[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 101 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4521-S4530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2578, which the clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2578) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Shelby/Mikulski amendment No. 4685, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for McCain) amendment No. 4787 (to amendment No.
4685), to amend section 2709 of title 18, United States Code,
to clarify that the Government may obtain a specified set of
electronic communication transactional records under that
section, and to make permanent the authority for individual
terrorists to be treated as agents of foreign powers under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
McConnell motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations for a period of 14 days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
[[Page S4522]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
DACA, DAPA, and Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 15 years ago I introduced a bill called
the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was designed to give children brought to
the United States by their parents, who were undocumented, a chance--a
path toward legalization, a path toward citizenship. These were people,
now in their teens and early 20s, who were brought to the United States
as infants and children. It was not their conscious decision to come to
this country; it was a decision by their parents. They have grown up in
the United States.
It is estimated that 2.5 million young people came to this country
under these circumstances. So many of them have done everything they
have been asked to do--completed their education, stood up in a
classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flag--the only
flag they have ever known, become part of America, excelled
academically, started dreaming about what they might do as Americans to
make their lives better and this country better.
But the law in the United States is very harsh when it comes to these
young people. In its bleakest terms, the law says they have to leave
the United States for 10 years and petition to come back in. Here they
are, 18, 19 years of age, being told: Now that you have graduated from
high school, whatever your status, leave. Go back somewhere where you
cannot ever remember living and wait 10 years.
So I introduced the DREAM Act, and I said: If these young people have
completed their education, if they have no serious criminal issues, if
they are prepared to come forward, serve their country in the military
or finish their college education, we will give them a path to
citizenship.
Fifteen years of waiting--I can remember when these galleries were
filled with young people, DREAMers, undocumented young people who sat
one Saturday morning in their caps and gowns in the gallery, praying
that we would pass the DREAM Act and give them a chance to become part
of the only country they have ever known.
The measure failed on the floor of the Senate. It was a brokenhearted
moment for me, facing these young people, many of them in tears,
sobbing, not knowing what their lives would lead to. I said to them: If
you will not give up on me, I am not going to give up on you. Let's
keep working at this.
I sent a letter in April of 2010 to my friend, the President of the
United States, who had been a cosponsor of the DREAM Act, and I said to
President Obama: Can you do something? Can you do something to allow
these young people to have a chance? Give them a chance. And he did.
He came through with a program called DACA. This deferred action
program was really designed to give these young people a temporary stay
from deportation. It is only temporary, for several years. But in order
to get that stay, they had to come forward; they had to register with
the government, pay a filing fee, make sure all their vital information
had been disclosed, and go through a thorough criminal background
check. Then, if they got a job, they would pay their taxes, as required
of every person living in this country, and they would have a temporary
stay of deportation to stay here, go to school, or work. Several years
later, they would have to do it all over again and go through the same
background check and pay the same fees.
The President signed that Executive action and said it was within his
authority as Chief Executive to decide what are the highest priorities
as to who should be deported from the United States.
The President rightly said: Let's go after felons and dangerous
criminals. They shouldn't be part of our country.
Why would we go after these young people who only want to complete
their education and be a positive part of our future? So the President
signed the Executive action for DACA.
Sometime later came an opportunity to consider families in similar
circumstances. Most people have a mistaken notion that if you are
undocumented, everybody in your home is undocumented. I haven't found
that to be the case. More often than not, only one parent would be
undocumented. The father may be an American citizen. All the kids may
be American citizens, but mom may be undocumented.
The President put in another proposal and said: In those
circumstances where you have someone undocumented in the country with a
child who is an American citizen, you can apply for what is known as
DAPA, which gave them the same temporary stay of deportation. You had
to pay your filing fee, go through a criminal background check, pay
taxes on any money you earned, and for a temporary period of time, you
would not be deported.
When the President signed that second Executive action, a number of
Governors, Republicans from across the States, filed an action to stop
the implementation of the President's Executive action. That is a big
deal. It literally affects millions of people in this country who are
undocumented. These Governors argued that if they were forced, for
example, in the State of Texas to give drivers' licenses to
undocumented people, they would have administrative expenses so the
President's order would create a hardship on their State. Of course,
what they failed to acknowledge was these new people under the
Executive order would be paying taxes, legally paying their taxes to
the Federal and State government, and they would pay any fee necessary
to get a driver's license imposed by the State of Texas.
The case went before the Supreme Court. The decision was handed down
a few minutes ago. The decision of the Supreme Court, sadly, shows the
terrible human cost of the Senate Republican strategy to recklessly
refuse to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of
Justice Scalia.
You know what happened several months ago when Justice Scalia was on
a hunting trip and sadly passed away, to the shock of everyone. There
was a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The President of the United States
did what he was supposed to do. In article II of the Constitution,
there is a requirement the President fill the vacancies on the Supreme
Court. Why would the Founding Fathers put a requirement on the
President? They understood some President could play games with
vacancies on the Court.
They said: No, you have to send your nominee's name to the U.S.
Senate where we will have the opportunity to advise and consent as to
that nominee.
The President met his responsibility. Judge Merrick Garland works for
the DC Court of Appeals. In fact, he is the Chief Judge of the DC
Circuit. The President sent his name to fill the Scalia vacancy.
Is Merrick Garland qualified? The American Bar Association this week
said what we already knew: Merrick Garland is unanimously well-
qualified for the position. The President's nominee at that point would
come before the Senate. In the history of the United States, we have
never ever denied a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy a hearing and
a vote in the United States--never--until this very moment when the
Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate said: No, we are not going to
fill the vacancy because we are hoping our Presidential candidate--in
this case, Mr. Donald Trump--will be able to fill that vacancy so we
will keep the vacancy open for our dream candidate, President Donald
Trump.
It is the first time in the history of the United States, the Senate
has turned its back on a Presidential request to fill a vacancy on the
Supreme Court.
We warned the Republicans this could create some problems. Today we
see exactly the kind of problem that can be created. The ``human cost
of Senate Republicans' reckless refusal to fill the vacancy on the
Supreme Court'' is going to be felt by literally millions of people.
Today the Supreme Court failed to resolve the legal challenge to DAPA
and expanded DACA, the Executive orders of President. The result of
that 4-to-4 tie vote leaves millions of families across America in
legal limbo.
I urge this Justice Department to consider all the legal options to
swiftly overturn the injunction that is blocking President Obama from
using his legal authority to set immigration enforcement priorities.
DAPA and an expanded DACA will make our country safer and allow law-
abiding individuals with deep roots in our communities to step out of
the shadows and contribute more fully to the country they love.
[[Page S4523]]
A tie vote on the U.S. Supreme Court--I can't remember the last time
that happened. It happens very rarely. It didn't have to happen. If the
Senate Republican majority had done its job, had faced its
constitutional responsibility, held a hearing for Merrick Garland and
voted him up or down, I have confidence he would have been approved and
been a member of this U.S. Supreme Court. We could have avoided what we
now face--a split Court, 4 to 4, which cannot resolve critical and
controversial issues.
The net result of the Republican refusal to fill that vacancy is to
create an injustice across America for millions living in this country,
an uncertainty about their future. That is the height of constitutional
irresponsibility, and it played out across the street and was announced
just minutes ago. This is what happens when the Senate Republicans
refuse to do their job, when they say we are going to play politics
with filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. We are going to hope and
pray Donald Trump will come forward and fill this vacancy with somebody
we like a little better than the nominee of President Obama.
It is a sad day, and now we know what this constitutional
irresponsibility by the Senate Republicans has done. It has created a
fractured Court. It has split our Nation in terms of the law. It has
derogated one of the most important institutions in our government. I
hope a few Republicans will step up and realize that waiting for
President Trump to fill this vacancy is the wrong answer.
We need to accept the Constitution's mandate to move quickly to fill
this vacancy as quickly as possible. In the meantime, with the split
Court decision, we need to call on our Justice Department to do
everything possible to try to find a path toward a just resolution,
which the Supreme Court was unable to find today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I first want to begin by reading a note I
got this morning at 7 o'clock from a member of my staff in Maine. I
think it speaks to the issues we are discussing today in this body and
should be discussing in the other body.
My regional representative said:
Last night I attended the Southern Maine Planning and
Development Corporation Annual Meeting in Sanford.
That is a town in Southern Maine.
From the time I walked in the door, through dinner and even
walking back to my car, every single person I spoke with
either wanted me to convey their thanks to Senator King for
his stand on ``doing something on gun control'' to asking me
that he stand firm and do more. People who own guns (and said
so) and those who don't. Every single person expressed dismay
that Congress has not acted on this. Many mentioned the sit-
in in the House of Representatives and were shocked that the
issue would not even get a vote. Many wanted to know when the
vote would be taken in the Senate.
People in Maine, including responsible gun owners, want
more background checks and limitations on those who raise red
flags. They want common sense legislation. I had to send this
because I was quite surprised at the total focus on this
issue.
I hope we will have before us sometime today an amendment which I
consider a national security issue. Since being in this body, I have
been privileged to serve on both the Armed Services and Intelligence
Committees and have studied and worked on and listened to hearing after
hearing on the terrorism threat to this country. Something important
has to happen with regard to that threat over the last 3 or 4 years.
We have moved into a new era of threats to our country, different
than the terrorism threat we found ourselves facing after 9/11. In
2001, that plot was hatched overseas, it involved foreigners who got to
our shores one way or another and performed a heinous attack on our
country.
Now we are facing attacks from within--people who are already here
are radicalized online and receive what I call a terrorist APB from
ISIS or Al Qaeda that basically says: Go out and do harm to Americans.
The difference is the threat is now here and not abroad--although, it
may be inspired and, in some cases, directed from abroad. I call this
terrorism 2.0. It raises an entirely new national security issue for
us; that is, how do these terrorists obtain arms? With ISIS, if we are
aware of an arms shipment or a cache of arms somewhere in Syria or
Iraq, we take it out. We send our fighter planes. We send any resources
we have to keep them from getting those arms. If an ISIS-inspired
terrorist in the United States wants to obtain arms, all they have to
do is go to a gun store and buy them. It makes no sense to me that we
spend millions of dollars to keep arms away from terrorists in the
Middle East and do nothing to keep arms away from terrorists in the
United States. That is why I am supporting, along with a bipartisan
group, a nonpartisan group of other Senators, led by Susan Collins of
Maine, a commonsense piece of legislation that will simply add to the
list of those items which prohibit people from getting guns if you are
on the no-fly list or the selectee list--those people who are required
to have additional screening at an airport.
This is about as simple and as common sense as it gets. To vote
against this is basically saying it is OK with us that terrorist people
on the no-fly list get a gun. I can't understand any argument that
would justify that. The provision Senator Collins has painstakingly
developed, with consultation with both sides of the aisle, has in it
due process protections for someone who may be on one of these lists,
either inadvertently through a mistake or improperly. They have the
opportunity to say: I shouldn't be on the list, I should be able to buy
a gun, and they have an opportunity to make that case in a very limited
period of time and to have their chance to obtain full due process to
protect their constitutional right.
This is a well-balanced, thoughtful proposal. It is not taking
anybody's guns. It is not a ban on any kind of weapon. It simply says:
No guns for terrorists. It seems to me that is a basic, commonsense
amendment, and I really can't understand why it has become so difficult
to move it forward.
We had a filibuster last week. As a result of that filibuster, we
ended up having several votes on this issue earlier this week, and I
hope and believe we are going to have at least one more either today or
early next week on the Collins amendment.
However, in the House of Representatives, there is no vote
whatsoever, to the point where Members of the House have had to take to
the floor and literally take over the floor and say: We are not leaving
until we get a vote. I guess I would call it a House version of a
filibuster. I think it is important to emphasize that the people in the
House are not saying ``We are going to stay here until we pass
legislation,'' they are saying ``Let's have a vote. That is our job.''
If you ask any sixth grader what Senators and Representatives do,
they will tell you that we vote on legislation. That is what we are
supposed to be doing, and that is why we are here.
I find it inexplicable that the majority in the House adjourned to
take a vacation for the next 10 days without even allowing a vote or
any debate on this issue. I mean, it looks ridiculous to the people of
this country. My suspicion is that when many of those Representatives
get home over the next few days, their constituents are going to say:
What gives? This thing about terrorists seems to make sense to me. Why
didn't you get something done on this?
I hope and believe that is what will happen. But for the Members of
the House to take this extraordinary step, which I understand has only
happened one or two other times in our history, in order to simply get
a vote on an issue that is an absolute top-of-the-line concern to the
people of the United States, again--it just doesn't make sense.
One of the reasons Congress is held in such low esteem is because we
are not doing our jobs. People send us here to do a job and wrestle
with difficult issues, not to suppress them, not to push them under the
rug, not to ignore them, but to debate and discuss and try to come up
with commonsense solutions. Indeed, that is what we have done here in
the Senate.
I have been working on this for the past 48 hours. I have had
consultations with other Senators. We are trying to get the language
right and trying to find ways to accommodate various interests and
concerns about this bill, and hopefully we will get to the floor and
have a vote. The other body is not allowing that to happen.
[[Page S4524]]
I think this is an issue of real importance to the American people,
and I sense a very significant change in terms of people's views on
this issue. I understand there was a poll released just this morning
which showed that 85 to 90 percent of the American people believe we
should try to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists--no fly, no buy.
It is a very simple message. Interestingly, that showed that the
highest percentage of people who agreed with that proposition were
Republicans. Ninety percent of the Republicans who responded to the CNN
poll felt that terrorists should be kept from getting guns, and that is
what this amendment which we are going to be considering is all about.
It seems to me that this is a case where Congress has an opportunity
to do what we are supposed to do, which is not to avoid, not to
obfuscate, not to sweep under the rug, but to act. I can't presuppose
the outcome. I believe and hope that the outcome will be positive and
that we will take action on this commonsense amendment Senator Collins
has developed, but at least let's act. I hope the other body will do
the same thing. To adjourn for a recess prematurely simply because they
don't want to confront or discuss or debate this issue brings discredit
on this entire institution and is greatly to be regretted.
I come from a State that believes in the Second Amendment. I believe
in the Second Amendment. I have insisted through this process that
anything that limits a person's ability to get guns if they are on a
no-fly list or a selectee list needs to have due process in order to be
sure that they are properly on that list and that there is good cause
for them not to be able to purchase guns. I believe that process should
be there, and it is there. This is in no way a violation of the Second
Amendment. It is in no way an effort to take anybody's guns away. It is
an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have
them. And the Supreme Court has affirmed over and over--even Justice
Scalia has affirmed directly and unequivocally--that this is
appropriate under the Second Amendment.
I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have developed
this commonsense proposal. I hope we can pass it today by an
overwhelming vote, and maybe that will help persuade the other body to
at least consider, discuss, debate, and then vote on this issue that is
of vital concern to the American people.
I yield the floor to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to follow the
Senator from Maine this morning. If I could, I wish to briefly talk
about the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice and major science agencies, including the National Science
Foundation.
I commend the senior Senators from Alabama and Maryland for their
bipartisan work on what I think we all know is important legislation. I
have been told that it was reported out of the Appropriations Committee
on a unanimous vote. They have worked hard to juggle many competing
priorities, from keeping our country safe, to creating jobs through
trade, economic development, science, and innovation.
This legislation provides critical resources and needed oversight for
many issues that are important to the Committee on Homeland Security,
which I serve on as the ranking member.
Just one example of many in this appropriations bill is the Census
Bureau. The 2010 census was by far the costliest census in the history
of our country. It faced serious technology failures, and that is why
it is critical that we learn from the last decade's mistakes and make
sure the 2020 census is on time, on budget, and most importantly,
accurate.
I am encouraged that the Bureau has provided a plan for the 2020
count that could save $5 billion and reduce the cost per household by
almost 30 percent compared to the 2010 census--30-percent savings. Now
we need to do our job here in Congress by providing the resources and
oversight necessary to help the Census Bureau achieve those goals, and
if we do our job, they can and they will.
This appropriations bill also funds the FBI, our domestic
counterterrorism agency. As we know, the FBI is on the job not just 8
hours a day, 5 days a week; they are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week. They are on the job around the clock, and they do this to keep
all of us in this country safe from terrorism and violent crimes.
ISIS
Mr. President, as we consider this legislation to fight terrorism at
home, I also want to take just a few minutes today to discuss the
progress we are making to defeat the terrorists--ISIS in this case--on
the battlefields far away from our homes. We are going to have a chance
to look at a visual here in just a moment.
Yesterday on the Senate floor, I heard several of my colleagues in
the majority claim that our President and our administration have not
done enough to fight ISIS; however, I think our friends in the majority
are forgetting a few key facts, and I just wanted to dwell on those for
a little bit this morning.
The truth is that we are taking the fight to ISIS, and we are making
serious progress in the battle to degrade and destroy them. When I say
``we,'' I am not just talking about the United States, Canada, and
maybe parts of Europe; I am talking about a coalition that now includes
60 nations from around the world, including some that are Muslim
nations, and I think they are an important part of this coalition.
We have this map here, and just for a little familiarity, this is
Iraq over here and the Al Anbar Province. This is Baghdad, and this is
a town called Fallujah that we have heard a lot about in recent years
and especially in recent days. There is a place up here called Tikrit,
which is Saddam Hussein's hometown, and up here is a town called Mosul,
which is pretty important. This is the Kurdish part of Iraq, if you
will. This part over here, frankly, doesn't have a lot of people, but
it has a lot of land.
Over here in Syria, there is a Syrian town called Raqqah that is the
stronghold for ISIS, and this is part of the caliphate, or what they
would like to have as part of their caliphate. This is Syria, Damascus,
Lebanon, and this place is called Aleppo.
If you go back a year or so, the areas in green and salmon were sort
of the high-water mark for ISIS in terms of land that they were in
control of, and what has happened in recent months is that this
coalition of 60 nations has stopped that.
Everyone remembers the ``Star Wars'' movie ``The Empire Strikes
Back.'' Well, in this case, the coalition is striking back.
About half of the area within Iraq, which is green, was controlled by
ISIS maybe 1 or 2 years ago, and about half of that has been reclaimed.
The biggest battle that is going on right now is in Fallujah, where
the coalition forces, largely led by the Iraqi ground troops--not
American ground troops but largely led by Iraqi ground troops--have
taken over center city, and they are battling it out with ISIS forces
in some of the neighborhoods. Hopefully they will be successful, and I
think they will be.
The next big battle will be up here in Mosul. I am a retired Navy
captain. I spent a lot of time fighting in a hot war in Southeast Asia
during the Vietnam war and spent another 19 years in the Cold War as a
P-3 aircraft mission commander. So I served in a hot war and I served
for a long time in a cold war.
When we have a coalition this large, every station doesn't do the
same thing because that would be foolish. What Americans bring to the
battle is some of the equipment and training that are needed. We
provide intelligence, air support, and special forces and
counterterrorism troops--not tens of thousands of them, but they are in
the thousands in all. That is what we bring to the battle. We don't
have a lot of boots on the ground. Some people are on the ground, but
for the most part, that is not what we do.
The Iraqi Army, which did not distinguish itself well 1 or 2 years
ago when ISIS pushed through this part of Syria and Iraq--as of today,
the Iraqis are getting their act together, and they have some special
forces, although I don't think that is what they call themselves, but I
think their special forces are actually pretty darn good in terms of
their capability. They are very much involved in the efforts
[[Page S4525]]
around Fallujah, and I am sure they are involved in Tikrit, which,
again, was a former stronghold and the hometown of Saddam Hussein.
I think some other fighting is going on right here in Hit.
So the coalition is striking back in Iraq.
There are interesting things going on in Syria. Again, the area shown
in salmon is still controlled by ISIS, and while this land mass is
controlled by the so-called caliphate, I think that is steadily being
eroded.
But what is going on in Raqqah is interesting. We have the Russians
providing air support. The troops loyal to President Assad of Syria--
most of the world thinks he should step down at some point as President
and then put a new kind of government together there--are pushing up
from the southwest with support from Russian air. This area has U.S.
air support, and we have coalition forces--the coalition we are an
active part of. We have a squeeze movement going on here in Raqqah.
Is the battle over? No, it is not. Is it going in the right
direction? Finally, after a tough couple of years, I think it is.
I want to mention a couple of metrics that I think are good for us to
keep in mind. Again, at the height of its power, ISIS controlled all of
the area shown in green and salmon, right here on the outskirts of
Baghdad. In recent months, ISIS has lost the area in green. They still
control the salmon area, but as you can see, the coalition forces are
on the march, and that is good.
ISIS has lost, again, half of the land they controlled in Iraq. They
have lost about 20 percent of the land they controlled in Syria. And
there is real pressure being brought on the key city that they control,
Raqqa.
Ramadi is a good victory for our troops, for our coalition--and
Tikrit, which is right here, and Mosul is this area where we have
coalition forces. They pretty much encircled Mosul, and they are
preparing to enter that city in the weeks to come.
As we speak, Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian forces, backed by the U.S.
Special Forces, are making preparations again to take Mosul, right
there, and Raqqa--an interesting coalition between the Russians and the
Syrian fighters.
We have cut ISIS funds, I am told, by up to a third. We have
literally destroyed a lot of their money. We found out where they are
hiding their cash and literally bombed it and destroyed hundreds of
millions of dollars they were using to pay soldiers and provide for
things they needed to fight their war.
We have also killed 25,000 ISIS fighters and, more recently, 120 of
their key leaders.
We have drastically slowed the flow of foreign recruits from a high
of about 2,000 per month down to about 200 per month. The folks who
were joining up with ISIS 2 years ago, when they were on the margin
trying to create this caliphate right here--that stopped, and the
enthusiasm for their ability to actually recruit people has diminished
dramatically. When this big fight for this whole area right here was
underway 2 years ago, there were I think about 2,000 people a month
showing up from around the world who wanted to be a part of this fight
with ISIS. Today it is not 2,000 people a month; it is about 200 from
around the world. The United States 2 years ago had about 10 Americans
per month leaving the United States and going to join forces with ISIS
to be a part of this. It is not 10 a month now; it is about one.
The folks who are turning out, whether from the United States, are
down dramatically, or from around the world, are down dramatically.
Those guys want to be a part of a winning team. Our job--the
coalition's job--is to make it clear that ISIS might have been a
winning team 2 years ago when all of this was going on right here, but
they are not a winning team today. They are back on their heels. We are
pushing them hard, and we are making very slow but steady progress. I
wouldn't overstate it--slow but steady progress. If we keep working
together, we will make a whole lot more progress.
There is an African proverb the Presiding Officer has probably heard
before, and it goes something like this. If you want to go fast, go
alone. If you want to go far, travel together. We are doing this
together with a lot of other countries from around the world. It is
taking a while to get our acts together. For somebody who has flown in
a war and worked in places where we have coalition forces from other
nations, sometimes speaking different languages, not used to working
with one another, it takes a while to get going, and I think we have
made progress in that regard.
What is going on now that ISIS is doing badly on the battlefield?
They are still using social media to try to project the idea that they
are doing just fine and things are going just hunky-dory. These guys
are really good at social media. What they are trying to do is to win
through social media in the United States what they have been unable to
win on the battlefield.
One of the things ISIS tries to do in recruiting people in this
country is to convince them that there is going to be a caliphate and
that they could be part of a winning team. What we want to make very
clear is that this isn't going to be a winning team for much longer. In
fact, the winning part of their season is behind them, and what lies
ahead is not good.
I will use a sports metaphor here. There were the big NBA finals a
couple of nights ago, about a week ago, where the Cleveland Cavaliers
made kind of an amazing comeback when they won three straight games at
the end and became the NBA champs against a very good team from
California. I happened to be in Cleveland for the funeral for George
Voinovich the day of the finals, and everywhere I looked I saw people
wearing Cavaliers shirts, hats, and other paraphernalia. My guess is,
after the day of the game when Cleveland won the championship, you saw
even more of that all over Ohio and throughout the country. Wherever
Cleveland Cavaliers fans might be, they brought out their allegiance to
their team. It was probably a little bit less on the Golden State
Warrior side after they lost, despite the fact that they played
brilliantly.
It is really important that we make clear and continue to make clear
on the battlefield who is winning--our coalition, and who is losing--
ISIS. That reduces dramatically the ability of ISIS to radicalize and
recruit people here in this country who want to do harm, hurt people,
kill people in this Nation.
So first, degrade and destroy--that is going on. And second, make
sure the message is clear that progress is being made on our side by
our forces, and the coalition is moving forward.
I think that is about it. I see my colleague on the other side, and I
will allow him to take the field, so I yield. Thank you very much for
the time to share these thoughts today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Fighting Terrorism
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, before I get started on what I really want
to talk about today, which is the real threat facing our Nation, I want
to reflect for a few moments on the antics and the theater that are
going on in the House of Representatives.
The Presiding Officer and I were both Speakers of the House in his
great State of Florida and my great State of North Carolina. I don't
know about you, but the business of the House is more important than
the antics that we see going on there. If it were my Chamber, it would
be cleared, and people would be arrested if that is what is necessary
to get us back to the task at hand. We have a number of things to work
on, including economic security, national security, homeland security.
And why people would use the pulpit of the House floor--the House
Chamber--to advance their political agenda, to advance their
fundraising--go to the political Web sites and see how many of them
have sent out an email in the past couple of days and in the past week
exploiting a tragic situation in Orlando for their political purposes.
I think it is disgusting, and I am disappointed.
I think what we need to do is recognize--and I should say before I
get started--that there are issues with handguns going into the hands
of people who are mentally ill. There is no doubt about it. We should
have a discussion to figure out how to fix that.
[[Page S4526]]
Let's continue to have a debate about how we keep guns out of the
hands of terrorists, out of the hands of felons, out of the hands of
people with mental illness, and recognize that the real threat to this
Nation is terror and terrorism.
Make no mistake, in Orlando on June 12, that was an act of terror.
The perpetrator was either self-radicalized or maybe even radicalized
through some contact with terrorist organizations, but it is a death
call that wants to destroy our way of life. It is actually a death call
that particularly focuses on the LGBT community. They are murdering
thousands of people in the Middle East, many of them simply because
they are gay.
So we have to recognize--and make no mistake, while this attack
occurred in Orlando, it could happen anywhere in the United States. Why
is that so?
The distinguished Senator from Delaware talked about progress we are
making with ISIS. He said we are having fewer foreign fighters. Do we
know why? Because ISIS has figured out how to radicalize people in the
Nation where they live. We have seen it in San Bernardino, in Orlando,
and at Fort Hood. How long do we have to take before we recognize the
fundamental threat to this Nation is terror and ISIS spreading its
tentacles into our own homeland?
The distinguished Senator from Delaware is a good friend of mine, and
we have worked together on legislation. For those in the gallery, this
is an opportunity to hear two very different perspectives on the
situation we are dealing with now.
I don't think we are making progress. I think when someone comes
before the Senate Armed Services Committee or comes before the
Judiciary Committee and tells us that the numbers of threats in the
United States are greater than at any time since 9/11, that is not
progress. When the FBI Director tells me that they have about 1,000
cases similar to what we saw in Orlando that they have to research
every year, that is not progress. When we find out that there are
investigations--active investigations--that have the potential threat
of what we saw in Orlando in every single State, that is not progress.
The reason for this is that his own administration is at odds with
what he says publicly. He doesn't want to discuss his own party; he
doesn't want to discuss the threat of radical Islamic terror.
Over the past week, the Attorney General said that the ultimate
solution to terror is compassion, unity, and love. How many people
think that ISIS, Al-Nusra, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all the other terror
organizations--the Iran terror network--do we honestly believe they
will respond to compassion, unity, and love? We need to have
compassion, unity, and love in our communities. We need to pour our
hearts out to the people who were victims in Orlando; we need to show
compassion and love to that community. But ISIS isn't going to respond
to that.
I want to give some examples of why I think the President isn't
listening to the heroes and the experts in his own administration.
Starting on January 20, 2015, the President said: ``We are leading a
broad coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy this terror group.''
The former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense in the Obama
administration--a month after the President said that--said: ``To
destroy ISIS with the means he has approved so far, I think that's an
unattainable objective.''
Whom do we believe, somebody who wakes up every morning and looks at
this threat, or the President, who doesn't want to communicate the
reality to the American people?
Now let's go to the next one from last November. The President
bragged that his nonexistent strategy to defeat ISIS was succeeding. He
said: ``Our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained
them''--``them'' being ISIL or ISIS.
This American hero, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, now
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, within 2 months said: ``We have
not contained ISIL.''
Which one do we believe, the one who had the confidence of the Marine
Corps to have him be their Commandant, and now Joint Chiefs of Staff,
or someone who is apparently not listening?
The day after the terrorist attack on American soil, President Obama
made another bold statement. He said: ``ISIL is not going to pose an
existential threat to us. We have hardened our defenses. Our homeland
has never been more protected.''
A week later, another Obama administration official--an
extraordinarily talented and bright person, head of the FBI, Director
James Comey, poured cold water over that statement. He said: ``Their
ability to have a safe haven from which to gather resources, people,
and plan and plot increases the risk of their ability to mount a
sophisticated attack against the homeland.''
He said ``increases the risk''--from the FBI Director that was put in
that administration by President Obama.
Now we have one more. With the President's disconnection from his
administration, we have to realize the rhetoric and the reality is just
not matching. On June 14, 2 days after the Orlando shooting, President
Obama again insisted that ISIS is on the run. He stated: ``We are
making significant progress. This campaign at this stage is firing on
all cylinders. As a result, ISIL is under more pressure than ever
before.''
Two days later--I have said to my colleagues over the past week and a
half--2 days later, the President's Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, made a dramatically contradictory
assessment: ``Despite all of our progress against ISIL in the
battlefield and on the ground, our efforts have not reduced the group's
terrorism capability and global reach.''
The CIA Director's comments are incredibly straightforward. ISIL
still presents a threat to our homeland and to our allies.
Every Senator knows this reality in addition to the hearing and
public statements. I have gone to the Middle East. I have traveled to
Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to the Kurdish region of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Jordan, and Egypt. To a person, they say the President is in denial. We
are not taking the fight to ISIL.
What happens when you don't take the fight to your enemy? They bring
the fight to you. That is what we are seeing with these self-
radicalized or ISIS-inspired radicals in this Nation, and there is a
growing number--1,000 active investigations going on every year.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to recognize that ISIS and these
terrorist organizations are very sophisticated. They have a platform
that in no other time in our history any other foes have ever had--
social media. They have gotten to where they need to disperse into the
community. The threat to the homeland is not decreasing, it is
increasing. We have to recognize that. We have to have a President who
either gets out of denial, when the administration tells him what the
real threats are, or stops pretending that we are doing well.
We have a threat to this homeland. We have a threat to our men and
women in uniform who have sworn to go overseas to defend the freedom of
other countries and to defend our freedom. We have an obligation in
this body. The President has an obligation to recognize we are not
winning. I am not saying this as a Republican trying to build political
rhetoric. I am saying this because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
the FBI Director, and key officials in this President's administration
are saying this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that over the course of the next week we
can focus on the real problem. God forbid that another Orlando happens
in this Nation. I think it is even more important. We need to recognize
that this is a very, very unsafe world we live in. We need to recognize
that Democrats and Republicans have to solve that problem. We need to
continue to look for ways to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists.
I should add: Why don't we come up with a policy where if it were
implemented, maybe Orlando could have been prevented? But the policy
offered by my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle last
week wouldn't have done it, and they acknowledge that. Let's focus on
policies where they will.
Our Nation deserves a leader who listens to his experts. Our Nation
deserves a leader who will take the fight
[[Page S4527]]
to ISIS, and our Nation will be less safe unless our President
recognizes that as his No. 1 goal.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
We the People Act
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition. In 5
months, Americans will go to the polls and vote. That is our heritage,
and it is something to celebrate and something to protect. But this
year, many Americans are fed up with our political system. They are
tired of corporations and the super wealthy controlling our politicians
and our elections. They don't trust our democracy to reflect the will
of ``we the people.''
What has changed since our Founding Fathers began the Constitution
with these words? What has changed since several decades ago when many
more Americans had more confidence in our government?
I will tell you what I think has changed. People are now questioning
the integrity of our elections. Our campaign finance system is under
siege, drowning in record amounts of money, much of it from outside
groups and much of it hidden money--dark money. Our elections should
not be for sale to the highest bidder.
Over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln saw the danger of too much money
in politics. Lincoln warned about ``corruption in high places . . .
until the Republic is destroyed.''
We are reaching that point. Money has poisoned our political system.
It is no wonder the American people have lost faith in us with this
constant money chasing from special interests and very little else
getting done.
Our constituents want Congress to get to work and to work together,
finding real solutions to real problems. That is why a few months ago
several of my colleagues and I got together to discuss the state of our
democracy, our electoral system, and our political system. The question
we asked ourselves was this: What can we do to repair this damage and
return the government to the people?
The product of those meetings is the bill we introduced last week,
the We the People Act. It will bring dark money out of the shadows,
create a real watchdog to enforce campaign finance laws, and rein in
the influence of special interests and lobbyists. The We the People Act
includes my constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the States
to enact even more significant reforms--reforms five conservative
Justices on the Supreme Court can't overturn.
We are offering this to start a conversation about what needs to be
done to fix a broken system. I hope it will even lead to our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle to join us in this effort.
I want to talk specifically about two sections of the bill. My
colleague Senator Merkley will be here momentarily to talk about some
of the other portions of the bill that are especially important to him.
The first is the ``Democracy for All'' constitutional amendment,
which I introduced after the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United
ruling when the Court put a ``for sale'' sign on our elections.
Changing the Constitution is a big step. I know that. As James Madison
said, it should be amended only on ``great and extraordinary
occasions.'' I agree, but I also believe we have reached one of those
rare occasions. Citizens United was wrong, it is dangerous, and it
cannot stand.
Amending the Constitution can take a long time, but this movement
actually was started decades ago by a Republican. Many of our
predecessors from both parties understood the danger. They knew that
money had a corrosive impact on our elections. They spent years
championing the cause.
Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican icon from Alaska, introduced a
constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley v. Valeo in 1983. He saw
the effect that unlimited campaign expenditures were having on Congress
over three decades ago. He recognized over 30 years ago that we were in
an arms race. But the drive for money would only get worse and
Congress's ability to function would suffer.
That was only the beginning. In every Congress from the 99th to the
108th, Senator Fritz Hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional
amendments very similar to the one that I am offering this year.
Senator Schumer and Senator Cochran continued the effort in the 109th
Congress. Even Majority Leader McConnell once had his own
constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money on our
elections. That was all before the Citizens United and McCutcheon
decisions by the Supreme Court. It was before things went from bad to
worse. The out-of-control spending since those decisions has further
poisoned our elections.
In a few minutes Senator Merkley and I and our colleagues will hold a
press conference about this bill. We will highlight the growth of one
special interest group that has increased its spending exponentially
since Citizens United. That group is the NRA.
Fueled with contributions from gun manufacturers, it has Republicans
so scared they don't even hold a vote on commonsense steps to protect
families from gun violence, even when Americans are crying out for
action, even after tragedies like Sandy Hook and Orlando, even when
Democrats are holding a protest in the House Chamber itself.
I went to stand with them for a while yesterday. Republicans could
loosen the hold the NRA has over themselves and the Congress if they
would join us in this effort to reform our elections as they have in
the past. I know the political climate of an election year makes it
even more difficult, but I will reintroduce this amendment in the next
Congress and the next, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join
me.
Poll after poll shows that our constituents across the political
spectrum want this amendment. New York just became the 17th State
calling for Congress to pass this constitutional amendment. It is time
we listened to the States.
I would also like to talk about my bill to replace the dysfunctional
Federal Election Commission with a new organization. We would replace
it with what we call the Federal Election Administration. It is also
included in the We the People Act. My constitutional amendment would
allow Congress to finally enact meaningful reforms. Meanwhile, it is
more important than ever to have a cop on the beat enforcing the rules
on the books. That job is supposed to go to the Federal Election
Commission, but in today's hyperpartisan environment, the FEC is
powerless to enforce the law. Gridlock is pervasive. One of its own
Commissioners admitted that there is a slim chance they would be able
to do anything this year. She called it ``worse than dysfunctional.''
The New York Times editorial board called the FEC ``borderline
useless.'' Reform groups have dubbed it a different kind of FEC. They
call it the ``Failure to Enforce Commission.''
It is time to replace the FEC with a new agency that is empowered to
keep a close eye on the candidates, super PACs, and the parties and
that will finally crack down on election law violations.
My friend Senator John McCain was one of the first to propose
abolishing the FEC as we know it and to create a new bipartisan agency
with the teeth it needs to do the job. He and Senator Feingold
introduced this bill several times in several Congresses.
The Federal Election Administration Act will eliminate the FEC and
start afresh. There will be a new sheriff in town standing up for
voters nationwide. My constitutional amendment and the Federal Election
Administration Act are just two pieces of the ``we the people'' reform
package. My colleagues will discuss the measures they have contributed
to this effort. Senators Whitehouse, Leahy, King, Baldwin, and Bennet
all have important pieces in this legislative package.
Let me be clear. This is just a starting point. The We the People Act
includes many important reforms, but there are additional issues we
must address to return democracy to the people. We must ensure every
American has access to the polls. We need to end the gerrymandering of
congressional districts--a practice that allows incumbents to stay in
office indefinitely--and we must enact comprehensive public financing
that will empower small donors and make their voices heard again. This
is an opportunity for Congress to respond to the American people. They
want and demand reform.
[[Page S4528]]
Congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance, often in
the wake of scandal. Since 1867 we have had the Pendleton Act, the
Tillman Act, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, the Hatch Act,
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, and the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002. First scandal and then reform is the unfortunate
pattern. It is a pattern that we can break with the We the People Act.
Let's reform the system before there is another major scandal. Let's
respond to the voters--Republicans and Democrats--who want a better
government, a government of ``we the people.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the We the
People Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Summary of the ``We the People'' Act--S. 6, Introduced June 16, 2016
All Americans deserve a government that works hard to
provide economic opportunity and a level playing field for
every citizen and family. Unfortunately, today many American
families are struggling, yet special interest corporations
are using their lobbyists and influence to write the rules of
government so it works for them. That's why we have
introduced the ``We the People'' Act, a bold new plan to take
back our democracy from special interest corporations and
lobbyists. This legislation would increase public reporting
and transparency of secret money in our elections, strengthen
the lobbying laws in Washington, and put new limits on
unlimited campaign contributions flowing in ever since the
disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
Make Government More Accountable Through Campaign Disclosure and
Transparency
Mandatory disclosure of all special interest campaign
donations. Citizens United unleashed a flood of undisclosed
corporate dark money on our elections. This provision
authored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) would require
organizations spending money in elections--including super
PACS and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups to promptly disclose
donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election
cycle. The provision includes robust transfer provisions to
prevent political operatives from using complex webs of
entities to game the system and hide donor identities.
Require all candidates for federal office to report major
campaign contributions within 48 hours. Today, not all
candidates for federal office report campaign contributions
in real-time. This provision authored by Senator Angus King
(I-ME) requires all candidates for federal office, including
those for the U.S. Senate, to report contributions of over
$1000 to the FEC within 48 hours.
Reform the Federal Election Commission to ensure campaigns
and special interests follow the law. This provision authored
by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) replaces the dysfunctional
Federal Election Commission (FEC) and creates a new
independent agency to serve as a vigilant watchdog over our
nation's campaign finance system. The newly established
agency would consist of five commissioners appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate and would have greater
enforcement and investigation powers than those of the
gridlocked FEC. Unlike the existing FEC, the new agency would
be empowered to hold candidates, politicians, and their
financial supporters accountable for violating campaign
finance laws.
Rein in the ``dark money'' SuperPACs. The Citizens United
Supreme Court decision led to a huge growth in the amount of
secret money ``SuperPACs.'' Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has
a provision that shuts down individual-candidate Super PACs
and strengthens the rules that prohibit coordination between
other outside spenders and candidates and parties.
Strengthen the Lobbying Laws to Limit Special Interest Influence in
Congress
Enact a permanent ban on lobbying by former Members of
Congress. The current law prohibits Senators from lobbying
for a two-year period after leaving Congress. House members
have a one-year ban on lobbying. This provision authored by
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) permanently bans both House and
Senate members from lobbying either house of Congress after
they retire.
Close the reporting loopholes that allow consultants not to
register as lobbyists. This provision authored by Senator
Michael Bennet (D-CO) requires lobbyists to register if he or
she makes two or more lobbying contacts for a client over a
two-year period, regardless of whether the lobbyist spends
more than 20 percent of his or her time serving the
particular client.
Close the Financial Services Industry's Revolving Door
Prohibit financial services companies from paying huge
bonuses when employees take jobs in the federal government.
It's hard for Americans to believe they have a government `of
the people, by the people, and for the people' when they see
Wall Street banks paying their executives millions to take
high level jobs in government--regulating their former
industry. That's why Senator Baldwin (D-WI) has a provision
that prohibits private sector employers from offering bonuses
to employees for leaving to join the government. Her bill
also includes language to slow the revolving door by
increasing cool down periods for those leaving government
service and expanding recusal requirements for those
entering.
Amend the Constitution to Stop Wealthy Special Interests from Making
Unlimited Campaign Contributions
Overturn the Supreme Court's misguided decisions by
amending the Constitution and putting real limits on campaign
financing. This constitutional amendment resolution from
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) provides Congress and the states
with power to enact campaign finance reforms that withstand
constitutional challenges. It would overturn Citizens United,
McCutcheon, Buckley, and other bad precedents. Finally, it
provides the authority to regulate and limit independent
expenditures, including those made by corporations and Super
PACs.
Mr. UDALL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion about
``We the People,'' those beautiful, first three words in our
Constitution. My colleague from New Mexico has laid out the case that
our Nation is far off track from our founding principles, and what is
more ``founding'' than the very heart of our Constitution?
Our authors of the Constitution wrote these initial words in
supersize font so decades or centuries later we would realize this is
what our form of government is all about. It was not about a small
group of highly powerful individuals charting the course of our
country. It was not about a small group of highly privileged
individuals charting the course for our country that our Nation was to
be very different. It is symbolized by ``We the People'' or as
summarized by President Lincoln many years later, ``a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people.''
We are at a time now where this core principle is being profoundly
challenged. Let's think for a moment about how Thomas Jefferson laid
this out. He said we can claim to be a republic only to the degree that
our decisions reflect the will of the people and that we can claim to
be a republic only to the degree that the individuals within that
government have an equal voice, so there is there principle. He
referred to it as the ``mother principle,'' but the test of whether our
government lived up to this vision of ``we the people'' would be
whether our decisions reflect the will, and that would only be possible
when the citizens each had an equal opportunity to participate.
In fact, today that vision of equal opportunity to participate has
been profoundly undermined. We had a court case 40 years ago, Buckley
v. Valeo, that basically said money is speech and money can be spent
without limits.
We have the ongoing situation of the Court taking a look and saying
corporations can be treated as if they were people. This gives a small
group of individuals on the board of a corporation the assets of
thousands or millions of Americans, and they can spend it at their
will--never informing the people who own that money, the owners of the
corporation, without ever informing them about the political positions
they are taking. This is not free speech. This is stolen speech. If a
group spends my money without telling me how they are spending my
money, it is stolen speech. Yet that is what we have in Citizens
United, a Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision that went way off track, a
Supreme Court where the majority failed to understand what the heart of
our democracy, our Republic, is all about.
If we turn the clock back, there was a world in which we had the town
square, and the town square was free. Anyone could stand and express
their position on a policy issue or express their position on a
candidate. It didn't cost a thing. Then we evolved into the electronic
age. The electronic age town square is on television, it is on the
radio, and it is on the Internet. It costs a lot of money to
participate. Then there was a Supreme Court that said we could spend
unlimited sums, which means the affluent--whether they are a
multimillionaire or a billionaire or a corporation--the powerful can
buy up the town square and deliberately exclude the voice of the
people. They can exercise a megaphone that is equivalent to that of a
stadium sound system that drowns out the voice of the people. That is
what our Supreme Court
[[Page S4529]]
has allowed to happen with our precious, our beautiful ``we the
people'' Republic. This must not stand.
We see a multiplication of the corrupting influences embodied by
these decisions. When the Senator from New Mexico and I were up for
reelection in 2014, the Koch brothers decided to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars to essentially buy control of this Chamber, the
U.S. Senate. They spent their money in unlimited fashion. They did so
in Louisiana and in Arkansas. They did it in North Carolina, Iowa, New
Hampshire, and Michigan, in Colorado, Alaska, and--yes, my home State--
Oregon. They won most of their cases. In most cases, their megaphone
worked pretty well because that is what happens when you control the
town square and exclude the people.
Now we have a Chamber that responds to the every whim of the Koch
brothers like a puppet on a string, from the very first bill that was
ever considered in this Chamber after my colleagues across the aisle
took control, until now, where for the first time in U.S. history--the
first time in U.S. history--the Republican Party, the majority party,
has gone on a job strike, failing to fulfill their responsibility under
our Constitution, a Constitution that carefully laid out a check called
advice and consent. That check on nominations was laid out by Jefferson
and Hamilton.
They said: We are going to place the responsibility for nominations
with a single person because there is accountability, but we are
concerned if that single person goes off track, if that single person
hires cronies who are unqualified, hires people who don't have the
appropriate background, then there has to be a body that says that
individual is unfit--of ``unfit character'' is the term Hamilton used.
That is our responsibility, to decide if someone is of fit or unfit
character. That is it. It isn't to utilize advice and consent, to
undermine the executive branch, to undermine the courts. Yet that is
the way it is being wielded at this very moment in the Senate. Never
have we seen such an abuse of the Constitution as to fail to hold any
effort to fulfill responsibilities to determine if a nominee is of fit
character, a nominee for the Supreme Court.
This is a deliberate effort driven by the Koch brothers to pack the
Supreme Court, to say we will go on a jobs strike for more than a year
in the hopes that we can get a nominee to the far right who will
support changing ``we the people'' to ``we the powerful,'' a nominee
who will support changing ``we the people'' to ``we the privileged.''
That is the goal of the majority of this Chamber that has essentially
been hired by the Koch brothers in the 2014 campaign.
We must reclaim our Republic. That is why this ``we the people''
legislative package that is put together is so important. The first
major principle of this package is disclosure and transparency.
Virtually every Member of this body has said disclosure is the sunlight
that disinfects the political system, but when it came time to actually
vote for disclosure, the Koch brothers intervened and said: No, no.
That will take away some of our power, of the ultrawealthy, if we have
to disclose what we are doing. Again, just like a puppet on a string,
Members switched their positions--deeply disappointing--supporting the
web of dark money entities.
We must change this. We must secure disclosure because it does help
disinfect the political system. It may not completely cure the problem,
but it is an important way to advance as a remedy.
The package includes Senator King's Real Time Transparency Act to
require all candidates for Federal office to report contributions of
over $1,000 to the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours. That is
a valuable addition to transparency.
It includes Senator Leahy's Stop Super PAC-Candidate Coordination
Act, which would end individual candidate super PACs and strengthen the
rules, prohibiting coordination between outside entities that are super
PACs and an individual's campaign because right now that coordination
has grown to the extent it makes a mockery of the Supreme Court,
drawing its distinction from third-party campaigns and an individual
campaign.
It includes the Federal Election Administration Act from my colleague
from New Mexico that he was speaking to just moments ago.
A second area the ``we the people'' package takes on is to take on
lobbying and the revolving door. Senator Bennet has the Close the
Revolving Door Act, which would put in effect a 6-year ban for
congressional staff from lobbying and a lifetime ban for Members of
Congress. If you have the honor and the privilege of serving in this
Chamber, it shouldn't be that you do so with an eye to becoming a
multimillion-dollar-per-year lobbyist when you resign. Yet that is all
too common in the Halls of Congress, corrupting the responsibility we
have to the American people. It also closes the lobbying registration
loophole by requiring someone who has two or more lobbying contracts in
a 2-year period to register as a lobbyist so it is more accurately
understood when somebody is a paid advocate.
It also includes Senator Baldwin's Financial Services Conflicts of
Interest Act, which prohibits private sector employers from offering
bonuses to employees for leaving to join the government. Picture this.
A Wall Street firm says: Oh, you are going to serve in the Treasury
Department, you are going to serve in the Securities and Exchange
Commission, where you will have vast influence over the rules we live
by. Great. We are going to give you a bonus. We will pay out that bonus
at multiple thousands of dollars every month while you serve in the
government. It is essentially a way for powerful entities to put a
government employee on their payroll.
We have another problem. People leave these Commissions. They leave
these appointments with the executive branch. They return to industry,
and they get a platinum paycheck in appreciation for what they did for
the industry while they were here in the Halls of Congress. That, too,
is extremely corrupting.
There is much work to be done. In my lifetime, I never thought I
would see the situation of the Supreme Court majority of five fail to
understand the core principles on which our Nation was founded,
grotesquely politicizing the Court, becoming an activist for the
powerful rather than for the people. We must reclaim our core
institutions. We must reclaim the ability to have balance of power
between our three branches of government. We must reclaim transparency.
We must reclaim our Nation with this beautiful, revolutionary concept
of a nation of, by, and for the people rather than of, by, and for the
powerful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Title IX and Voting Rights Act
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to mark a milestone in
the fight for gender equity in America.
Forty-four years ago, a committed group of people fought and made
huge strides in the battle to equalize opportunities for women in
education. They passed title IX.
Many people across the country think the sole purpose of title IX was
to revolutionize women's athletics, but title IX does so much more.
Title IX provided new opportunities for women who for too long faced
discrimination, disparagement, and quotas in our education system.
We owe so much of the progress we have made in the past 44 years
since the passage of title IX to my good friend Congresswoman Patsy T.
Mink. Patsy was a woman perennially ahead of her time.
Gender discrimination in our education system was not an abstract
issue for Patsy. She felt the weight of it personally. Patsy dreamed of
becoming a doctor, but her dream of becoming a doctor was shattered
when she tried to get into medical school and was told their quota for
women had already been filled. Years later, a quota prevented her
daughter Wendy from enrolling at Stanford University.
These experiences fueled Patsy's fight for gender equity. Even in the
face of overwhelming odds on the way, Patsy's determination resulted in
the passage of title IX. Upon Patsy's death, title IX was renamed the
Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. The fruits of Patsy's
efforts are plain for everyone to see.
Last year, we came together as a nation to cheer on the U.S. women's
national soccer team as they won the
[[Page S4530]]
Women's World Cup. This was the women's third world title. In fact, in
their 31-year history, they have not placed lower than third in the
World Cup.
Much of the team's success can be attributed to the impact of title
IX. Title IX's implementation means that schools have to give girls
equal opportunity to play sports, and this opened the door to a new
generation of girls who grew up on soccer fields and went on to
represent our country on the U.S. Women's National Team, including
Hawaii's own Natasha Kai, who became a breakout soccer star, playing
for Kahuku High School and the University of Hawaii. Natasha went on to
become part of the 2008 U.S. women's soccer team at the Beijing
Olympics, and they brought home a Gold Medal.
While Natasha and the Women's National Team are examples of success
thanks to title IX, they also remind us that our work is not done.
After years of getting paid less than their male counterparts even
though they were more successful, five members of the Women's National
Team filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging wage discrimination. Earlier this year, this Senate
unanimously passed a resolution supporting their fight for equal pay.
Of course, the fight for equal pay and equal rights is not limited to
women in sports; it extends to women in all fields. This month, I am
introducing two new bills that build on Patsy's work to further improve
gender equity.
The Equity in Career and Technical Education Act would give schools
more resources to close equity gaps in career and technical education.
It also provides support to students interested in nontraditional
career paths.
The second bill, the Gender Equality Educational Act, would increase
training and grants to help States, school districts, and institutions
of higher learning implement programs and policies to reduce sex
discrimination and comply with title IX requirements. This bill also
includes nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
gender identity.
Science, technology, engineering, and math, or STEM, is one area
where gender equity improvements need to be made, especially in light
of the fact that there will be a need in our country for millions of
workers with STEM backgrounds.
In March, I read an op-ed from Hope Jahren, a geobiology professor at
the University of Hawaii. She wrote in the New York Times about the
pervasive challenges women face in education and the workplace,
particularly in the STEM fields. She painted a very disturbing picture
of how widespread harassment and other barriers discourage young women
from pursuing STEM careers.
Women are much more likely than men to switch out of STEM majors in
college and leave the STEM workforce. Moreover, many girls drop out of
STEM pursuits long before they ever get to college. The many reasons
for women abandoning STEM pursuits include negative stereotypes about
women in STEM, perceived gender barriers, feelings of isolation in
their jobs, and the lack of role models and mentors.
These challenges are only compounded for women of color. Asian
American and Pacific Islander women often report facing bullying,
sexual harassment, and discrimination in educational settings because
of language issues, cultural stereotypes, and even immigration status.
I have introduced two bills to combat these systemic barriers. These
bills seek to improve outreach and success of women and minorities at
all stages of the STEM pursuits. We need to keep women in the STEM
pipeline if we are going to come up with the millions of workers we
need with STEM backgrounds in our country to keep us competitive.
Title IX has been life-changing for millions of girls and women for
44 years. Passing this law was a landmark achievement. It is a strong
foundation that we must continue to build upon.
I would like to close this morning by turning to another seminal
law--the Voting Rights Act--that made real for millions of Americans
their fundamental right to vote. Saturday is the third anniversary of
the Supreme Court's devastating and disastrous ruling in Shelby County.
In a 5-to-4 decision, that case essentially gutted the Voting Rights
Act and made it easier for States to make voting harder. At least 13
States have done just that.
Alabama passed a law that would require voters to show a photo ID.
The State then kept 31 driver's license offices in predominantly
African-American communities open just 1 day a month--1 day a month--
for people to get their IDs. The city of Athens, GA, has proposed
closing nearly 12 polling places, replacing them with only two early-
voting centers, both of which would be located in police headquarters.
Intimidating? I would say so. These are just a few examples of laws
that, in effect, make it harder to vote.
So our work is not done. Three years after the Shelby decision and
the ensuing laws passed by too many States to limit voting, we in
Congress must enact laws that recognize beyond a shadow of a doubt that
voting is a fundamental right of a free nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________