law the definition of what a v.a. facility is, and it said that it's not a v.a. facility, if i.t. not open full-time and doesn't have a full-time physician. a pretty common sense kind of thing that we needed to parntsly put into the law -- apparently put into the law to get the department of veterans affairs to implement the choice act in a commonsense way that was designed to meet the needs of veterans. unfortunately, many of our veterans remain unaware of their options. i talked a lot to veterans, some who've given up on choice, some who don't know it is an option, 0 some who have tried and are caught in a bureaucratic system trying to get an answer as to

whether they qualify and how will their bill get paid. examples in my state -- one of the kansas v.a. community-based outpatient clinics is only open two days a month, and it shouldn't be counted as part of the choice act, as a facility under the choice act. there are nine out of 14cbocs in kansas that do not have a full-time medical doctor. those nine community-based outpatient clinics should not be counted under choice, and i want to highlight that for veterans across kansas and the country who might hear what i have to say today so they know there are more options than they realize. many kansas veterans choose to live in rural communities. it is often a choice where we choose to live, raise our families, see our grand grandkd more often than not, those communities don't have a v.a. hospital or clinic to serve those certainties' needs.

-- those veterans needs. in town hall meeting after town hall meeting and up-and-down main streets, the most common conversation i now have is with veterans who are expressing how the system is failing them, the frustration that they are encountering, and that they're not seeing the improvements and changes, the betterment of the chair that they are entitled to. and, as i said earlier, many veterans are so frustrated with the back and forth that they have with the v.a. and the red tape that they sumly give up and either -- that they simply give up and either go without health care or try to pay for it out of their own pocket. this is what occurred with mr. lamon gwynn. he shared his story with me so others would know how this program needed to change, so other veterans would bicht and he decided after a year of dealing with the v.a. sumly to

give up on choice. i don't want to let that happen. i don't want veterans to give up on choice. i don't want the department of veterans fairs to have the excuse to say choice is not a valuable program. veterans don't like it and come back to congress and tell us that it's no longer needed. if i was home in kansas, i'd explain it this way. again, my hometown, plainville, population now 1,900, used to have rail service. over time the rail service diminished and became less effective, the rates went up and fewer people used the rail service, the railroad to haul grain, in particular. then the railroad could go to the regulators and say, hey, nobody is using the railroad. can we just abandon it? and i worry that that kind of attitude and approach could happen with this issue if we don't make certain that our veterans see the benefit and actually receive the benefits that come from the choice act. i don't want to give anybody -- department of veterans affairs

or other members of congress -- the opportunity to shea that the choice act doesn't work, let's do something different, when the reality is it wouldn't popular if it was working effective in a timely way and veterans were being cared for. so mr. gwynn, he lives in obe rland. it's one of those typical kansas small-farming communities. the closest v.a. facility to him is in grand isle, nebraska. he is part of the nebraska v.a. network because of it's problems illiterate to grand isle. he is eligible under the choice program and needs to schedule spinal service with a community provider. so the v.a. referred him to health net. health net is that organization that manages this program for the department of veterans affairs. but health net then referred him

to triwest because he is a kansas resident. triwest covers kansas while health net covers nebraska, and the providers were arguing over who's responsible for his care because he lives one place and his v.a. provider is in the adjoining state. my complaint is that it shouldn't matter where he lives. he's snuck a bureaucracy -- he's stuck in a bureaucracy, and it ought not fall to him the burden of solving all of his problems. the v.a. ought to step in and solve the problem for him, tell him what it is that ought to be done and get him out of the back-and-forth between nebraska and kansas networks. he's now gone a year without the surgery, and he's going to now drive to another v.a. medical center in omaha, 300 miles one way, so that he can get the surgery that he's entitled to

have that his hometown provider -- at a hometown provider, or a regional provider in his area. i don't know the age of this particular veteran, mr. gwynn, but many of the ages of our veterans who live in those communities, many are world war ii veterans, the opportunity for them to have family around them, the abet t ability to get -- the ability to get long distances is a complete challenge, and to have to go 300 miles when the law says he as a veteran, he who serve our country, is entitled to senio services at home. it ought to be something that can be sorted out. but every time he has attempted to do that the burden still rests with him. we want the department of veterans affairs to step in and say, we'll figure this out, we'll get it done quickly. another veteran who reached out to my office for assistance was mr. frances weirman.

he lives in l.a. cross, a county city town of a couple thousand folks. because of his age, it is difficult for him to travel. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak until i conclude my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, because of hisagers he needs to travel. difficult for him to do it. what he needs is an annual physical. so mr. weirman has attempted to utilize the choice program. yet he was told there was no flexibility to be seen in mccross, hometown hospital and hospital, due to his proximity, his location next to an outpatient clinic. mr. weirman sacrificed for our country an deserved to be able to receive the care in his own community, given the burden and strange of traveling that imposes upon him a veteran of 92 years of age. mr. weirman, we need to make

certain he receives the care that he is entitled to and we need to make sure that the v.a. is doing what needs to be done to accomplish that. my final example today is mr. dab knee who suffers from post-traumatic stress. set up an appointment with a community provider and despite the okay from the v.a. practitioner about getting care outside the v.a., the handoff got lost in the shuffle and somehow the v.a. determined that it was mr. dabney's fault that the paperwork didn't follow him, leaving him with the bill. i shared this case with secretary mcdonald in a hearing that you and i were at several weeks ago and the conclusion months later by the v.a. was that mr. dabney simply didn't understand the choice act and should have tried harder to get authorization before setting up the point. therefore, the bill still rests with him.

thankfully, the network, triwest, disagreed and they are now elevating his case to try to make certain he doesn't have to pay the bill that the v.a. originally authorized him, the services for him to receive outside the v.a. mr. moran: the choice act was designed specifically to help veterans like mr. girn, mr. weirman, mr. dabney. they deserve the care and respect that they should be receiving frayed our country and department -- receiving today from our country and department of veterans affairs. our country must provide for those who sacrificed for our nation, regardless of the community they call home. last woke -- last woke i joininged my colleagues in sponsoring the veterans choice improvement act of 2016 rkt legislation designed to fix problems with the original choice act that the v.a. has been unable to resolve on their own and to make sure these veterans receive what they're entitled to.

as a member of the vent veteran' affairs committee, i look forward to working with you, as well as with senator isakson and senator blumenthal for purposes of making sure we get this right and that we make certain the v.a. does its job in caring for these men and women who served our country. i will continue to work to make certain that happens, and i express my gratitude to those who served our country and renew my willingness, my desire to make certain they receive the health care they're entitled to. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: six months ago a 12-year-old boy stood before a

crowd in a syrian village not far from aleppo. this boy was christian and standing above him were schaik state terrorists -- islamic state terrorists holding knives. in the crowd was the boy's father, a christian minister. the terrorists began cutting off the young boy's fingers. amidst his screams, they turned to the minister, his father. if he renounced his faith and in their terms returned to islam, his son's suffering would stop. in the end, however, these isis terrorists killed the boy, killed his father and killed two other christians solely over the faith they professed. they did so by crucifixion. in the time of christ, the cross was not just a means of execution but a brutal and public warning to all. because of christ's suffering, the cross was transformed into a revered symbol of the sacrifice and the promise of salvation.

but today it's clear that isis seeks to turn the cross once again into a message of dread. eight other christians in the village that day were also killed. they were executed by public beheading. but not before isis barbarians raped the two women among the victims and forced the crowd to witness the atrocity. today was the deadline set by law for secretary of state kerry to present congress with an evaluation of the persecution of christians, yazidis and other religious minorities in iraq and syria. and i'm heartened that secretary kerry this morning took the needed step in declaring the systemic murder of religious minorities by isis what it plainly is: genocide. the nature of the horrific crimes of isis has not been a secret. it's no secret that the story of the torture and death of that 12-year-old syrian boy, his minister father and ten other christians is repeated many times over in different villages

with different victims of different religions throughout the region. it's no secret that hundreds of thousands of religious minorities in syria and iraq have been driven by war and violence from homes and lands they have held for generations. it's no secret that isis terrorists have destroyed christian churches, desecrated ancient holy shrines and dug up christian graves and smashed their tombstones. it's no secret that bishops, priests and other clerical leaders are being inducted and murdered. it's no secret that isis terrorists capture yazidi women and girls and lock them into a life of sexual slavery and repeated rape. many of these victims choose to take their own lives, seeing suicide as their only escape amid hopelessness and unimaginable suffering. it's no secret that thousands of christians and other religious minorities have been systematically raped, tortured,

beheaded, crucified, burned alive and buried in mass graves, if buried at all. and it's no secret that the word we should use to describe the whole of these atrocities, the word we must use is genocide. the plain reality is that the schaik -- islamic state is seeking to eradicate christians, yazidis, jews and mandarins and other religious groups it sees as apostates and inif he dels, part its focus on establishing a caliphate first in the middle east and across the world. christians, yazidis and others who have managed to find refuge have seen isis's genocidal campaign firsthand. they can list name after name of missing family members, wives and daughters kidnapped into sexual slavery, is sons and brothers killed, others taken away to unknown fates.

these victims know the truth of the genocide occurring in syria and iraq, and now that truth is recognized officially by the united states of america. there are those who waiver on whether this was genocide. they feared that uttering this truth would compel u.s. action to stop the genocide. my answer is: and? a mortal enemy who wishes to commit mass terrorist atrocities against the united states is also systematically persecuting and exterminating christians and other religious minorities. when will our national security interests ever overlap more perfectly with our moral sentiment than now? we can and we ought to stop isis dead, stop them before they kill more americans and stop them before they eliminate christian communities that have existed since the days of christ

himself. still others argue that while a genocide may have been occurring, recognizing it would somehow play into isis's propaganda, that it's fighting a righteous jihad against a supposed new crusade. i never understood this argument. to stay silent in the face of isis's propaganda is to accommodate that propaganda. to cede power to isis is to bend to the hard darkness of a lie. standing up to the practitioners of in the middle east is not a new crusade. it's a defensive world order demonstrated through thed peeferredz peaceful -- through the periods of peaceful coexistence, an existence today threatened with extinction like isis's barbarism. today the united states rightly recognized this genocide, but we must also take action to relieve it. isis is a threat to the united

states, our allies and to the stability of the whole middle east, destroying isis and stopping its mall lig -- malignant expansion is a core interest of the united states, but stopping isis and the depraved ideology that enables it is also a pursuit that aligns with our highest ideals and humanitarian principles. i and many of my colleagues in the senate have deep disagreements with the president's policy to defeat isis. for two years his policy of confusion, delay, and paralysis has failed to stop these terrorists. an entirely new approach that has the united states in the lead of a determined coalition is badly needed. but it's not only president obama's strategic approach that's ill-considered. his policy on syrian refugee resettlement is as well. because the united states unwisely relies on the united

nations for all referrals of refugees seeking resettlement, christians and other religious minorities claiming persecution are the victims when seeking asylum and protection in the u.s. last year of the 1,790 syrian refugees resettled in the united states, only 41 were religious minorities. of that 41, 29 were christian. that means that while 13% of syria's pre-war population consisted of religious minorities, only 2.3%. refugees that make it to the u.s. are religious minorities. without doubt, syrians of all confessions are being victimized by this savage war and are facing unimaginable suffering. but p only christians and other minorities are the deliberate targets of systematic

persecution and genocide. their ancient communities are at risk of extermination. their ancestral homes and religious sites are being erased from the middle eastern map. christians and other minorities should not be shut out from the small number of refugees who find shelter in the united states. we ought to help ensure that these faith communities survive. but why are christians underrepresented among refugees? there are a number of factors. perhaps chief among them is that the united states, for all intents and purposes, relies exclusively on the u.n. refugee agency to identify candidates for resettlement. according to the state department, less than 1% of the thousands of syrian refugees referred by the u.n. to the united states are religious minorities. let me stress that this underrepresentation is not the result of intentional

discrimination. the u.n. does praiseworthy and hard work in relieving the suffers of refugees around the world, and as a result improving the security and stability of nations in and near conflict and disaster zones. but it's well established that many religious minorities in syria are very reluctant to register as refugees with the united nations because they fear facing even more persecution. the u.n. itself has reported that minority communities fear that registration might bring retribution from other refugees in camps and other areas in which they have sought safe haven. the united states commission on international religious freedom has reported that christians refrain from registering with the u.n. because they fear being marked for revenge by forces loyal to bashar al-assad should he remain in power in syria. whether these fears are well-founded or not, the reality is they exist and they deter

christians from seeking u.n. protection. while the u.n. has sought to educate minority populations on the safety of its registration system, the fact remains that only 1% of the millions of syrian refugees who register with the u.n. are non-muslim. the united states ought not to depend solely on the u.n. for refugee resettlement referrals. if we do our part in saving ancient faith communities from genocide, we must find alternate ways to identify persecuted people to whom we can grant safe haven. today i am introducing legislation to create that alternate way. the religious persecution relief act would grant religious minorities fleeing persecution at the hands of isis and other groups in syria priority status so they can apply directly to the u.s. resettlement program without going to the u.n. first.

and it will set aside 10,000 resettlement slots annually that must be devoted to religious minorities. the priority status, known as p-2 status, will allow religious minorities to skip the u.n. referral process and it will fast-track the process by which we confirm that they are in fact targets of persecution and genocide. to answer in advance a most urgent and understandable question, those who apply for p-2 status will be subject to the exact same security vetting process as all other refugee applicants. and it's my strong position that the u.s. must work with known religious leaders in the region and pursue other proven vetting methods to ensure those who enter the country are not threats to the american people. extending a hand to help persecuted people of faith in this manner is not a new idea. in 1989 the late senator from new jersey, frank lautenberg,

crafted what has been called the lautenberg amendment which granted p-2 priority status to spheft jewry -- soviet jewry, vietnamese nationals and others seeking refugee. in 2004 senator specter expanded it to cover religious minorities fleeing the oppression of the ayatollahs in iran. in 2007, the late senator from massachusetts, ted kennedy, passed a bill that granted priority status to certain iraqi religious minority members. the bill i'm introducing today follows this bipartisan tradition of the senate and our country. among the first americans were pilgrims from religious persecution in the old world. that's one reason why we have a long tradition of defending religious minorities here and around the world. in the coming weeks i'll discuss this bill with my fellow senators, and my hope is that it will pass and pass soon. because each day will bring

another christian child who is tortured, another minimum it ster crucified and -- another minister crucified and another girl raped. faith communities in the middle east are slowly being strangled out of existence. we are coming upon easter, the day of christ's resurrection. the message of easter is one for all of humanity, that in times of pain and suffering and trial and tribulation, there can ultimately be salvation. there can ultimately be triumph over death. i try to keep this message in mind, particularly amidst these times when religious conflict and oppression do not seem to be waning, but waxing. today christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world. other religions are not far behind in the scope and depth of the oppression they face. while the united states cannot save all of those who are suffering from religious persecution, when the

persecutors are terrorists who want to kill americans and we have the means to defeat those terrorists and also protects the innocent, we ought to act. and we certainly have an obligation to stop the unintentional discrimination in our own refugee process that unfairly blocks christians and other religious minorities from seeking safety in the united states. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i come to this chamber for the 131st time to urge this body to break free and wake up to what carbon pollution is doing to our atmosphere and oceans. last week, scientists at noaa reported that carbon dioxide levels at their mona loa

observatory jumped in 2015 by the largest year to year increase in 56 years of research. peter tauns, lead scientist at noaa, said carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years. it's explosive compared to natural processes -- end quote. we see the effects of this runaway carbon pollution everywhere, in ever-climbing temperatures, in ever-changing weather patterns and in ever-rising warming and acidifying seas. but the republican-controlled congress refuses to take responsible action. they put their climate effort

elsewhere, like into attacking former vice president al gore for raising awareness of the real and looming climate crisis. one republican colleague has railed against mr. gore, calling him the world's first climate billionaire, claiming that he is drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions and faulting him for desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive today. another prominent republican, this one running for president, suggested the nobel committee should take the nobel prize back from al gore. others claim that cold or snowy weather proves mr. gore wrong. after one snow in d.c. a few years ago, a prominent

republican tv personality claimed the storm -- quote -- would seem to contradict al gore's historical global warming theories. a senator gloated after that storm where's al gore now? another senate colleague said of campaigning for president in iowa, i have to admit i was really confused. al gore told us this wasn't going to happen, but it was cold there. these are all profoundly ignore comments if you know anything about climate change. but they can't resist. they inhabit what "politico"'s daniel littman and mike allen this week called a political reality indifferent to the exigencies of climate change. so let's catch up on what al gore's up to on climate change, because he has a ted talk on the

ted.com web site, and i highly recommend it. mr. gore's presentation opens with the fact that our atmosphere is not as big as most people think. he shows this picture taken from the international space station to remind us that the atmosphere surrounding our planet is really just a thin shell, and it is into this thin shell that we continue to spew megatons of heat-trapping carbon pollution, day in and day out. this thin atmosphere, mr. gore explains, right now is the open sewer for our industrial civilization as it's currently organized. here's how he shows our carbon

dioxide emission rates through time. you can see the amount of carbon emissions really started to increase here after world war ii. vice president gore explains the accumulated amount of manmade global warming pollution that is up in the atmosphere now traps as much heat energy as would be released by 400,000 hiroshima hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every 24 hours, 365 days a year. he continues -- that's a lot of energy, and all that extra heat energy is heating up the whole earth system. the vice president didn't mention it, but the associated press has used a similar analogy about the heat from climate

change that is going into our oceans. a quote said this -- since 1997, earth's oceans have absorbed manmade heat energy equivalent to a hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years. mr. gore showed this depiction of average temperatures between 1951 and 1980. the blue is cooler than average days. the white is average days. and the red is warmer than average days. now, we're going to look at what happened in the next three decades after this 1951-1980 period. what's going to stay the same is this green line. that will be the constant against which you can see the

change. let's go to the next one. this is 1983-1993. you'll notice that everything has moved against the constant. you will also notice down here a new category that has emerged. this category is extremely hot days. the next one. this is 1994-2004. again, the averages continue to move against this green line which is a constant, and now you see that new category of extremely hot days growing even more. and here is our last decade -- 2005-2015. what we experienced in this last decade has moved completely away

from the historic norm indicated by that green line, and this extreme temperature, the extremely hot days category is now bigger than the cooler than average category. remember, 1950-1980, this category didn't even exist. now it's bigger -- well, it might have existed but it wasn't visible on the graph, let me put it that way. now it's bigger than the cooler than average category. mr. gore points out that these extremely hot days in the last ten years are 150 times more common on the surface of the earth than they were just 30 years ago. by the way, we measure this stuff. this is not a theory. worldwide, 2015 was the hottest year since we began keeping records in 1880, according to noaa and nasa.

that republican colleague who went to iowa and thought that the cold disproved climate change, he dismissed that finding as, to quote him, pseudoscientific theory. but you know what? nasa is driving a rover around on the surface of mars right now, so i'll go with them knowing what they're talking about. the last five years have been the warmest five-year period on record, according to the world meteorological organization. and 14 of the 15 hottest years ever measured have been in this young century. now, we are a terrestial species. we live on the land, so

naturally we pay more attention to the land and not so much to what is happening in our warming and acidifying oceans. this chart shows the oceans absorbing over 90% of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gas emissions. this is the effect of those hiroshima bomb equivalents warming up the oceans that the associated press used as their example. what does all that extra heat mean for the oceans? well, unless you're going to dispute the law of thermal expansion, it means that warming things expand. last month, a study of tidal flood days along my east coast came out. the author's conclusion, i'll quote him -- "it's not the tide,

it's not the wind, it's us." there is one industry, the insurance industry, that pays serious attention to climate change as their losses have been mounting. this is insurance company data from the insurance information institute in january of 2016 showing the climbing rate of worldwide extreme weather catastrophes. why? well, dr. kevin trenberth works at the u.s. national center for atmospheric research. he says, and i'll quote him -- "all storms are different now." did you hear that? all storms are different now. "there is so much extra energy in the atmosphere, there is so much extra water vapor, every

storm is different now." well, the challenge of climate change is urgent, but mr. gore points out we have the understanding and engineering prowess to generate energy from new sources, and we are doing unexpectedly well. vice president gore says -- i'll quote him -- "the best projections in the world 16 years ago were that by 2010, the world would be able to install 30 gigawatts of wind capacity. we beat that mark by 14 and a half times over." end quote. and it's the same story for solar capacity, which is taking off even more quickly than wind.

the best -- again quoting vice president gore -- "the best projections 14 years ago were that we would install one gigawatt of solar per year by 2010. when 2010 came around," the vice president continues, "we beat that mark by 17 times over. last year, we beat it by 58 times over. this year, we're on track to beat it 68 times over." these innovations -- i mean, look at that curve. these innovations helped renewable energy costs become comparable with fossil fuel power, even though, as vice president gore points out, fossil energy is now still subsidized at a rate 40 times

larger than renewables. and if you look at what the international monetary fund has said about the effective subsidy of fossil fuel, the subsidy for fossil fuel is actually way bigger than that. most importantly, society is moving. more than 150 major, major u.s. companies signed on to the american business act on climate pledge, supporting a strong outcome in the paris climate negotiations. 53% of young republican voters, that is, republican voters under the age of 35, have said that they would describe a climate change denier as ignorant, out of touch or crazy. not my words.

the words in the poll that young republican voters chose. despite the recent stay of the administration's clean power plan, 19 states are continuing with e.p.a. to develop compliance strategies for their economies and their energy sectors. roughly six in ten republicans and g.o.p.-leaning independents under age 50 think the government should limit greenhouse gases even if it causes a $20 increase in their monthly bill. so people are moving. mr. gore uses a line from the great american poet wallace stevens. after the final "no," there comes a "yes." and on that "yes," the future

world depends. well, al gore has faced a lot of "no." the fossil fuel industry and its minions have mocked and derided him. the climate denial machine keeps working its poison. in fact, we just learned that arch cole's bankruptcy filing shows they were funding an extremist group dedicated to harassing and threatening scientists. but as the evidence comes in, as every major science agency and organization lines up with all our national labs and military services and our home state universities across the country,

it turns out that the mockers and the deniers were wrong. in fact, in all decency, al gore deserves an apology, as do the countless men and women who scrutinized these dat, data, who labor in the real science and who call us to action. if we continue sleepwalking here in congress, we will need to apologize not just to al gore, but to future generations. we will need to apologize to our own grandchildren for our negligence when we knew better. so let us wake up from our fossil fuel-funded make-believe

and meet our moral obligation. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: