[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9867-9876]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 9868]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9869]]

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

[[Page 9870]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9871]]

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 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

[[Page 9872]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9873]]

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 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.''

[[Page 9874]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 9875]]

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 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

[[Page 9876]]

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 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.

                          ____________________