Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the victims of gun violence and their families deserve more than a moment of silence; they deserve a moment of sanity. We have coming before us a proposal by a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator, Senator Toomey and Senator Manchin, a proposal to close the loopholes so that people who are convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable cannot buy firearms. Unfortunately, in the 100-page amendment being offered by the Senator from Iowa, exactly the opposite occurs. The loopholes are opened. When it comes to background checks, unfortunately, this doesn't do anything. It does do one thing: It reduces the amount of money available to police departments and COP grants all across the United States if the Senator disagrees with their immigration policy. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police opposes it. Let's have a moment of sanity. Let's please vote no on the Grassley amendment. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who are keeping score, this is the 17th time that the Senate will be asked by the Republicans to vote to end ObamaCare, and they have added to this to defund Planned Parenthood. As one individual said the other day, here is a breakthrough press release: President Barack Obama is not going to end ObamaCare. That seems pretty obvious. So this is a political exercise. It doesn't solve the problems of America. It doesn't even address the problems of America. The Affordable Care Act finds health insurance for 17 million Americans. We have reduced the number of uninsured Americans by 45 percent with this bill. The Republicans have opposed it from the start, never providing a single vote in support, never willing to sit down after it was passed to talk about changes that would make it even stronger or better. They want to end it. It is ObamaCare. It has the President's name on it--enough said for many of them. They want it to go away. The reality is if it goes away, so does health insurance protection for millions of Americans. So you would expect that the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, would have an alternative for us, right? Wrong. They have never come forward with any alternative that would provide coverage for these millions of Americans and the others who should have health insurance coverage as well. It just tells you that they are prepared to go back to the bad old days before ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act. Remember those days? Remember when a health insurance company could say to you: Sorry, you happen to have a sick child in your family, and we are not going to give you health insurance. Preexisting conditions were enough to say no, and if they said yes, it was at a premium that an average family couldn't even consider. We ended that discrimination against families and sick children. We ended it. The Republicans today want to go back to those good old days when health insurance companies could turn you down in a New York minute and say: There will be no health insurance for you or your kids. They want to go back to those good old days. They are wrong. They want to go back to the days when a family's health insurance plan wouldn't cover the graduate from college until he reached the age of 26. That is what the Affordable Care Act does. It says that a family can keep that youngster--young man or woman--on their health insurance plan for their family while they are looking for a job, serving an internship or have a part-time opportunity. I will tell you, as a father who has raised three children, I can remember those days after college when those kids didn't have coverage, and I used to ask them about that. I asked my daughter, Jennifer: Do you have health insurance now? She said: Dad, I don't need it; I feel just fine. That is not what a father wants to hear. The Republicans want to return to those good old days when those young men and women, after just having graduated from college, had to buy their own health insurance and couldn't stay on the family plan. What about senior citizens with prescription drugs? The Affordable Care Act, which they want to repeal, helped seniors pay for their prescription drugs. They want to go back to the bad old days when seniors had a gap in coverage and had to go to their lifesavings to buy lifesaving prescription drugs. Those are the good old days that the Republicans want to return to. Well, those days weren't so good, and they certainly shouldn't return. We have seen for the last 5 years the slowest rate of increase in health care costs in the last several decades. We have slowed down that rate of growth. We can do better. We should work together to do better on a bipartisan basis. But instead, we are faced with a 17th vote by Republicans in the Senate to eliminate ObamaCare, to return to the old days of discrimination because of preexisting conditions and to take your kids who have graduated from college off your family health insurance plan. That is what they want to go back to. America is not going to let that happen. Thank goodness this President won't let that happen. But we are going to waste several days on the floor of the Senate while they go through speeches that have been carefully rehearsed and delivered 17 different times with the same ultimate result, and nothing is going to happen. Instead, they should join us in a bipartisan effort to make the Affordable Care Act even stronger, fairer, and to help people have affordability and access to health insurance. Shooting in San Bernardino Mr. President, earlier today there was a mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA. News reports are saying that up to three heavily armed gunmen attacked a social services center that helps developmentally disabled people and their families in the community. Preliminary reports say that there have been 14 people killed and 14 wounded, although we don't know the exact number yet. There are videos of wounded people actually lying in the streets. The suspects apparently fled the scene in a black SUV, and a manhunt is underway. This story is horrific, but it is also horribly familiar. There have been over 350 mass shootings in America this year. On average, 297 Americans are shot every single day, 89 fatally. Listen to this grim and sad statistic: There have been over 50 school shootings this year in America. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and first responders in San Bernardino. But they and all the victims across our country deserve more than our thoughts and prayers. They deserve action. It is time for Congress--in a level-headed, commonsense moment--to vote on and pass legislation to protect innocent people across America from this horrific gun violence. Syrian Refugees Mr. President, I don't know if it was George Washington who said-- although I think he is given the credit--when describing this institution of the Senate: It is the saucer that cools the tea. I served in the House for 14 years and was proud to do it. We were elected every 2 years. It was a more volatile atmosphere because we were constantly running for reelection. The Senate is a different institution, with 6-year terms and a little more reflection, I hope, in what we do. I hope that we take the time that is necessary to exercise our constitutional opportunity here and think things over clearly and not react emotionally. Well, it was about 2 weeks ago when the House of Representatives took action on the Syrian refugees and passed a measure that would give what they called a pause to receiving Syrian refugees in the United States. It was a heated moment. It was after the terrible tragedies that occurred in Paris and Beirut, and there were concerns about ISIL and the spread of their terrorist ways around the world. It was an emotional moment that really needs some reflection. The simple fact of the matter is this. Over the last 4 years, during the course of the Syrian war, the United States has received about 2,000 refugees from Syria into our country. It is an elaborate, lengthy process. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an article from last weekend's New York Times, which outlines all of the steps that need to be taken in order for a Syrian refugee to enter the United States, printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. It starts with registration with the United Nations, interview with the United Nations, refugee status granted by the United Nations, referral for resettlement in the United States, interview with State Department contractors, the first background check, higher level background checks, another background check, fingerprint screening with a photo taken, the second fingerprint screening, the third fingerprint screening, the case reviewed by U.S. immigration headquarters and then in some cases referred for additional review, extensive in-person interviews with Homeland Security officers, and then--and only then-- could Homeland Security approval be required. At that point the potential refugee is screened for contagious diseases, goes through a cultural orientation class, matched with an American resettlement agency, goes through a multiagency security check before leaving to enter the United States, and then faces a final security check when they arrive at an American airport. I am entering this into the Record because those who are suggesting that we are taking Syrian refugees without appropriate screening are not aware of the reality. It is a process that takes 18 to 24 months, and in the 4 years we have accepted about 2,000 Syrian refugees, not a single one has been found to be involved in a terrorist activity. We accept about 70,000 refugees in the United States each year, and I am glad that we do because for some people in some parts of the world, it is the only place they can turn to. The public reaction against the House action that bars Syrian refugees is interesting. There was a Congressman, and I don't know him personally, but his name is Congressman Steve Russell of Oklahoma. This is according to the POLITICO article: He voted for the bill with serious reservations but in the hopes of affecting the debate as it moved ahead. If the existing bill were to come before the House again, ``I would vote against it,'' Russell said. ``I think it creates impossible barriers to refugees.'' Just 2 weeks ago, he voted for it, but he has thought it over. Why? This article says: For Russell, the issue is personal. One of his close friends is an American citizen who was trying to get his mother out of Syria. The mother died this past summer before she could leave that war-torn country. Out of respect for his friend's privacy, [Congressman] Russell [of Oklahoma], a retired Army lieutenant colonel, declined to offer specifics, including exactly what happened to the woman. But he said: ``I'm certain had he been able to get her to the United States, she would still be alive.'' [Congressman] Russell urged [his fellow] Republicans in the Senate to think carefully before supporting the House bill, saying they should not get refugees confused with the broader issue of immigration. He pointed out that in the past the U.S. has denied entry to people in need of help, including Jews [who were] fleeing the Nazis [in Europe during World War

Mr. DURBIN. The article talks about a house in West Ridge, Chicago. It is a place where an order of Catholic nuns called the Society of Helpers has a house that they have turned into a refuge for homeless people. They have announced that they are going to accept Syrian refugees into their home so that the refugees know they will have a safe place to stay in the United States. Sister Mary Ellen Moore, a registered psychologist and one of the nuns who lives in the house, said: We would rather not make our decision on fear, we would rather make it on compassion . . . We were certainly disappointed in Gov. Rauner's statement on this issue. That kind of mentality is frightening and we know what it's led to in Europe and other places in the past. It's really very sad. The people of France, after these horrific terrorist incidents, announced that they are going to accept 30,000 Syrian refugees. The people of Canada, after the terrible incident in Paris, announced virtually the same thing. And what has been the response of the United States and the House of Representatives? It has been an irrational response of fear. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter, which comes from a group called HIAS, and has the headline ``1000 Rabbis in Support of Welcoming Refugees'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I will close by reading just a portion of this letter that was handed to me this morning by this group that represents these Jewish rabbis all across the United States, from virtually every State in the Union. It says: We, Rabbis from across the country, call on our elected officials to exercise moral leadership for the protection of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Since its founding, the United States has offered refuge and protection to the world's most vulnerable. Time and time again, those refugees were Jews. Whether fleeing the pogroms in Tzarist Russia, the horrors of the Holocaust or persecution in Soviet Russia or Iran, our relatives and friends found safety on these shores. We are therefore alarmed to see so many politicians declaring their opposition to welcoming refugees. Last month's heartbreaking attacks in Paris and Beirut are being cited as reasons to deny entry to people who are themselves victims of terror. And in those comments, we, as Jewish leaders, see one of the darker moments of our history repeating itself. They go on to talk about the United States turning away the SS St. Louis in 1939, and 900 Jews were sent back to Europe. The Holocaust Museum tells us that 200 of them perished in the Holocaust because the United States refused to accept them as refugees. They end by saying: As Rabbis, we take seriously the biblical mandate to ``welcome the stranger.'' We call on our elected officials to uphold the great legacy of a country that welcomes refugees. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it was just a few weeks ago that--I guess 10 days ago, actually--the Republican Presidential candidates went to the Presiding Officer's State to meet with religious leaders, Christian leaders, and were seeking their support. Of course they all want the support of everyone living in Iowa because the Iowa caucus is coming up pretty soon. I thought about that as they went to meet these Christian leaders in Iowa, just across the river from my home State of Illinois. I thought about how they had just left their discussions here in Washington, talking about Syrian refugees. The most humbling humanitarian crisis in the world today is occurring in Syria. They have had a civil war which has gone on for years. Millions of people have been displaced and thousands have been killed. I met some of them just a few months ago when I went to Greece and saw these refugees streaming away from the camps in Syria trying to find a safe place. I can't imagine what it must be like for a husband to turn to his wife and say: We have to move. Pick up the kids. Whatever you can carry is all that we are taking. We are going to try to find a safe place to live. I saw hundreds and thousands of them--families streaming out of this war-torn area. Very few of them have ever made it to the United States--about 2,000. Part of the reason is we have an elaborate, lengthy background check before anyone can be admitted as a refugee. In fact, it takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months of waiting to see if you might legally become a refugee in the United States of America. Well, these Republican Presidential candidates and 25 Governors have said: We don't want any Syrian refugees. We are not going to allow them to come to the United States during a period of a ``pause''--as some say. Others have taken more extreme positions. It is hard to imagine. If our goal is to keep Americans safe, why are these Republican candidates focusing on Syrian refugees? You see, since we have allowed about 2,000 refugees into the United States over the last 4 years, not one single Syrian refugee has been arrested and accused of terrorist activity--not one. After a lengthy background check, we believe we have done everything humanly possible to keep those away who would be any danger to our country. I met some of those Syrian refugees who have made it here, in the city of Chicago. If you think they are terrorist threats to the United States, for goodness' sake, take a few minutes and sit down and talk to them and hear their stories of how their families went through extreme hardships--some of them with children who were being killed in Syria during the war--and as they fled with the clothes on their backs, they appealed to the United States to be allowed to come here as refugees and then waited up to 2 years to go through every one of the possible background checks before they finally made it. What happens when they get here? Well, initially they need some help. Many of them don't speak English very well. Some of them are not financially ready to take care of themselves. But do you know what happens after a few months? They find a place, go to work, and join a long parade of those who have come to the United States as refugees and called it home. That includes 400,000 Vietnamese refugees who came to the United States and are now a great part of our country. It includes 650,000 Cuban refugees who came to the United States, escaping Castro. Included in those 650,000 refugees were the fathers of two U.S. Senators, one of whom is running for President of the United States. They came to the United States and made an important contribution to the Senate and our Nation--refugees. I heard one of them say: Well, it was different then. We are dealing with terrorism today. Really? What were we dealing with when we accepted Cuban refugees? We were dealing with a Communist regime in Cuba that was friendly with the Soviet Union, which had nuclear weapons pointed at the United States, and we were accepting refugees from that country. I am glad we did. We were living in a very dangerous time when they were accepted, and on balance we found that history has proven that those refugees from Cuba have become an important part of the United States. We accepted over 200,000 Soviet Jews who were being persecuted in that country and wanted to come to the United States so that they could practice their religion freely. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, the synagogues opened their doors and said: We will sponsor these families as they come to our Midwestern community. We brought refugees from the Soviet Union in, and they became part of the United States. The story is told over and over again. Yet Republican Presidential nominees and Governors describe refugees as just terrorists on the run. They say they are not carefully screened and are still allowed in the United States. That is the way they describe it. It is not true. We know it is not true. When I consider those Republican Presidential nominees going to Iowa to pose for holy pictures with religious leaders after they said we would exclude these poor people who are simply trying to find a safe place for their families, it is hard to imagine. This morning's New York Times tells a totally different story. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this article in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is a story about a man named Sean Wankel. His family has owned a hardware store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan since the 19th century. For decades, the Wankel family has been hiring people who came to the United States to escape violence and persecution--asylees and refugees. The owner of the store, Sean Wenkel, said: ``People coming from really bad situations, trying to make a better life in America.'' Wankel, of course, takes these refugees in to work in their store. They are referred to him by Catholic charities and the International Rescue Committee. They stay for a few months or years as they get their bearings in the new world. He has a wall map in the hardware store with colored pens marking three dozen countries from which these workers have come. The article goes on to tell the story of Felix Royce, who came to the United States a few months ago, from persecution by terrorists in Nigeria, and got a job in this hardware store. It is interesting that for decades this man and his family have intentionally brought in these refugees and asylees and made them part of their business and life, while nearby, the Governor of New Jersey is quaking in his boots at the thought of a refugee coming into the State of New Jersey. What a contrast. The gentleman at the hardware store said that it is not clear if the Republican Governor of New Jersey even understands who these people are. I will quote Mr. Royce from Nigeria again: Some people are saying, let them be, let them stay there. I wouldn't subscribe to that. There are innocent ones out there. This would mean there is no hope for them. If you screen, there are good ones among the bad. Everyone from Syria is not from ISIS. If you leave everybody, ISIS will take advantage of them. It is hard for me to imagine some of the things that have been said recently by some of the Presidential candidates on the other side. It isn't just a matter of turning away Syrian refugees even with the clearance practices we have, but some have gone to even more extreme statements, saying that we should never allow people of the Muslim religion to come to the United States or that they should somehow be identified in this country. If you are a student of history, you will know that kind of paranoia and that kind of prejudice has exhibited itself many times in our history. We look back on it now not with pride but with sadness to think that we reached the point where we treated people that way. In May of 1939, when a shipload of Jews were trying to escape the Nazis in Germany--900 of them on the SS St. Louis--and came to Miami, they were turned away. They went back to Europe. Two-hundred of those Jews perished in the Holocaust because they were turned away from the United States of America. And when Senator Robert Wagner of New York suggested that we allow 10,000 Jewish children to come to the United States to escape the Nazis, that was defeated in this Congress. There were Japanese internment camps and other situations just like that-- sad, fearful things that were done that we look back on now and say: We can't repeat those mistakes. But the language that is coming out of many today is an echo of the past decisions--decisions we look back on now and say never again. Sadly, they are being suggested even today. Our first obligation is to keep America safe, and if we are going to do that, let's look to things that truly do keep us safe. Let's say that if you are on the terrorist watch list in the United States of America, you cannot legally purchase guns or explosives. That is not a radical idea; that is something we need to do to change the law. Instead of focusing on 70,000 refugees who go through 2 years of background checks before they come here, let's focus on the 20 million who visit the United States without visas each year from Europe and 38 countries around the world and make sure they have been carefully checked before they come to the United States. There are things we can do to keep America safe, but denying access to refugees who are suffering now with their children in the hopes of finding a safe place is not American. It is not who we are. It is not who we should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, having just finished the Thanksgiving holiday season, many of us had a chance to be with our families and give thanks for all of the great goodness we have had showered on us as individuals and those lucky enough to live in this great Nation, but for many families this was a painful holiday weekend. It is sobering to realize how many American families have their lives impacted by gun violence in America every single day. Sadly, the past holiday weekend was no exception. In my home State of Illinois, in the city of Chicago, gun violence has taken a devastating toll. There have been 436 homicides in Chicago this year--most of them by gunfire. In Chicago, the news this morning was that 8 people were killed and at least 20 others were wounded in shootings over the holiday weekend. Today the University of Chicago has closed its campus in Hyde Park because of a shooting threat that was made against the campus community. Classes and activities are canceled. Extra security has been provided. At a high school in Barrington, IL, in the suburbs of Chicago, students saw a lockdown after a student came to school with a gun and was arrested. The fact is, there is too much gun violence in America. All across the country we have seen such terrible stories. On Friday, in Biloxi, MS, a patron at a Waffle House restaurant shot and killed Julia Brightwell, a waitress, after she asked him not to smoke in the restaurant. In Atlanta, on Saturday, 6-year-old Ja'Mecca Smith found a loaded handgun in the cushions of a sofa and fatally shot herself--6 years old. In Rome, NY, a 7-month-old infant was shot and killed on Saturday when a nearby 18-year-old was cleaning and loading a shotgun that was discharged. In Colorado Springs, CO, a gunman burst into a Planned Parenthood building and killed three people, including police officer Garrett Swasey, and wounded nine others. The Governor of Colorado called this domestic terrorism, and I agree. An average of 297 Americans are shot every day, 89 of them fatally. They are shot in homicides, assaults, suicides, accidental shootings, mass shootings, and even domestic terrorism attacks like the one we just witnessed at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. By one count, there have been at least 351 mass shootings in America so far this year--that is more than one every single day--and there have been more than 50 shootings in American schools so far this year. There are some people who think that the Founding Fathers, when they envisioned the future of America, envisioned an armed America with absolute, inviolate gun rights. I don't believe it. I don't believe for a minute they had any vision of this level of wanton violence which is taking place. Several weeks ago, I joined with my Senate Democratic colleagues. We went to the steps of the Capitol and called on the Republican majority in the Senate to do something. We urged Republicans to consider calling on the floor of the Senate--in light of all of this gun violence-- commonsense reforms that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Whether or not you own a gun, whether or not you hunt, whatever your view is of the Constitution, can't we all basically agree that people who have been convicted of a felony and those who are mentally unstable should not be allowed to buy a gun? That, to me, is just common sense. There are many people in my own family who are sportsmen and hunters and enjoy the firearms they bought as kids and went hunting with their dads and really appreciate it. It is part of the Midwestern culture. I have yet to meet a single person who owns a gun and uses it responsibly who doesn't agree with the statement that we should keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and also out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable. It is also hard to imagine why there is opposition to this issue. Did you know that even if you are on the government's terrorist watch list--a person who is suspected of terrorism--you can legally buy a gun in America? I am not talking about gun show loopholes, where there are no questions asked; I am talking about the law in America which allows suspected terrorists to buy firearms. In light of what happened in Paris, France, does it make sense that someone on the terrorist watch list can buy an assault weapon? God only knows where they would take it or what they would do with it and ultimately how many innocent people would be killed. We can't even have a conversation about that on the floor of the U.S. Senate. No way. The National Rifle Association would not approve. The gun lobby does not want us discussing these issues. We are talking about a Second Amendment absolute, inviolate right, in their eyes, and I think we are talking about something that is impossible to explain and defend, from my point of view. I will stand up for Second Amendment rights--the rights of people to own and use guns responsibly and store them safely away from children. I will stand up for their rights, but we also have to come together and acknowledge that those who would misuse firearms because they have a criminal intent, with a criminal record, are mentally unstable, or are on a suspected terrorist watch list--for goodness' sake, we ought to be able to draw that line in the United States of America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Pat Leahy, and myself, I do object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset the initial unanimous consent request made by the junior Senator from Texas was a bill which he had pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee today. He did not attend that meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I wish he had. I think we should have all been there if we wanted to take this up and debate it. I objected on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself, and the Senator has spoken to the reasons for that objection. Let me address the second part of this bill relative to refugees. We will reflect in years to come about what happened in this world in the last week and 10 days. We will reflect on the terrible tragedy that occurred in Paris, France, and in Beirut and other nations, which was led by the ISIS terrorists. We will reflect on those poor victims who died as a result of their terrorist acts. And we will also reflect on acts of heroism and wisdom that emerged from this terrible tragedy, heroism on the ground in Paris and other places by those who defied these terrorists and those who risked their lives to bring those responsible to justice, and the wisdom and compassion shown by leaders around the world not to exploit this situation. When President Hollande of France announced that his country would receive 35,000 refugees after this attack, he made it clear that he would not hold those innocent, helpless refugees accountable for the terrible misdeeds of these terrorists. When the nation of Canada said they would accept thousands of refugees, even after the Paris attack, they showed the wisdom and good sense to differentiate those helpless victims of terrorism around the world who are seeking refuge on our shores from those who perpetrated these terrorist acts. Then listen to the debate on Capitol Hill. Listen to the unanimous consent requests made this morning by the junior Senator from Texas. It is not consistent with that ethic. It is not consistent with those values. To say we will accept only refugees who are the victims of genocide would close the doors to Cuban refugees who came to the United States, trying to escape all of communism and what it meant to their families. It would have closed the doors to Soviet Jews persecuted in that country who were looking for freedom and came to the United States as refugees. I can list countless others who were not the victims of genocide, but they were the victims of persecution, they were from war- torn countries, and they were the victims, as Senator Leahy has said, of gang rape and terrorism. Listen to what has been said on the other side of the Rotunda and in this Chamber today. It does not merit the kind of appreciation of American values that we insist on when we make these critical decisions. In time of war, in time of attack, sometimes rash decisions are made. I predict that in the course of history, as people in the future reflect on what happened in the Senate and the House of Representatives this week, they will hope that saner voices will prevail.