[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13063-13072]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 5325, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 516, H.R. 5325, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                           Zika Virus Funding

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I can still recall the first briefing I 
had as a Member of Congress on something called HIV/AIDS. I didn't know 
much about it. I heard the words, but I didn't understand them until 
this briefing brought to mind and brought to light the serious threat 
this was to the health of thousands of people in the United States and 
around the world. It was a frightening moment. The information we 
received led us to believe quite honestly that this was the public 
health crisis of our time.
  There was a response that I was surprised by. Despite all the 
controversy around all the values and issues, President Ronald Reagan 
and his Surgeon General Koop stepped forward and showed real 
leadership.
  Some argued that President Reagan waited too long. I am going to put 
that argument aside. The day came when the Surgeon General sent a 
letter to every American family telling them the threat of this public 
health crisis. It was the right thing to do. We dealt with it in an 
honest, forthright way. We appropriated massive amounts of money for 
treatment research, and we have come a long way in saving the lives of 
many who were threatened by this deadly disease.
  It is rare when a President of the United States steps up and says to 
the American people: We have a public health crisis. Because it is so 
rare, we should take it very seriously.
  In February of this year, President Obama made that plea to Congress 
about a new public health crisis involving the Zika infection. Zika, of 
course, is borne by mosquitoes. There is evidence in countries around 
the world that when these mosquitoes bite someone and infect them, it 
has a negative health consequence, particularly on pregnant women and 
the babies they carry.
  President Obama came to Congress in February of this year and in a 
rare moment announced that we had an emergency, a public health crisis 
that needed to be addressed. He asked for $1.9 billion to eradicate the 
mosquitoes and also to develop a vaccine to protect innocent Americans.
  I took that seriously. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in 
Congress did not. It wasn't until May, some 3 months later, that the 
Senate passed a response to the President's request for this public 
health emergency called Zika. We passed a bill that had about $1.1 
billion in it--not what the President asked for but a substantial 
investment toward his goal of protecting America and developing a 
vaccine, and we passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Some 89 
Senators from both parties voted for it in May of this year. That, of 
course, was 4 months ago.
  What happened after the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote 
responded to the President's request for emergency funding for a public 
health crisis involving Zika? What happened to this bill after it 
passed the Senate? It went to the House of Representatives. 
Unfortunately, that is where it took a bad turn. Instead of passing the 
obvious bipartisan bill in response to the President, the House 
Republicans insisted on delaying it further and adding provisions that 
were politically controversial and really were unnecessary to our goal 
of protecting America from this crisis.
  They added a provision that said that if you were a woman seeking 
family planning so that your pregnancy was not compromised by the Zika 
virus, you could not use the Planned Parenthood agencies for those 
family planning consultations. Why would they pick Planned Parenthood? 
Because the Republican Party is at war with Planned Parenthood. They 
are willing to stop even their family planning functions.
  Two million American women went to Planned Parenthood last year. They 
count on them for professional services they can trust and afford. The 
Republicans want to close it down. They have voted repeatedly to do 
that. So they chose this Zika emergency public health crisis bill to do 
that again.
  They took $500 million slated for the Veterans' Administration to 
expedite the consideration of claims by our veterans and eliminated 
that money in the VA--put it toward the Zika virus.
  Third, they decided to suspend the authority of the Environmental 
Protection Agency when it came to monitoring and overseeing the 
chemicals that would be sprayed to kill these mosquitoes.
  Finally, in the ultimate political act, they put in a provision that 
eliminated the prohibition against displaying a Confederate flag at a 
U.S. military cemetery. That is what happens when legislation that 
starts off as very simple, pointed, and direct runs amok and becomes a 
political freighter, carrying all of these issues.
  That is what happened and, of course, the Republicans in the House 
knew what would follow. The bill would run into resistance, and the 
Senate would be bogged down. Instead of taking the simple funding bill 
the Senate passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote, the 
Republicans complicated the situation dramatically and brought the 
whole conversation to a stop.
  So here we are today. The President's request was in February; we are 
now in September. Congress has yet to send the President the resources 
he asked for. At what cost? Well, we know the cost. At this point we 
estimate that by the end of the year in Puerto Rico, 25 percent of the 
people on that island will be infected with the Zika virus, including 
presently about 1,000 women in Puerto Rico. We know that they are in 
danger and that the babies they give birth to will have serious life-
threatening birth defects because of that infection--an infection that 
might have been slowed down or even avoided had this Congress under 
Republican control responded to President Obama's request for emergency 
public health funding for this Zika epidemic.
  As of last week there were 20,870 reported cases of Zika in the 
United States and its territories. That included 1,897 pregnant women, 
and in Illinois there are 70 of these women. We estimate about 700 or 
800 women in America in the continental United States have been 
infected by this virus, with another 1,000, as I mentioned, in Puerto 
Rico.
  If we had responded quickly in a responsible bipartisan way when the 
President made his request, I don't know whether some of these families 
and women and their babies could have been spared. We will never know, 
but we do know this for sure: The Republican-led Congress ignored the 
President's request, refused to send the money he asked for, and we are 
paying a heavy price as a nation--not as heavy a price as these women 
who sadly have a tragedy on their hands that maybe could have been 
avoided if Congress had responded in a timely fashion.
  Seven months without congressional action for an emergency public 
health crisis called Zika is shameful. Let's not wait another day 
before we leave here to go back and campaign, before each party returns 
home to brag about what they have achieved or can achieve. Let's do our 
job when it comes to this Zika crisis. Let's make sure the continuing 
resolution that keeps the government's lights on also turns on the 
lights at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the 
National Institutes of Health so that we start reducing the number of 
people infected and also developing a vaccine to protect innocent 
families across the United States and perhaps around the world. That is 
something we desperately need to do.


                  For-Profit Colleges and Universities

  Mr. President, the for-profit college and university industry is the 
most heavily federally subsidized profitmaking private business in 
America,

[[Page 13064]]

bar none. Most of these for-profit colleges and universities, like the 
University of Phoenix, Kaplan, and others, have decided they want to 
tap into our Federal Treasury for anywhere up to 90 or 95 percent of 
all the revenue that comes through their universities and schools.
  There is no other business in America so dependent on Federal 
subsidies as for-profit colleges and universities. What happens? The 
Federal Treasury sends money to the students who apply to these schools 
in the form of grants and loans. The money is then transferred to the 
school, and the student has a debt they have to cope with when it comes 
to the money that is borrowed from the Federal Government.
  What happens in those circumstances where the school goes out of 
business? We saw it with Corinthian last year, one of the largest for-
profit colleges and universities, and we just saw it 2 weeks ago with a 
group called ITT Tech. Here is what happens. Students have debt 
incurred at these for-profit schools like ITT Tech. They are approached 
by the Department of Education which offers them two options. The first 
option is, if you were a student at the school when it closed or you 
withdrew 120 days before it went out of business, you have a choice. 
You can keep your credit hours that you earned at ITT Tech and the debt 
incurred in earning them or walk away from both.
  Also, if you happen to have been defrauded by these schools, you have 
something called defense to repayment. If they misled you about the 
courses you were going to take, how much they would cost, what kind of 
loans were available to you, what kind of job you may have after 
graduation, then you, too, can raise that as a defense and potentially 
have your federal student loan debt forgiven. That is an option that 
many ITT Tech students now have.
  There is another aspect of this that we should not overlook. These 
schools do not just exploit students who are fresh out of high school 
or coming from some other place, unfortunately, they defraud veterans. 
Veterans using GI bill benefits at ITT Tech have been unfairly affected 
by this company's practices and now its closure and bankruptcy. For 
years, ITT Tech has been a major recipient of GI bill benefits. 
According to the 2014 report by Senator Tom Harkin's HELP Committee, 
ITT Tech was the third largest recipient in 2012 and 2013, receiving 
$161 million in GI bill funds.
  When it closed earlier this month, an estimated 7,000 veterans were 
enrolled at the school that has now gone out of business. Not only have 
these veterans used up part or, in some cases, all of their limited GI 
bill education benefits, some of them relied on VA housing assistance 
to pay their rent and afford a place to live for themselves and their 
families.
  Veterans can only receive this housing stipend if they are enrolled 
in a school that qualifies for GI bill benefits. So the closure of ITT 
Tech has put these veterans and their families at risk of being unable 
to afford their current housing, disrupting their lives. I support a 
bipartisan bill introduced by my colleagues Senators Blumenthal and 
Tillis, a bipartisan bill to reinstate GI bill education benefits in 
certain cases and give the Secretary of the VA the authority to 
temporarily extend housing benefits to vets, including those who 
attended ITT Tech.
  This bill, called the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans 
Education Relief and Restoration Act or VERRA, was included in a larger 
bipartisan VA reform package that I hope the Senate will still take up 
this year. But the closure of ITT Tech makes the need to pass VERRA 
urgent. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this common-sense, 
bipartisan legislation before we adjourn. I urge them to stop and 
reflect on the fact that these for-profit schools are exploiting 
students and families, members of the military and their families, and 
veterans across the United States.
  Why, in good conscience, are we allowing this to continue? It is time 
for us to put some standards of conduct on this for-profit university 
industry that has taken so much money from our Federal Treasury, from 
$25 to $30 billion a year. These heavily subsidized, crony capitalist 
operations are a disgrace.
  Ten percent of all students enrolled in postsecondary education 
attend for-profit colleges and universities. Forty percent of all the 
student loan defaults are from the students at these for-profit 
colleges and universities. Their tuitions are outrageously high, their 
diplomas are outrageously worthless, and many students and innocent 
people pay a heavy price.
  I will close with a story about one of them I represent. Laura Cotton 
is one of those students who was misled by ITT Tech. She is a single 
mom in Oak Lawn, IL, working part time. She saw the come-on advertising 
of ITT Tech, had a lot of conversations with their recruiters about 
their great programs and the job she would get with an ITT Tech degree.
  She said they never bothered to talk to her about what it was going 
to cost and how she was going to pay for it. She ended up enrolling in 
an online criminal justice program. According to Laura, most of the 
courses had nothing to do with her program of study. ITT Tech would 
just send her paperwork to sign, more loans, Federal and private.
  She ended up dropping out of ITT Tech when she finally added up all 
of the money they had enticed her to borrow. Laura has a debt of 
$98,000 from ITT Tech and nothing--no degree, nothing to show for it.
  In a letter she sent me, Laura wrote: ``My American dream of home 
ownership, purchasing a new car, giving my kids an education has 
suffered because my credit is now shot.''
  I wish Laura's story was unique. I wish more Members of the Senate 
and Congress would sit down and talk to people just like her who have 
been victims of these for-profit colleges and universities. When are we 
going to accept our responsibility to clean up this shameful industry?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I came to talk on a different topic, but 
it is interesting because I noticed the front-page story of the 
Washington Post about a for-profit college not too many weeks ago. 
Headline: ``Inside Bill Clinton's nearly $18 million job as `honorary 
chancellor' of a for-profit college.''
  I just heard this Senator talk about somebody signing something, and 
this article refers to this for-profit college that signed Bill Clinton 
to a lucrative deal as a consultant and honorary chancellor, paying him 
$17.6 million over 5 years. It is very disturbing because it says:

       The guest list for a private State Department dinner on 
     higher-education policy was taking shape when Secretary of 
     State Hillary Clinton offered a suggestion.

  It says:

       In addition to recommending invitations for the leaders 
     from a community college and a church-funded institution, 
     Clinton wanted a representative from a for-profit college 
     company called Laureate International University, which, she 
     explained in her email to her chief of staff that was 
     released just last year, was ``the fastest growing college 
     network in the world.''
       There was another reason Clinton favored setting a seat 
     aside for Laureate at the August 2009 event: The company was 
     started by a businessman, Doug Becker, ``who Bill likes a 
     lot. . . . ''
       Nine months later, Laureate signed Bill Clinton to a 
     lucrative deal as a consultant and ``honorary chancellor,'' 
     paying him $17.6 million over 5 years.

  So when I hear another colleague from the Senate come to the floor 
and talk about for-profit colleges and make reference to the fact that 
something needs to be done about it, it seems obvious to me that 
Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, they had something to do with it as 
well, and a $17.6 million contract--consultant fee, honorary 
chancellor--to Bill Clinton.


                        President Obama's Legacy

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk on a separate matter. We 
are just 4 months away from an inauguration of the next President. So 
President Obama is spending lots of time going around trying to polish 
his legacy. He is doing it today at the United Nations.

[[Page 13065]]

  The facts we see and Americans across the country see are very 
different than what President Obama is trying to paint as his legacy. 
The President's legacy of failure--we see it in the President's health 
care law. Many people feel deceived by the President when they find 
themselves paying much more for health care. Many people have been hurt 
by the law. Republicans are trying to provide relief for the damage the 
President has done.
  The President's legacy of failure continues in foreign policy. 
America's power, prestige, and respect around the world has declined, 
and in many places evaporated under President Obama. Today I want to 
talk about the devastating legacy the President has left in terms of 
failure regarding his economic policies.
  According to a recent Gallup poll, people say the economy is the 
biggest problem facing this country today. The No. 2 concern in the 
poll was a tie between unemployment and dissatisfaction with 
government. After 7\1/2\ years of a very poor recovery from the 
recession, it is easy to see why Americans are so concerned about their 
own jobs, their own economy, and their own future.
  It is also easy to see why there is a lack of faith with regard to 
the Obama administration, in terms of their ability to even know how to 
grow a strong and healthy economy. President Obama took office during a 
recession. The recession ended in June of 2009, just a few months after 
the President was in office so that was more than 7 years ago.
  America has an economy that has been crawling on its hands and knees 
ever since. Normally, after a recession, an economy bounces back, does 
it vigorously, with great strength--never happened this time.
  Under President Obama, the country has been struggling with the 
weakest recovery in the last 60 years. Millions and millions of 
Americans have been left behind, and they feel it. Going back to 1950, 
the average annual growth for our economy has been 3.25 percent a year. 
So over 3 percent growth a year, on average, since the year 1950. 
Through good times and bad, an average of 3 percent a year.
  President Obama's average the past 7 years has been less than half of 
that. For the past three economic quarters, it has been growing at a 
1.1-percent annual rate, 0.9 percent, 0.8 percent, well below average 
when it comes to his economic policies. That is not a legacy of which 
to be proud.
  This nonexistent Obama recovery means too many Americans have gone 
too long without being able to find a job. There are still close to 16 
million Americans who are either unemployed or underemployed who are 
seeking to find full-time work. Many of these are part-time workers who 
are trying to go and find full-time work.
  Many others have given up looking for work entirely. They have tried, 
they can't find anything, and they have quit actually looking so they 
are not even counted in the unemployment numbers. This is not a legacy 
for which anybody should be proud. I ask the President is he proud of 
this legacy.
  Last month, the Congressional Budget Office came out with some new 
numbers about Washington's debt. The American people know the President 
has added considerably to the debt of this country. He came into 
office, he immediately started running deficits of $1 trillion a year--
the President's so-called stimulus package.
  No one had ever seen deficits like that before. Of course, as each 
deficit gets added to the debt, the debt accumulates with deficit 
spending each year, but that wasn't enough for this President. Oh, no. 
Then, he pushes a health care law that burdens taxpayers with trillions 
of dollars of additional debt.
  According to this new report, Washington's deficit is going to be 35 
percent higher this year than it was last year. That just keeps adding 
to our national debt. Is President Obama proud of this legacy? Is he 
proud he is impacting our children, our grandchildren, sticking them 
with a tax bill they will never be able to repay?
  There was another report that came out of the Census Bureau last 
week. It said the average family income actually did go up from 2014 to 
2015 by 5 percent. That leaves us with an average family income that is 
still below the numbers from before the recession, from back in 2007. 
We are still below that level.
  Five percent may sound good for that year--until you realize that 
health insurance premiums under the Obama health care law are going up 
20 to 30 percent all across the country. The Wall Street Journal came 
out last week with a piece that said: ``America Gets a Raise, 
Finally.''
  A raise for American families is good news. It should happen every 
year. But why didn't it happen sooner? Well, because of the policies of 
the Obama administration--policies such as higher taxes, more 
regulations. The average family income is still $900 less than it was 
in 2007. There are still 43 million Americans living in poverty. If 
President Obama is proud of his legacy, let him stand up and say it. 
But is he really proud of a legacy of making America wait so long for 
so little?
  Here is how the Wall Street Journal put it in its editorial:

       Last year's encouraging progress doesn't obscure the 
     reality that neither the economy nor workers are reaching 
     their full potential. The next President can build on this 
     late uptick by changing policy direction.

  That is what we need to do--change direction and policy. That is the 
key. These failed economic policies over the past 7\1/2\ years don't 
just belong to President Obama. They belong to Democrats in Congress 
who have been pushing--and continue to push--along this line of more 
government, more spending, more regulations, and less individual 
choice.
  These are the same ideas that have robbed Americans of opportunities 
every single time the Democrats have tried it.
  Although President Obama and the Democrats in Congress may think the 
pace of this recovery has been good enough, Republicans in the Senate 
know this is an economy which is nowhere near as good as it should be 
or could be. We are focused on policies that promote real job growth so 
Americans can get off the sidelines and back onto a career path.
  Republicans are focused on policies that free our economy--free the 
economy to grow like it should, not just hobble along with the 
lackluster pace of the last 7 years.
  We are focused on policies that will rein in Washington out-of-
control debt and regulations. That is the way that our children and 
grandchildren can afford to live the lives they would like, not just 
paying for Democrats' mistakes.
  We are focused on policies that allow Americans to get paid what they 
deserve, not just one raise every 7 years or 8 years. Republicans are 
ready to move beyond the President's legacy of failure and to help the 
American economy really get moving again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.


                           Fighting Terrorism

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we continue to learn more and more about 
the terrorist attacks that occurred last weekend on American soil. In 
just a short time span, on Saturday a number of innocent people became 
the targets of attacks in Manhattan, New Jersey, and Minnesota. In 
Manhattan, as we know, a bomb went off in the Chelsea neighborhood, 
injuring almost 30 people. Thanks to a very alert citizen, a second 
device--found just a few blocks away--was dismantled and did not cause 
any additional damages. If that hadn't happened, obviously many more 
casualties would have been likely.
  In neighboring New Jersey, a bomb exploded near the site of a charity 
race to benefit marines and their families. More bombs were found in a 
backpack near a train station in Elizabeth, NJ.
  As we have seen in the news in Minnesota, also on Saturday, it was 
reported that a man with a knife began attacking innocent passersby in 
a mall. He stabbed nine people.
  The day after the attack, the Islamic State, or ISIS, took credit. A 
news outlet associated with the terrorist army called the jihadist a 
``soldier of the Islamic State.''

[[Page 13066]]

  Thank goodness no lives were lost in that attack. In every case, law 
enforcement authorities and first responders acted swiftly in order to 
minimize the damage. But the point is that we are living in dangerous 
and tumultuous times. Just last week we celebrated the 15th anniversary 
of the September 11 attacks on our country. I shouldn't use the word 
``celebrated.'' We actually memorialized those terrible attacks that 
took the lives of about 3,000 Americans.
  This week we find ourselves trying to make some sense of the violence 
carried out last weekend. The only rational thing for us to do here at 
home is to remain vigilant. As the Department of Homeland Security 
likes to say, if you see something, say something.
  Situational awareness is always important for public safety, but we 
could do a lot more than just equipping the American people with a 
slogan that allows them to maintain situational awareness. In Congress, 
we need to make sure we provide all the tools necessary to our 
military, to our law enforcement, and to our first responders to 
protect the men and women whom we represent--the American people. That 
means we need to consider legislation that supports the victims of 
terrorism and their families as well. While I am not suggesting this is 
going to be a deterrent to terrorist attacks, just maybe it will 
provide some measure of justice to the families who have lost loved 
ones as a result of terrorist attacks on American soil.
  Yesterday I talked about one small piece of that effort, the Justice 
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is one way we could do that and 
help these family members find some measure of closure and justice.
  Simply, what it would do is to extend existing law that has been on 
the books since the late 1970s that would allow these families to hold 
foreign governments--that have helped finance and facilitated attacks 
on American soil--accountable in our courts of law.
  In just a few minutes, I will have the chance to meet with several of 
the families of the victims of 9/11. I have to tell you that these men 
and women have been a remarkable example of courage and resilience for 
all of us. They want and they deserve a path to justice.
  I hope the President stops holding up Congress from voting to 
override the veto he promised on this legislation. Better yet, I would 
hope the President would reconsider his stated intention to veto the 
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It makes no mention of any 
particular country. It doesn't decide the merits of the lawsuit that 
will be brought. All it does is give these families access to a court 
of law where they can make their case if they can.
  The President said he is going to veto it, but my question is this: 
What is he waiting for? It has been on his desk since about a week ago.
  Why is he making these families wait even longer for justice? If he 
is going to veto it, he should do it--to stop making everybody wait on 
his timeline.
  I hope that when the President does veto this legislation--if he is 
determined to do that--we will quickly vote to override. I am confident 
we will, given the fact that this legislation passed by unanimous 
consent in the Senate and was supported by all Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  Another way we could help guard against homegrown extremism in our 
country is by better equipping our law enforcement personnel to track 
down and ultimately detain potential terrorists to stop the acts of 
terror before they occur--not just after they occur--and conducting an 
investigation and holding the person responsible accountable. Wouldn't 
it be great and better if we could actually stop these attacks before 
they occur? One way we could do that is by fixing the current gap in 
our laws for what is called the electronic communications and 
transactions records. That is a mouthful. Basically, what that would do 
is allow the FBI to use national security letters, which they can 
already do in a terrorism investigation, to access not just financial, 
not just phone records but also computer metadata--not content but just 
the Internet protocol addresses on computers in terrorist 
investigations--in order to put together the pieces to be able to make 
the case to stop terrorist attacks in the first place.
  As I have said before--and I will say again--we expect our law 
enforcement personnel to prevent these attacks by connecting the dots. 
But before you can connect the dots, you have to collect dots, and that 
is what this important tool would help to do.
  In today's Internet age, our law enforcement personnel need these 
tools to fight terrorists, plain and simple. Our friend, the senior 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has been a great leader on this 
issue. I hope this Chamber acts on this and other similar legislation 
before an attack occurs, not after.
  Fundamentally, at the root of the problem with the Islamic State 
operating in the Middle East in Syria, Iraq, and in a number of other 
countries, is that our President--the Commander in Chief of our 
military--doesn't have a strategy to combat and defeat this threat.
  We let them establish a de facto state in the heart of the Middle 
East by precipitously withdrawing our military personnel from Iraq and 
leaving a vacuum. We should have learned what happens from the horrible 
lesson of 9/11 and Al Qaeda when we create power vacuums in the Middle 
East. Ultimately, this will provide a place for the terrorists to 
train, organize, and ultimately find a way to attack us here at home. 
When they can't physically come here, what they do is they radicalize 
people on the Internet, encouraging them to kill Americans here in 
place.
  President Obama has called the Islamic State the JV team. Well, how 
in the world can a JV team resist the most powerful military in the 
world--the United States military? That is because the President has 
tied the arm of our military behind its back and basically is fighting 
a war of containment--not a war where victory and defeat of our 
opponents is the objective. It really looks as if the President is 
trying to run out the clock for the remainder of his term without doing 
the hard work and the necessary work to implement a strategy to 
actually defeat this threat. Because the President didn't take ISIS and 
its affiliates seriously, we now see them export their dangerous 
ideology to our shores. We saw that again just recently last Saturday 
in Minnesota. We saw that in Orlando with a shooter who killed 49 
people and injured 50 more, who declared allegiance to the leader of 
the Islamic State. Unfortunately, this joins the list of other ISIS-
inspired attacks throughout the country, as I said, from Orlando to San 
Bernardino and now to Minnesota.
  We simply cannot sit back and just let them do their deadly deeds. We 
must have a strategy. We have to implement that strategy, both abroad 
and here at home.
  Unfortunately, the President is exercising extreme reluctance in 
terms of addressing the threat. We know his wait-and-see approach has 
not worked, and we continue to see the dangerous consequences here at 
home.


                            Syrian Refugees

  Mr. President, there is another consequence to the President's 
failure to deal with this threat in the Middle East. This has to do 
with what Amnesty International has called the worst refugee crisis in 
over 70 years. What happens overseas doesn't necessarily stay overseas. 
America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to 
accepting refugees, when it comes to naturalizing people as American 
citizens who were born elsewhere. But the President has stated an 
intention to settle about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States 
just this year. He is conducting a conference today, Tuesday, where he 
will lead a summit on the need to take in additional Syrian refugees. 
He has now stated that his administration's goal is to raise the 10,000 
limit of Syrian refugees to 110,000 Syrian refugees by next October.
  Not to be outdone, Secretary Clinton has said she wants to have at 
least 65,000 additional Syrian refugees.
  We all believe in being humanitarian and compassionate in dealing 
with the needs of refugees, but I would bet that every single one--or 
the overwhelming

[[Page 13067]]

majority of these refugees--would rather live in place in the country 
of their birth than be displaced to a new and strange country as 
refugees.
  We know the danger of improperly vetting refugees is a real threat to 
our safety and security here at home, but apparently the President is 
not paying any attention to that--calling now for an additional 100,000 
Syrian refugees by next October. Sadly, about 5 million people have 
been displaced by the war in Syria.
  We know that after the President said Bashar al-Assad would be held 
accountable after he crossed a red line, using chemical weapons against 
his own people, basically nothing happened. That emboldened Russia, our 
adversary, to get a toehold in Syria. It allowed them to ally with the 
country of Iran and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah to actually try 
to maintain Bashar al-Assad in office--something this President and his 
administration said shall not stand.
  In Syria alone, nearly 5 million refugees have left that country. We 
know they have gone to bordering countries such as Turkey. I visited 
some of those refugee camps. They have been to Jordan. They are 
relocating in places such as northern Iraq, where the financial burden 
is shaking the very foundations of the regional government there. And 
we know that many of these refugees have made their way into Europe, 
causing instability there--a potential danger when refugees are not 
particularly well vetted to determine whether they bring with them a 
dangerous ideology which will be perhaps deadly to people living in 
those areas, places such as Germany and France, just to mention a 
couple.
  This President seems to be absolutely blind to the consequences of 
his failure to have any effective strategy to deal with the Islamic 
State, whether it is abroad or here at home, or consequences he may not 
even tie to his failure to deal with this threat, such as the refugee 
crisis we have seen in Europe and elsewhere.
  The answer to dealing with this evil is not just to accept more 
refugees, the answer is to have an effective strategy to provide no-fly 
and no-drive zones where Syrians can actually continue to live in Syria 
without fear of being murdered by either Bashar al-Assad and his 
allies, Iran and Russia, or Al Qaeda affiliates or the Islamic State. 
That would be a better answer, and I bet they would agree. Most of 
these refugees would rather live in the country of their birth rather 
than be displaced in the Middle East, Europe, or even the United 
States.
  Unfortunately, under the leadership of this President, what we have 
seen is one consequence after another. I hope the President will 
finally come up with a strategy to dismantle and defeat ISIS, but I am 
not holding my breath. And obviously his days as President of the 
United States are numbered.
  There are, however, things we could do here in the Congress to draft 
solid legislation that will at least protect the American people here 
in our homeland by providing additional tools for our law enforcement 
personnel to collect the dots so they can connect the dots. It is not 
enough to just prosecute the guilty once people are murdered or injured 
by a terrorist attack; we need to make sure our law enforcement 
personnel--the FBI and others--have the tools they need to stop these 
attacks before they occur, if it is humanly possible to do so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a news article from today's Washington Examiner entitled ``Days after 
attacks, Obama pitches more refugees.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From the Washington Examiner,
                            Sept. 20, 2016]

            Days After Attacks, Obama Pitches More Refugees

                          (By Susan Crabtree)

       President Obama on Tuesday will lead a special summit on 
     the need to take in Syrian refugees, just days after weekend 
     terrorist attacks that are raising more questions about 
     whether the U.S. should be cracking down on immigration 
     instead of opening the doors further.
       Plans for Obama to lead the summit were months in the 
     making, long before Ahmad Khan Rahami allegedly planted a 
     pressure cooker bomb in New York that detonated, injuring 29 
     people. Rahami, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in 
     Afghanistan, is also thought to be responsible for bombs 
     discovered in New Jersey.
       The incident puts real pressure on Obama to make the case 
     for taking in thousands of additional refugees, in the face 
     of calls from Donald Trump and other Republican critics who 
     say it's time to tighten the rules, not ease them. Obama's 
     critics say the timing couldn't be worse.
       ``The timing of the summit just reinforces the idea that we 
     need to get a handle on our refugee program,'' Rep. Brian 
     Babin, R-Texas, told the Washington Examiner. ``There is a 
     clear and present danger posed to our national security by 
     these poorly vetted refugees that are pouring in, and the 
     president continues to double down on his intentions to bring 
     in more and more of the individuals from hot spots like 
     Syria.''
       Babin last week wrote a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan, R-
     Wis., urging him to include provisions in the continuing 
     resolution to fund the government that would place a 
     moratorium on refugees coming from terrorist hotbeds in 
     Syria, the Middle East and North Africa. Thirty-seven House 
     GOP colleagues signed onto the letter.
       The Texas Republican said his effort to put a halt to the 
     admission of the refugees is even more important after this 
     weekend's terrorist attacks in New York, New Jersey and 
     Minnesota.
       ``The people of the United States and of Western Europe are 
     getting very weary about the politically correct pressure 
     that is being brought to bear by Obama and the U.N. to take 
     in people,'' including those that top U.S. national security 
     officials have said we ``cannot properly vet.''
       FBI Director James Comey, Department of Homeland Security 
     Director Jeh Johnson and Director of National Security James 
     Clapper have each testified to Congress over the last year 
     that they couldn't certify that every single refugee admitted 
     into the United States was not a security threat.
       Those officials have all testified before several 
     congressional panels about the challenges and information 
     gaps that exist when screening refugees and have emphasized 
     that there is no risk-free process. Comey, however, 
     specifically has said the State Department and other agencies 
     have ``dramatically'' improved the process over the past few 
     years, and over the past few months, when it comes to Syrian 
     refugees.
       Holding Obama's U.N. summit meeting just after the weekend 
     terrorist bombings is also causing headaches for Hillary 
     Clinton, who has called for increasing U.S. admissions of 
     Syrian refugees to 65,000. Her opponent has taken full 
     advantage.
       Just hours after the Rahami was arrested, Trump blasted 
     Clinton for supporting policies like the admission of Syrian 
     refugees, which he said would allow radical Islamic groups to 
     ``continue their savagery and murder.''
       The Republican presidential nominee and other GOP critics 
     have also assailed the Obama administration over a new 
     Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report that 
     said the agency mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 
     858 immigrants from countries deemed to pose security 
     concerns to the U.S.
       ``We need to get smart and get tough fast so that this 
     weekend's attacks do not become the new normal here as it has 
     in Europe and other parts of the world,'' Trump said in a 
     statement Monday.
       Christian Whiton, a former senior State Department adviser 
     in the George W. Bush administration, said Obama's and 
     Clinton's insistence on pushing for the admission of more 
     Syrian refugees is playing into Trump's hands in the final 
     weeks of the election.
       ``If you look at polls--only 35 percent of Americans want 
     Syrian refugees to come here--I think they instinctively know 
     that these people cannot be vetted,'' Whiton said.
       After the weekend's bombings and Obama's U.N. summit, he 
     predicted that Clinton would have a very difficult time 
     defending her push for more Syrian refugees on the campaign 
     trail.
       ``Hillary is pathologically committed to bringing more 
     refugees here, knowing full well that there will be Islamists 
     and jihadists among them,'' he told the Examiner. ``How can 
     she possibly think the government can screen out those who 
     adhere to radical Islam if she won't even name that threat?''
       ``The twin pillars of Hillary's worldview are globalism and 
     multiculturalism,'' he said. ``She's just too committed to 
     this orthodoxy to accept that Americans don't want jihadists 
     brought here by their own government.''
       Obama is scheduled to address the United Nations Tuesday 
     with broad remarks about the state of U.S. foreign policy, 
     which will undoubtedly include a call for more admissions of 
     Syrian refugees into the U.S. and other countries around the 
     world.
       In the afternoon, he will host the Leaders Summit on 
     Refugees and underscore the gravity of the refugee crisis in 
     which more than 65 million have been displaced worldwide, the 
     largest number since World War II, according to the White 
     House.

[[Page 13068]]

       From Syria alone, nearly 5 million refugees have left the 
     war-torn country, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the 
     United Nations, told reporters late last week in previewing 
     the summit.
       ``All of these individuals, every one of these numbers is a 
     face and a person with a family,'' she said. ``They are 
     facing very uncertain futures and they're looking to the rest 
     of the world and to the U.N., of course, for help.''
       Power said several countries, including the U.S., are going 
     to be pledging more slots for the resettlement of refugees. 
     ``You're going to see a range of announcements by different 
     world leaders,'' she said.
       The U.S. under Obama's direction has admitted 10,000 Syrian 
     refugees already this year, and will increase those 
     commitments in the final months of his administration, with 
     the goal of accepting 110,000 Syrian refugees by next 
     October. But that figure will depend on the next president's 
     views and policies.
       Power also argued that the U.S. can admit the refugees 
     while ``ensuring our own security.''
       ``As a country that's admitted 3.2 million refugees since 
     the 1970s, we are more than capable of doing that and 
     ensuring our own security, and the highest levels of security 
     checks are in place for the refugee program,'' she told 
     reporters.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Arkansas.


                        Tribute to Jess Forster

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Jess 
Forster of Little Rock as this week's Arkansan of the Week for her work 
as the K-8 director at eStem Public Charter Schools in Little Rock.
  First, it is important to note that Jess received a record four 
nominations from different people in Arkansas to be the Arkansan of the 
Week--an early indication of the tremendous impact she has on the 
Little Rock community and the State of Arkansas.
  Jess is in her second year as the kindergarten through eighth grade 
director at eStem, where she is known for her tireless dedication to 
her job and her positive attitude. For example, last year Jess 
handwrote 1,000 personalized, encouraging notes to students before 
State testing. The notes took weeks to finish, but Jess never abandoned 
the task. And to say her students were thrilled would be an 
understatement.
  One of her colleagues wrote:

       Since Jess has taken on the Director role, I have seen more 
     positivity in the hallways not only with our teachers but 
     with our students as well. I feel our school is one big 
     family and community and Mrs. Forster is our mom.

  Jess's positive attitude and dedication doesn't end with her 
students; her fellow faculty and staff members also benefit immensely 
from their relationships with her. Each Friday Jess recognizes eStem's 
teachers' hard work by personally distributing notes and snacks that 
usually align with the theme she has chosen. Her positive spirit is 
contagious for all those who know her.
  Another of Jess's colleagues said:

       At one of her first meetings with the faculty, she 
     discussed values and the importance they have in our daily 
     lives--whether they be at the workplace or at home. One of 
     the values we all picked was family.

  This is a value Jess definitely believes in, and it shows. Under her 
leadership, eStem restated its mission and vision statement to the 
motto ``Above & Beyond: It's what WE do.'' Jess believes this phrase 
sets higher expectations for eStem and better reflects the school's 
positive community atmosphere.
  Of all the nice things said about Jess in her nominations, I felt 
this description was a fitting conclusion:

       Jess has had a huge impact on the eStem community, which 
     reaches across the entirety of central Arkansas. She is a 
     dedicated educational leader, wife and mother. I believe she 
     should be recognized for such an outstanding performance. I 
     cannot think of a more deserving person to be acknowledged as 
     Arkansan of the week.

  I agree, and I am proud to recognize Jess Forster as this week's 
Arkansan of the Week for her outstanding work as the K-8 director at 
eStem schools in Little Rock.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        President Obama's Legacy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the end of a Presidential administration is 
often a time for taking stock. In the coming months, pundits and 
reporters will spend a lot of time discussing President Obama's legacy. 
Perhaps the real measure of the President's legacy, I would argue, is 
how the American people are feeling at the end of his administration. 
Americans aren't feeling too good. After 8 years of the Obama economy 
and President Obama's foreign policy, two-thirds of Americans think our 
Nation is on the wrong track, more than half think we are less safe 
than we were before September 11, and 67 percent rate our economy as 
``not so good'' or ``poor''--two-thirds of Americans. It is 
disappointing, but it is not surprising.
  On the foreign policy front, here is where we stand after 8 years of 
the Obama administration: Terrorism is spreading. The Middle East is 
more hostile and dangerous. Iran is counting pallets of ransom money 
and in a better position to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea is 
defiantly testing nuclear weapons. Russia is more aggressive. China is 
more aggressive. I could go on and on.
  On the domestic front, 8 years of the Obama economy has left American 
families struggling. While the recession technically ended 7 years ago, 
our economy has never really rebounded. Recoveries are usually a period 
of robust growth. Three to four percent or more is common in a 
recovery. The Obama recovery, however, has averaged a tepid 2.1-percent 
growth. In fact, the Obama recovery is the worst recovery in 60 years, 
and things are actually going downhill. During the first half of 2016, 
the economy grew at a rate of less than 1 percent.
  Historically, sailors refer to the area around the Equator, where 
their ships could become trapped for weeks, as the doldrums. Well, that 
is pretty much where our economy is now--it is in the doldrums, stuck, 
unmoving. Our economy has barely grown at all this year, and the long-
term forecast is bleak. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office is estimating that our economy will grow at less than 2 percent 
for the next 10 years. What do those numbers mean? Sluggish economic 
growth means fewer jobs, lower incomes, and fewer opportunities.
  We can see the effect of the sluggish Obama economy in job creation 
and unemployment numbers. While the unemployment rate has decreased 
from its recession-level highs, part of that has been driven by 
individuals dropping out of the workforce. The challenge of finding a 
job in the Obama economy has led many individuals to simply give up 
looking for work altogether. Millions have dropped out of the 
workforce, and we now have a labor force participation rate that is 
near a 30-year low. If the labor force participation rate were the same 
today as it was when President Obama took office, the current 
unemployment rate would be 9.1 percent. Let me repeat that because I 
think it is important when we talk about all these different 
percentages, particularly with regard to unemployment. If the labor 
force participation rate were the same today as it was when President 
Obama took office, the current unemployment rate would be 9.1 percent. 
That is how many people have completely dropped out of the labor force. 
That is how many people are no longer participating in our economy.
  On the job-creation front, the Obama recovery has again lagged far 
behind other recoveries. So far this year, job creation has averaged 
just 182,000 jobs per month--far below where it should be in a strong 
economy. For the Obama recovery to match the job creation of other 
post-1960 recoveries, job creation would have to soar to 1.37 million 
jobs a month for the rest of the Obama Presidency, or more than seven 
times the number of jobs we are currently adding.
  With numbers like these, it is no surprise that two-thirds of the 
American people rate the Obama economy as ``not so good'' or ``poor.''

[[Page 13069]]

  Americans are tired. For the past 8 years, good jobs and 
opportunities have been few and far between. And that is not all 
Americans have had to contend with. They have also had to contend with 
the steep cost of health care. The President's health care law was 
supposed to make health care more affordable. We were told premiums for 
families would drop. We were told Americans would have the freedom to 
keep their doctor and choose affordable plans that fit their needs. 
Well, the reality has been pretty much the opposite. To illustrate, I 
would like to read a brief article that appeared a few days ago in CNN 
Money. The title of the article is ``Health care costs rise by most in 
32 years.''

       Health care costs rose sharply in August.
       Prices for medicine, doctor appointments and health 
     insurance rose the most last month since 1984. The price 
     increases come amid a broader debate about climbing health 
     care costs and high premiums for Obamacare coverage.
       A recent report by Kaiser/LET Employer Health Benefits 
     forecasts that the average family health care plan will cost 
     $18,142, up 3.4% from 2015. That's faster than wage growth in 
     America.
       Medical care costs altogether rose 1% just in August from 
     July, according to the Consumer Price Index, a report on 
     price inflation from the U.S. Labor Department.
       Premiums on the Obamacare exchanges are expected to rise by 
     double-digits this year.
       Some health insurers, such as Aetna, have recently 
     announced they would pull out of the Obamacare exchanges, 
     saying ObamaCare patients have turned out to be sicker and 
     costlier than expected.
       Overall, workers are paying more for deductibles. Over half 
     of U.S. workers with single coverage health insurance plans 
     pay a deductible of $1,000 or more, up from 31% of workers in 
     2011.
       And the health care price increases come as inflation 
     overall continues to be low. Consumer prices altogether rose 
     1.1% in August compared to a year ago.

  All those statistics come from that CNN Money piece. So let's just 
recap what they were describing.
  Prices for medicine, doctors, and health insurance are way up. The 
price of the average family health plan is growing faster than wages. 
ObamaCare premiums are soaring; individuals are facing double-digit 
premium increases. Deductibles are up. Insurers are pulling out of 
health care exchanges, reducing Americans' choices. And health care 
costs are growing faster than inflation. In other words, they are 
taking an even greater share of Americans' budgets. That is where we 
are after 6-plus years of the ``Affordable'' Care Act.
  I have said before that if we wanted to coin a phrase to describe 
Obama's Presidency, it might be the ``Presidency of diminished 
expectations.'' It is the Presidency in which Americans started to 
doubt the cornerstone of the American dream that their children will 
have a better life than they do. It is the Presidency in which we were 
asked to start looking at weak economic growth as somehow being the new 
normal. And it is the Presidency in which we were asked to look at a 
future of soaring costs and limited choices as the new standard for 
health care.
  We don't need to resign ourselves to these diminished expectations. 
After all, the weakness of the Obama recovery is not a chance or a 
coincidence; it is the natural consequence of the President's policies. 
Instead of freeing up our economy to grow, the President has weighted 
it down with tax hikes, spending increases, and burdensome regulations.
  Over the past 8 years, the Obama administration has enacted more than 
600 new major regulations, totaling $743 billion or, to put it in 
perspective, $2,300 per American. While some government regulations are 
necessary, every administration has to remember that regulations have 
consequences. The more resources individuals and businesses spend 
complying with government regulations, the less they have available to 
focus on the growth and innovation that drive our economy and create 
new opportunities for American workers.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration has chosen to prioritize 
burdensome government mandates instead of freeing up individuals and 
businesses to innovate. We don't have to continue that way. We can 
repeal burdensome regulations. We can stop overspending. We can reform 
our Tax Code to lift the burden on job creators and on families.
  The weak economic growth of the past 8 years does not have to be the 
new normal. Americans don't have to resign themselves to a future of 
crippling health care bills either. ObamaCare had good intentions, but 
it has turned out to be a disaster.
  If we repeal this failed law, we can start over and pass real health 
care reform, the kind that will actually drive down costs and provide 
increased access to care. Republicans are excited to work with a new 
President to move beyond the economic failures of the past 8 years. We 
have ideas to grow our economy, promote job growth, and increase 
opportunities for American families. Hard-working Americans deserve 
more than the diminished expectations of the Obama Presidency. 
Republicans firmly believe that a better future is possible. We are 
ready to get to work to get there.


             Attacks in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota

  Mr. President, before I close, I want to address the bombings and 
attempted bombings in New York and New Jersey this weekend, as well as 
the knife attack at a shopping mall in Minnesota.
  My prayers are with the 29 victims in Manhattan, the 10 victims in 
St. Cloud, and the two wounded officers in New Jersey. My prayers are 
also with the families of the injured and the communities whose sense 
of community has been rattled. I am grateful to local, State, and 
Federal law enforcement personnel for their efforts to apprehend the 
suspect and, more importantly, prevent further injury or even death.
  I am also grateful for the off-duty officer who stopped the assailant 
in St. Cloud. In these times of heightened threats, the service of our 
law enforcement officers is critical. The investigations into all of 
these attacks are ongoing, but they are being viewed as potential acts 
of terrorism.
  ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack in Minnesota, and 
investigators are seeking a definitive connection, such as a 
declaration on social media, as we saw in the San Bernardino shooting. 
I am hopeful that our intelligence communities can quickly piece 
together the motives and possible terror links of these attacks. Doing 
so may lead to intelligence that could prevent future attacks and 
provide insight on how to better counter terror networks and prevent 
domestic recruitment.
  This weekend's attacks underscore just how high the stakes really 
are. The threat of terrorism continues to grow, fueled by instability 
in the Middle East--instability that has been fueled by the absence of 
U.S. leadership.
  Part of the reason we are facing ISIS today is that the President 
chose to prematurely withdraw our troops from Iraq. This left a gaping 
hole in Iraq's security, and ISIS quickly took advantage. Despite the 
trail of bloodshed that ISIS has left in its wake, the Obama 
administration continues to downplay the threat this organization 
poses.
  Unfortunately, the consequences of downplaying this threat could 
haunt us for generations to come. Senate Republicans will continue to 
do what we can in Congress to restore America's leadership and 
strengthen our country's security. We will continue pushing for the 
resources our military needs to defeat ISIS abroad. We will continue 
pursuing policies that would strengthen our borders so we know who is 
coming in and out of our country. We will continue supporting policies 
that give our intelligence and security agencies the tools they need to 
protect our homeland.
  The committee I chair--the Commerce Committee--is looking at 
legislation right now to strengthen security on our Nation's highways 
and railways. In addition to the airport security package we enacted 
earlier this year as part of the FAA bill, this bill will help keep 
families safe as they travel around our country. I am hopeful the 
Senate will take up this legislation in the near future.
  Finally, I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance 
essential defense legislation like the National Defense Authorization 
Act and

[[Page 13070]]

Defense appropriations, which will help undo the foreign policy 
failures of the Obama administration.
  For too long, Senate Democrats have put politics ahead of funding our 
military. Democrats have filibustered the Defense appropriations bill 
no fewer than six times during this Congress alone. I am hopeful we 
will soon be able to put politics aside and fund our men and women in 
uniform. They serve in harm's way every day. The least we can do is 
give them the resources they need to carry out their jobs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the judicial 
nominations that are currently pending before the Senate and the fact 
that we have a very serious vacancy crisis in the United States. We 
have a challenge based upon the unwillingness of the majority to put on 
the floor a number of judges who are pending and have been pending for 
many months.
  This is a serious problem, and it is causing problems in States all 
around the country. We have critical challenges in performing our role 
of helping the judiciary--that independent branch of government--to 
function.
  I would be wrong not to mention Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to 
the Supreme Court, which has now been pending before the Senate for 7 
months. This is the longest period in U.S. history that a Supreme Court 
nominee has been pending not only for an up-or-down vote but also 
pending to have hearings on the qualifications of this judge. This 
judge would absolutely bring great qualifications. In fact, nobody has 
had more Federal judicial experience. Yet we refuse to move forward, to 
go through a process that is spelled out in the Constitution in the 
sense that we are supposed to make sure that the judicial branch has a 
full complement of judges.
  For 7 months now, the Supreme Court has not been functioning as was 
intended by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is missing a Justice, 
and because of that vacancy, cases have resulted in 4-to-4 tie votes. 
As a result of those 4-to-4 decisions, we lack a national precedent in 
cases that could guide lower courts, bringing resolutions that are 
necessary for ordinary Americans who go before our justice system 
seeking justice as was intended in the Constitution. It is challenging 
in providing certainty to businesses. It is challenging in providing 
the regular course of many Americans' lives.
  The Supreme Court's next term begins in just 2 weeks. It seems that 
we will be out in recess, but they again will be trying to do the 
business intended of the Court. I do not believe there is any 
justifiable reason that this distinguished body should not confirm 
Justice Garland or frankly even go through the process of having 
hearings and ultimately a vote.
  The Supreme Court was intended to have nine Justices. We are not 
doing our job. Justice Garland would not be the first to be confirmed 
in the month of September and not the first to be confirmed during a 
Presidential election. In fact, a total of 13 Supreme Court Justices 
have been confirmed in the month of September, including Chief Justice 
Roberts, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Sandra Day O'Connor.
  This inaction of ours is putting the Supreme Court at a disadvantage. 
The disadvantage is not to the Supreme Court; it is actually ours as 
the American people. Across the country, though, we know that Federal 
judges at other levels of the judiciary are facing a real crisis. They 
are overworked and are understaffed because of a judicial vacancy 
crisis.
  We now face 90 judicial vacancies in our courts across the country, 
and 34 of them have actually been declared judicial emergencies. This 
is not a subjective declaration; this is an objective declaration. 
Right now, in the United States of America, there are 34 judicial 
emergencies.
  In contrast to previous administrations, by the end of September, 
2008, in the last year of the Bush administration, Democrats had 
reduced those vacancies--not where we are right now with 90 judicial 
vacancies--all the way down to 34.
  In addition to Judge Garland's Supreme Court nomination, 30 
nominations are currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, all 
except two of whom were voted out of committee by unanimous vote in a 
bipartisan manner. This includes 20 district court nominees that were 
put forth in bipartisan spirit.
  There are nominees pending on the Executive Calendar from States 
including Tennessee, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, 
Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, 
Wisconsin, Louisiana, Indiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Idaho. 
These are red States and blue States and purple States. These are our 
States here in our country.
  I believe it is time to act on people who are well-qualified. I 
believe it is time for us to act on people who have bipartisan 
support--names that have come with recommendations by Republicans and 
Democrats, two of whom were approved by voice vote and all of whom, 
except for two, were approved by voice vote.
  Two weeks ago, I joined with several of my colleagues all of whom 
came to the Senate floor to ask for consent for the Senate to begin 
voting on nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. Senators 
have the right to vote yes or no on those nominees, but we believe they 
should be at least brought to the Senate floor for a vote.
  In rejecting our requests, Senate Republicans made the counteroffer 
for the Senate to vote on a package of nominees. At that time they were 
skipping over the next two in line. I know there has been more 
discussion about that, but the reality is, I cannot support skipping 
one of the longest standing judicial nominees, Judge Julien Neals in 
New Jersey, where there is now a judicial emergency, where the people 
who are suffering--I don't know what their political backgrounds are, 
but these are business people, these are citizens who are now facing 
unbelievably long waits as a result of these judicial emergencies.
  Nominations are from red and blue States. This is a time when we 
should act in a way that belies the partisan rancor that is so often 
associated with this body. By voting on these nominees, the Senate 
would follow the regular order, something many of us are calling for, 
regardless of who is in power on the Senate floor. We should be moving 
on the longest pending nominees on the floor.
  Mr. President, I rise today to make a request, to humbly ask 
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 
459, 460, and 461; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and 
the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator from New Jersey and I had a similar exchange a couple of weeks 
ago. As I pointed out then, the Senate has treated President Obama 
fairly with respect to his judicial nominations.
  As of now, the Senate has already confirmed 329 of President Obama's 
judicial nominees. That is more judicial nominees confirmed than 
President Bush had during all of his 8 years. I will be objecting 
shortly, but we have been entering into agreements to process 
additional nominees on a bipartisan basis. Our Democratic colleagues 
objected to the last proposal I made a couple of weeks ago, but I am 
prepared to offer another one. My proposal includes many of the 
nominees who were included in the proposal from the junior Senator from 
New Jersey. It would

[[Page 13071]]

include a judicial nominee from Tennessee, two nominations from 
Pennsylvania, and a Utah nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider individually the following nominations at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic 
leader: Calendar Nos. 359, 460, 461, and 569; that there be 30 minutes 
for debate only on each nomination equally divided in the usual form; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time on the respective 
nomination, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination, with no other business in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have not 
been in the Senate that long, but when I came to the Senate, there were 
just months left when the Democrats were in the majority. I am sure, as 
the pendulum swings back and forth, I will be in the majority again and 
I may have a chance to show true to what I am about to say, but I 
cannot imagine that I would support what I see going on right now if 
the Democrats were in the majority.
  When I read the Constitution, it makes no claim to political parties 
or tit for tat or that we should have one President who gets a certain 
number of nominations versus another President getting another number 
of nominations. Should we add up the number of Republican Presidents 
over the last century and Democratic Presidents over the last century 
and somehow compare the number of judges? That was not the intention of 
the Constitution.
  There is a branch of government independent of ours that we are 
strangling right now through our inaction. Any objective understanding 
of the functioning of the American Government should clearly 
demonstrate that one branch should not strangle the operations of 
another, undermining what is clearly in the best interests of the 
people. This is not a partisan tit for tat--Bush had this many, Obama 
had this many; this is about the fact that we have a proliferation of 
judicial emergencies and that our very economy is being undermined 
because businesses can't get a fair hearing before the judicial branch. 
It actually is written clearly, the idea of having a justice system 
that works in a timely fashion. This seems to be an affront to what the 
purpose of this body is as spelled out in the Constitution.
  I can't go with a partisan tit for tat--that is just not in my 
blood--on an issue that has been so fundamentally spelled out in the 
Constitution. We are measuring how many Bush had versus how many Obama 
had. Clearly, there are so many more vacancies that happened to come 
through the course under the Obama administration--90 vacancies versus 
what we had in the Bush administration, which was significantly less.
  It would be one thing if these nominations were clearly partisan, but 
these nominations are coming from red States and blue States. They are 
coming from Republican Senators--recommendations to the President, mind 
you--and Democratic Senators.
  If we are going to indulge in a partisan analysis of this, the 
unanimous consent request offered by the Republican leader is for 
States that are red and purple States.
  I represent New Jersey. I have the longest--or second longest--
pending judge on the floor, a qualified judge with an incredible 
history of service and sacrifice to country and community. This is a 
judge who happens to be African American in a State that urgently needs 
diversity on the bench as well.
  I heard a lot of talk when I first got here--and again, I am new--
about how important regular order is. Why are we skipping judges and 
not going through the regular order?
  I have tremendous respect for the majority leader and the pressures 
he faces on a daily basis, but this I cannot understand. When I read 
the Constitution, I cannot understand why this body is strangling the 
functioning of the other body and why my State is dealing with this 
judicial emergency, unnecessarily so. When I came here, I was 
instructed on what to do, and I have been following regular order to 
fill this seat in New Jersey, so I respectfully object to the majority 
leader's request for unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as I said earlier, Julien Neals is someone 
whom I was proud to recommend to President Obama. Julien Neals is right 
there with the next jurist, Edward Stanton from Tennessee. They are 
well-qualified jurists who are the only two African Americans on the 
long list of the next 15. Both of these men have demonstrated skill, 
earned distinction, and they have incredible legal careers.
  Right now, the second longest nomination pending on the floor is 
Judge Neals, who was first nominated over a year ago--in fact, 19 
months ago. He has been nominated to fill what is now a judicial 
emergency, as I stated, which means more specifically that the caseload 
is extraordinarily high, that other good public servants in our State 
are doing their best to keep up but cannot, and the course of justice 
is being perverted.
  The people of New Jersey deserve better from us as a body, and this 
seat should be filled. It is an act of simple justice. It is an act of 
mercy at this point.
  A hearing was held on his nomination in September of 2015, and his 
nomination was passed out of committee in November of 2015. Since that 
time, Judge Neals' nomination has been sidelined by this body.
  Judge Neals has incredibly strong qualifications, and more than that, 
this is a man I know. I know his family. I have seen up close and 
personal the sacrifices he has made. It is no surprise that the 
American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
has unanimously rated Judge Neals as ``well qualified'' to the district 
court. He received the highest possible ranking.
  Judge Neals has extensive legal experience, a distinguished judicial 
career, an unwavering commitment to justice, as well as private sector 
experience. As an attorney, Judge Neals worked in public service, which 
is where I knew him, but before that in a distinguished private 
practice. He has most recently been a county councilman in Bergen 
County. I know a county executive there who raves about him but 
understands the higher calling and aspirations he has to be a federal 
district court judge.
  Judge Neals has an impressive breadth of judicial experience. He 
graduated from Morehouse College and Emory University School of Law. He 
started his career as a law clerk on the New Jersey Superior Court. 
Later, he served as the chief judge of the Newark Municipal Court. That 
is how I got to know him.
  Judge Neals also has an unwavering commitment to justice and a 
balanced view. He is a moderate man. At a time when our Nation is 
working to address so many complicated issues, I believe we need this 
man on the bench. I believe he would make all of us proud--not 
Republicans or Democrats but Americans. Judge Neals understands issues. 
He understands scholarship. He has demonstrated his worth, his 
aptitude, and his thoughtfulness. This is the kind of guy I think all 
of us would want on the bench. There is no credible reason why we are 
not moving forward besides partisanship. I just can't see it.
  So I rise again to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations.
  Regular order would mean that we would go to these two judges who 
happen to be qualified African Americans, and regular order would bring 
us to these longstanding men who have been sitting on the sidelines now 
for well over a year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to

[[Page 13072]]

consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359 and 362; that the 
Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the 
nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that 
any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am grateful for the time. I am hoping 
that in the intervening hours and days we are here in Washington, DC, 
we can give some attention to this profound obligation we have of 
keeping the functioning of the three branches of government and perhaps 
solve this impasse.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the National Day of 
Remembrance for Murder Victims which occurs in just a few days on 
September 25.
  In 2007, the Congress passed the resolution designating the National 
Day of Remembrance and affirming two central truths. First, the murder 
of a loved one is an exceptionally difficult and devastating experience 
for that family, and, second, that support services are very important 
in helping victims' friends and families as they cope with the grief 
and loss.
  Today in Washington we have family members who can attest to the 
devastation of losing a loved one. They are mothers, grandmothers, 
sisters, and other parts of the family, each of whom have lost a loved 
one to violence.
  They have come together to form, in this case, a Philadelphia-based 
violence prevention group called Mothers In Charge. I cannot imagine 
the pain they suffer, but the sad truth is, their ranks grow every day 
in our country, where about 16,000 people are murdered each year, 
including over 600 just in Pennsylvania, according to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention. Around two-thirds of these murders are 
committed with firearms.
  These families know all the statistics, but the loved ones they lost 
aren't statistics, they are people and members of their family, and we 
need to remember that.
  I came to the floor last week to talk about a particularly violent 
day in 1 city, Philadelphia, PA, in which 10 people were shot in 1 day 
and 5 were killed. Over the weekend, 5 more were killed and 14 
wounded--just this past weekend. Two of those wounded were police 
officers who were targeted during a shooting rampage in Philadelphia 
that left another five wounded at that location.
  The families and friends of the victims, like those who are with us 
in Washington today, will never be the same because they lost someone 
unique and special, someone who was the subject of their love and 
attention, someone whose future they invested in, believed in, and 
dreamed about until it was stolen away.
  The resolution I referred to earlier, designating the National Day of 
Remembrance for Murder Victims, which passed the Senate in 2007, 
reminds us of our obligation to recognize the loss these families live 
with every single day.
  The great recording artist Bruce Springsteen, after September 11, 
wrote a number of songs that referred to that horrific day and how the 
country was dealing with it. One song he wrote was called ``You're 
Missing.'' I will not go through the lyrics, but the refrain was just 
that, ``you're missing.'' At one point in the song he says:

     You're missing when I turn out the lights
     You're missing when I close my eyes--

  And then he says--

     You're missing when I see the sunrise.

  That is the only way I can understand what these families have gone 
through. That person is missing from their lives every moment of every 
day, no matter where they are, whether they are falling asleep or 
waking up or leading their lives. So we have an obligation to remember 
those they lost and remember those who are in fact missing from the 
lives of those we think about today.
  The second part of this resolution credits the support services that 
help grieving families. Facing pain and loss, families often need lots 
of help, whether that is counseling or crisis intervention or legal 
assistance or other services. This is also something the Philadelphia-
based group Mothers In Charge know something about. These mothers took 
their pain and turned it into a force for good. They advocated for 
those affected by violence, and they provided counseling and grief 
support for those victims' families. They also work proactively to 
prevent violence by intervening with at-risk young people and working 
with elected officials and community leaders to create safer 
neighborhoods.
  Today, as we commemorate the National Day of Remembrance for Murder 
Victims, we also express deep gratitude for the critically important 
work Mothers In Charge and their allied organizations are doing to 
prevent future tragedies.
  As we commemorate the National Day of Remembrance, we must also talk 
about the types of weapons that took so many lives in the first place 
and that take more lives every day, firearms. About two-thirds of those 
16,000 annual murders are committed using firearms. Tragically, the 
executive director of Mothers In Charge, Dorothy Johnson Speight, who 
joins us here today in Washington, knows something about this. 
Dorothy's son was shot and killed in a dispute over a parking space--a 
senseless murder of a good and innocent soul. There is no weapon as 
widely available and as dangerously lethal as a gun, of course, and if 
Dorothy's work has taught us anything, it is that when tragic murders 
occur, they are not occasions for grief alone but also a call to 
action.
  That is why I will continue to advocate for commonsense gun reform--
from expanding background checks to banning military-style weapons and 
large-capacity magazines, to the passing of legislation to close 
loopholes that allow suspected terrorists and violent hate criminals to 
acquire firearms. All of these measures will make us safer. As Dorothy 
has often said, gun violence is a public health crisis with more than 
33,000 people killed by the pull of a trigger each year in the United 
States of America. If we are to do our duty on behalf of our 
constituents, on behalf of hard-working members of Mothers In Charge 
and the countless others who have lost a loved one to gun violence as 
we approach the National Day of Remembrance, we must act to make our 
communities safer.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________