democratic amendments and two republican amendments failed to forward in the u.s. senate. mitch mcconnell meeting with reporters during the party lunches saying that he is quote, working to make sure citizen collins will get a vote on her compromised gun-control amendment from alex bolton at the hill.we expect to hear more on that. we certainly will hear more debate coming up on the senate floor as they return on their party lunches and continued debate on the 2017 commerce justice and science spending bill. no votes are expected this afternoon. we take you live now to the senate floor here on c-span two. 120, h.r. 2578, an act 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. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not senator from utah -- the senator from utah, the president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent toy be permitted to complete these

remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, a few weeks ago i came to the floor to discuss the situation surrounding president obama's nominees to serve as public trustees on the board of trustees for the various social security and medicare trust funds. at that time i noted that these nominations had become the center of a political firestorm. sadly, that firestorm has continued in the weeks since i last spoke about this issue. while i have little desire to delve into what is essentially a manufactured controversy, i do want to take some time to note how some events taken place this week should impact this particular debate. tomorrow the social security and medicare boards of trustees will release their annual reports providing their assessment of the past, present, and projected future financial conditions of the trust funds. for decades these reports have largely been devoid of politics, which is important because it allows policy-makers and the general public to trust the

numbers that are reported. currently that are four senior obama administration officials who serve as trustees on these various boards. there are also two positions for public trustee, one from each party, according to the law, that are currently vacant. although it is not unheard of for the board toishz their reports without confirmed trustees in place, this administration has issued more trustee reports with vacancies than any other administration. mr. president, in a recent article in "the "huffington post,"" senators warren, schumer, and white house put afford some serious allegations of political tampering with recent social security trustee reports, stemming according to their arguments from the supposed undue influence of one particular public trustee. that trustee, dr. charles

vahaus, hasn't renominated by president obama. these senators alleged in their article that due solely to the presence of this single public trustee on the board, nefarious assumptions were somehow aert ised into the -- asserted into the report analysis, leading the report to overstate the financial challenges facing social security. my good friend, senator schumer of new york, echoed the very same allegations in a recent finance committee markup where we favorably reported president obama's nominees for public trustee, and i emphasize, these are president obama's nominees. in the words of these prominent and outspoken senators, the 2014 social security trustee report -- quote -- "curiously incorporated a number sumtions playing up the potential of future insolvency of the program, a key talking point in the right-wing war on social security." unquote.

moreover, according to these -- those senators, the assumptions -- quote -- "were so troublesome that the independent chief actuary for social security took the unprecedented step of writing a public statement of actuarial opinion disagreeing with the report." unquote. they go ton say that -- quote -- "after similarly questionable elements appeared in the 2015 report, the chief actuary reported this extraordinary public rebuke." unquote. now, these assumptions and dr. blahouse's on the board -- to dismantle social security and further an antigovernment agenda. in fact, their article is ridiculously titled "the koch brothers are trying to handpick government officials. we have to stop them."

mr. president, these are serious allegations that call into question the integrity of the annual trustee reports. yet my colleagues have stated these allegations repeatedly in various forms from committee hearings to twitter feeds to campaign fund-raising materials, all without apparent -- any apparent regard for these implications. worst of all, the charges are also patently false. and they cannot be supported by fact, reason, or even common sense. setting aside the almost paranoid and conspiratorial tone my colleagues have used when making these claims and even asumming for the sake of argument that supposedly questionable assumptions were baked into those trustees' reports, there is simply no remotely possible way that they were used solely because of

dr. blahhouse's influence. if a single public trustee was able to have such a pernicious influence on assumptions incooperated into reports, then all of the other trustees -- treasury secretary lew, labor secretary perez, health and human services secretary burwell, acting administrator of social security caldwin and robert reischauer and their staffs were either complicit or were too incompetent and powerless to detect them. give me a break. these were all democrats. just one sole little republican in there. they're trying to blame him for their report? in other words, though, they conveniently yoaf look -- overlook these facts. when my colleagues indict the complicity of the report,

they're calling into question the competence and efficiency of senior members of president obama's cabinet and really that of president obama himself who renominated dr. blahouse to serve a second term. being honest about the makeup of the board and the process by which these reports are compiled would make fund-raising e-mails and campaign commercials, not to mention inflammatory entries on a senator's twitter feed far less compelling. recognizing this, my colleagues have opted to simply imply that dr. blahouse, one of the whole number of these board people, was solely responsible for allegedly questionable contents of the reports. apparently hoping no one will fact-check their assertions. well, i have to, as chairman of the senate finance committee, fact-check these

not-so-very-honest assertions. sadly, no one from the obama administration has stepped forward to defend the president's nominee and refute these wild claims. more curious, however, is the fact that no one from the administration has publicly come forth to defend themselves from these senators' charges of apparent incompetence and powerlessness in the face of dr. blahouse's dastardly influence. i think we need a clearer picture of what wejts on in the exie -- of what went on in the compiling of those reports. in order to clear the air on this i sent letters earlier today to each of the administration officials who sit on the board to see if they agree with the claim that the reports they all willingly signed included some unwarranted assumptions designed to undermine social security and requesting that they provide me with a full briefing on the issue.

of course, the absurdity of my various colleagues' claims goes beyond their implicit condemnation of members of president obama's cabinet because these senior officials were not the only line of defense standing between the report and the alleged conspiracy to take down social security. if these reports included some pernicious assumptions, they did not only slip by the secretaries of treasury, labor, and h.h.s. and the acting social security commissioner, they must also have had to slip the notice of 10 members of the 2015 technical panel on assumptions and methods, which was commissioned by the social security advisory board and contained many recognized and highly respected experts, including a nobel prize-winning economist. in other words, mr. president, the pernicious and allegedly

billionaire-inspired assumptions that a single public trustee was somehow able to covertly insert into multiple trustee reports in order to overstate social security's financial challenges were so cleverly advanced that they eluded prominent obama administration officials, their staffs, 10 highly skilled expert researchers, and the social security advisory board staff. that's ridiculous. and only the chief actuary was able to detect the skulduggery. that's still not the end of it however. the nonpartisan congressional budget office, c.b.o., has also produced forecasts of social security's finances using some assumptions that differ from those used by the trustees for their report reports but which y

even greater financial challenges to the social security trust funds than those concluded in the recent trustee reports. this is the obama administration. according to senators warren, schumer, and whitehouses, dr. blahouse served as an agent for the kochs, was able to skew the trustees' reports with new england fair schuss a-- nefarious ashum sons as part of a right-wing war on social security -- unquote -- to play up the potential future insolvency of the program. even so, mr. president, he parntsly wasn't diabolical enough us what he ended up duping the other trustees into assigning lesser financial challenges to social security than those seen by the c.b.o. of course, perhaps my colleagues believe this antigovernment conspiracy has somehow

infiltrated c.b.o. as well, which is also controlled by the administration. if that's the case, perhaps they should come forward andreveal to the public just how deep the rabbit hole goes. needless to say, none of this is sensible. it doesn't even pass the laugh test, mr. president. and dr. blahouse's influence on the trustees' reports isn't the only thing my colleagues have overstated in their writings, tweets, and campaign materials. they also dramatically overstate the -- quote -- "r rebukes" issued by the chief actuary for 20914 and 2015 reports. it's actually shameful that three of my colleagues would do this. in truth, there actually were no rebukes or disagreements included in the actuary reports. in fact, for both years in question, the chief actuary

wrote that -- quote -- "the assumptions used and the resulting actuarial estimates are individually and in the aggregate reasonable for the purpose of evaluating the financial and actuarial status of the trust funds taking into consideration the past experience and future expectations for the population, the economy, and the program." unquote. now, there were caveats which largely reflected the chief actuary's own witness. but nothing that would call into question the integrity of the reports, as my colleagues claim. as i've said in the past, these tactics are, in my vw, shameful and they have little to do with protecting the promise of social security. instead, they are ^ 100% political, designed to serve as a proxy for what political

operatives hope will be an epic campaign battle over social security. something the other side constantly wages falsely. and as is too often the kairks the truth has taken a back seat to campaign talking points and fund-raising efforts. rather than engage in the substance of their preferred social security policies and those of their presumptive presidential nominee, my friends have opted to put forward false assertions and allegations that cannot be supported by the facts in order to attack a nominee's integrity and further a twisted story about supposed republican efforts to -- quote -- "privatize" -- unquote and "turn it over to wall street." now, mr. president, it's not hard to see why some of my friends on the other side and their political allies in the

activist community want to coninstruct this type -- construct this type of conspiracy with regard to social security. after all, in recent years, the only meaningful advancement to prolong the life of any social security trust fund took place last year under a republican-controlled congress. last year republicans put together a bipartisan package to avert benefit cuts for disability insurance beneficiaries. at best democrats only reluctantly came on board. that package which president obama signed into law contained no -- quote -- "privatization." the only thing close to a -- quote -- "benefit quote" was retirement claiming strategies based on provisions put forward in president obama's budget.

yet rather than help avert cuts for disabled american workers and improve the disability insurance program, many of my friends on the other side spent most of their energy last year raising campaign money by scaring social security beneficiaries and giving speeches claiming that republicans wanted to do nothing more than privatize social security and turn it over to wall street. we've been seeing those kind of tactics in every election for decades. and it's about time to call them on it. and to shame them on t. it's shameful. even with these constant attacks and distortions coming from my friends on the other side throughout 2015, republicans constructed a package that enacted the most meaningful reforms to social security in three decades and averted massive benefit cuts.

and we did so by dragging most democrats along kicking and screaming. so it's not surprising that my colleagues are feeling the pressure to reassert their claims of ownership of all things social security in this election cycle, which they seem to do every election cycle. falsely, by the way. it's shameful. by the way, in the midst of that 2015 debate, the prominent democratic senator gave a speech at the headquarters of a left-wing advocacy group, one that happens to receive funding from a noted leftist billionaire warning of -- quote -- "attacks from the far right" -- unquote -- on social security, back door attempts to dismantle and privatize social security by discrediting disability insurance -- -- unquote . that event was attended by the chief actuary of social security. it was also a speaker at the

event. and live tweeted by the social security administration. yet no one from the republican party published any inflammatory articles accusing the chief actuary of using his title or position in association with a politically partisan event. no one accused him of -- quote -- "burnishing his credentials" by speaking at a highly partisan event. certainly no one made claims of a vast leftist conspiracy to plant progressive sympathizers in influential positions in order to advance a leftist view on social security or to capture the agency. by contrast let's consider what that huffington post article that three of my democratic colleagues said about dr. charles blahous. the article claims that he -- quote -- "burnishes his credentials" -- unquote -- as a

public trustee by daring to write articles outside of his role as public trustee which identify and analyze financial challenges facing social security and medicare. gee, i would think that would be part of his responsibility. the article decries his affiliation with his own workplace calling it -- quote -- "a coch front group" which pursues "antigovernment agenda." essentially these senators are saying that if you dare have ideas and thoughts with which they disagree even if you offer them in reason writings and speeches, then you should be censored and deemed unfit to serve in any public capacity. mr. president, my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately injected needless politics into social security trustee reports and have threatened the integrity of

those very reports with their allegations as well as attacking an individual based on false claims. unfortunately it seems that in an election year, democrats are intent on constructing a -- quote -- "privatization" -- unquote -- straw man and using it to scare seniors into sending checks and votes to democrats, something that we've become pretty used to really. it's something that is despicable to say the least. and on election year politics they're apparently willing to sacrifice the transparency and integrate provided by the trustees' reports. indeed they've gone out of their way to claim that the reports are already politically compromised despite having no credible evidence that such is the case. none, zero.

mr. president, thanks to a bipartisan desire to have the facts on social security trust funds reportedly objectively and honestly, we've gone for decades with trustee reports that were largely free of political controversial. unfortunately some of my friends in the senate spurred on by their activist political operatives seem to no longer have that desire. it would truly be sad and not in the interest of current or future social security beneficiaries if trustees' reports now become mere political documents. while that is the realm my colleagues want to send us down at least during this election year, i plan to do all i can to ensure that will not become the case. i'm really concerned when i see people of this dimension in this greatest legislative body in the

world using the social security ploy again in such a despicable way. it's hard for me to understand. it's hard for anybody who looks at it carefully to understand. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president? mr. president, a question for the distinguished senator. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: from utah, the chair of the finance committee. so what are your proposals to stabilize the social security trust fund? mr. hatch: i'm sorry, i didn't -- ms. mikulski: the gentleman from utah said the democrats had politicized the debate. mr. hatch: i didn't say all of you have. ms. mikulski: but you did say we have injected politics into the social security debate and then

you talked about others have written those articles. i don't dispute what you said but because you have -- you do chair the finance committee, i wonder what your five ideas are for the stabilization of the trust fund and maybe we can find common ground because it is a troubling matter. mr. hatch: i'm willing to look at the trustees' reports on this. remember, there are five of them. i think there are five trustees? six trustees including mr. blahous who is the only republican. i'm not even sure he is a republican but i think he is. and they all signed off on these reports and they all indicated that we've got to be careful about social security or we're going to have a rough time keeping it stable. i don't think anybody in their right mind thinks we can continue to do what we're doing without finding some ways of -- ms. mikulski: right. so as the chair of the committee, my question to you is, what are your ideas so we

can find common ground? mr. hatch: my ideas are to not put out false information and false language. ms. mikulski: that's one we agree on. mr. hatch: okay, well, i'd have to say that our ideas are to find every way possible to stabilize the social security system. ms. mikulski: and what would be one? mr. hatch: well, who knows. all i can say is we've held hearings on it and we've had everything from more taxes to pay for it which isn't very exciting to most people around here to more government programs to pay for it, to any number of other social programs to pay for it. and, frankly, none of those have been picked up by either side, to be honest with you. now, it's apparent we're going to have to do something to shore up social security in the future. and the question is, are we going to just make it a sinkhole where all we do is pay more

money into it or are we going to live with reality that we're spending your selves blind in this country and -- spending your selves -- ourselves blind in this country. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i appreciate the gentleman from utah's response with whom i have a great deal of respect, but i want the record to show the democrats are not playing some kind of privatization card. this has been a proposal that has come from the other party time and time again to do that -- to do that -- mr. hatch: would the senator yield on that? ms. mikulski: mr. president, i believe i have the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland has the floor. ms. mikulski: we're not playing a social security card. we don't believe you should play with social security. that's why many of us opposed the chain cpi.

that's washington talk which would dramatically and irrevocably lower the cost of living with social security beneficiaries -- which social security beneficiaries get already. so speaking up to protect senior citizens to make sure that he get their cost of living is playing the social security card, deal me in. if talking about the social security solvency and trying to find common ground and trying to identify what are the basic proposals that we could at least discuss, that's not playing a card, but if it is -- but i don't believe in playing the card and i don't believe in playing the game. so let's not go around implying that democrats are somehow or another making social security a political football. it is a political football. but what i worry about is in the game of political football with social security, who gets kicked

around but the seniors. that's who gets kicked around in the game of political football on social security. yes, the stability of the trust fund is a very real issue, and i note that the ranking member on the finance committee is here and i ask the gentleman does he wish to speak or would he like me to continue -- mr. hatch: mr. president? the presidin a senator: i would say to my colleague i just walked in and i'm prepared to speak on another subject whenever it is convenient for my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. ms. mikulski: i haven't yield the floor yet. i asked because the distinguished gentleman from utah is the chairman of the finance committee. the vice chair has arrived and i didn't know if they had planned a colloquy or something, mr. chairman. so that's why i turned and asked him, but i was not giving up the

floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is not permitted to yield, apparently, but you're certainly permitted to speak. ms. mikulski: i thank the gentleman from ohio, the presiding officer. but we've been in session for over half an hour. i've only spoken five minutes. so i just want to reiterate that the solvency of social security and its trust fund is indeed of significant national interest. we've had a variety of commissions. we've had a lot of proposals. we've had a lot of meetings. and we now need to have the will to act, but the will to act goes at pinpointing solutions, not at finger pointing at people because of the political party they belong to. so, mr. president, i'm now going to yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president?

the presiding officer: thank you, the senator from maryland. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: we just fixed the disability insurance fund last year. i also point out the last time i recall anybody talking about privatization of social security was president clinton. now, last time i heard he was a democrat. now, all i'm saying is this. i don't know anybody on our side who's advocating right now that we should privatize social security. i think everybody is advocating we should shore it up and somehow or another strengthen it. i'm one of those people. and yet we have a number of senators here alleging that one of the six trustees is so out of line that he's got all the others to sign off on a report that social security needs some help. trying to say that this man, the republican, the only republican on the board of trustees is

trying to push a privatization schedule. that's what i'm bringing up, and i can say i heard democrats talk about privatization as well. it's one of the subjects i suppose that has to come up in conjunction with are we going to save social security? will we do what's necessary he here? are we just going to keep talking about it like we do year after year? and are we going to allow one side to continue to distort what social security is all about and do it to the detriment of every republican in this body who feels completely otherwise? that's what i'm talking about. i think most democrats want to help secure social security, as i do, but to use that as a political ploy every time we turn around every two years is

just plain not right. and that's what i'm decrying here today. we ought to all look and see what we can do to strengthen social security, and we ought to look at every possible way of doing so and then choose the best approaches we possibly can. but to have false allegations thrown out there just for political reasons, to scare the people out there who are on social security, unjustice justly -- unjustly scare them, i think is despicable. and i think we ought to put a stop to it and quit making social security the paddle ball for democrats in our political processes. i'm chairman of the finance committee. i have every desire to work with democrats to resolve all of these issues. and i'm open to whatever will help to resolve them, because our senior citizens deserve that type of treatment.

i want to make sure that we don't just make this a big political issue, as has been done here. blahous is a very, very important person, a strong personality, a strong, highly educated person who has given great service in this area. i juris don't think that it's -- i just don't think that it's proper to make him a symbol in what really is a false set of accusations, and i'm not going to put up with it, and i don't think anybody else should either. i don't think my colleagues on the other side, if they really understand the issue, should put up with it either. we've a had a body that works together in many, many good ways. i have total respect for the distinguished senator from maryland. she's someone i have worked with, who i want to work with.

she is thoughtful. she's done a great job on their committees, and she has a friend in me, and so do the three who have been doing this. they're friends, but they shouldn't be doing this. that's all i'm saying. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: colleagues, i believe the next vote will take place on the amendment offered by the senior senator from arizona that would allow for the issuance of what are called national security letters, or n.s.l.'s. these are administrative subpoenas. and there will be an additional provision on what is called lone wolf. i'm going to direct most of my comments for colleagues on the national security letters because the lone wolf provision

was reauthorized for another four years as part of the u.s.a. freedom act. so i want colleagues to understand that this tool, which certainly has been debated, while never used -- wouldn't have applied to the orlando or san bernardino cases -- i want colleagues to understand it is the law of the land today and in the u.s.a. freedom act was extended for another four years. what i'd like to do, though, is focus my remarks on the amendment from the senior senator from arizona as it relates to national security letters. and, in effect, what the senior senator from arizona is seeking to do is add back a provision

that the obamings about -- the h administration, the administration of george w. bush, not exactly an administration people would accuse of being soft on terror -- the senior senator from arizona is seeking to add back this provision that was rejected by the administration of george w. bush. and here's how the amendment offered by the senior senator from arizona would work. under his amendment, which we will vote on tomorrow, national security letters -- what are old n.s.l.'s -- could be issued by any f.b.i. field office to demand records from a company without going to a judge or without any other oversight

whatsoever. so let's just kind of repeat that, because what colleagues have wanted to know is exactly what this would cover. the mccain amendment would allow for the government to demand e-mail records, text message logs, web browsing history, and certain types of other location information without any court oversight whatsoever. now, as i've indicated, this had been on the books for a number of years, and the administration of george w. bush said it was unnecessary; in effect, that it was unnecessarily intrusive. and, in addition, since the bush administration acted, i want to make mention of the fact that in

the u.s.a. freedom act, the congress adopted something i had been working on for a number of years, since really 2013, to, in effect, give the government additional authority in the case of emergencies. in other words, i've always felt the fourth amendment and the warrant process was something that was very, very special in our country. but we live, mr. president, of course, in a very dangerous time. we're all concerned about the security and the safety and the well of -- and the well-being of the people we represent. so i said -- it was section 110 of the freedom act. i said, let's be sure the f.b.i. has all the authorities necessary to protect the american people in the instance of an emergency. so, in effect, in the u.s.a.

freedom act, we gave the f.b.i. the authority to demand all the records they deemed necessary and then, in effect, after the fact -- after the fact -- come back and settle up with the court. so unless you're opposed to court oversight after the fact -- in fact, unless you're opposed to court oversight altogether, there is no reason to support the amendment offered by the senior senator from north dakota. now, a number of colleagues have also asked about the history of these national security letters. there is a long history of abuse and misuse, a long and very

undistinguished record of abusive practices. the justice department inspector general has issued four separate reports over the past few years. four separate reports, mr. president documenting a number of serious problems. the inspector general found that data collected pursuant to the national security letters stored indefinitely, used to gain access to private information in cases that weren't relevant to an f.b.i. investigation, the national security letters were used to collect tens of thousands of records at a time. now, some have also made mention of the fact that a company that gets one of these national security letters could challenge them in court.

technically right. big companies that have the resources can challenge them. the small companies invariably say they can't afford to do that. so, again, no oversight. no oversight, particularly striking, given the fact, mr. president, as i've noted, in the freedom act was something i felt very strongly about. we gave the government additional authority in the instance of emergencies. so we have now, by virtue of the amendment that we'll vote on tomorrow from my friend and colleague -- we certainly have agreed on plenty of issues over the years; this is one where we see it differently. you have something that the bush administration objected, the

administration of bush administration, hardly ones that we would say are sympathetic to the idea of weakening the government's stance against terror. they thought it was a mistake. they thought the amendment that there will be an effort to add back in, they thought it was a mistake, and it was taken out. this would not have beefed up the fight against what happened in san bernardino and orlando. the f.b.i. says it would help them with paperwork. i'm not going to quibble with that. i have great respect for the f.b.i. but we're going to abandon court oversight in an area where the inspector general has documented abuses because it's convenient? colleagues -- and i'll close

with this -- it is a dangerous time. you sit on the intelligence committee, as i have, for a number of years, that's not in question. the american people want policies that promote their security and their liberty. that's what we're aiming for. what's being advanced in this amendment is an idea that really doesn't do either. it doesn't advance the security and well-being of the american people, and it certainly erodes their liberties. so i hope tomorrow when we have the vote on this amendment, that colleagues will look at the history rejected by the bush administration. now we have emergency authority, colleagues, for the government to get information when it needs it, after the fact, the government can come back and

settle up. this amendment, i think, is a very substantial mistake. there's been a long history documented by the inspector general of abuses with these national security letters, and i urge my colleagues tomorrow to oppose this amendment. and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from oozesenator from a. mr. mccain: the white house approved the f.b.i.'s request for this fix and sent forward a proposal which f.b.i. director james comey, who i think is well-respected -- in fact, one of the most well-respected men in america -- summed up the importance of this amendment. the director of the f.b.i. into one that i know of has accused the director of the

f.b.i. of trying to adopt some unconstitutional practices or gather power upon himself and his agency. here's what he said. "this amendment would be enormously helpful. there is essentially" -- despite what the senator from oregon says. he says, "this is slings a typo in the law that was passed a number of years ago that requires us to get records, ordinary transaction records, that we can get in con2ebgs with a non-court order because it doesn't involve content of any kind, to go to the fisa doter get a court toured get these records, nobody intended that." that's what the director of the f.b.i. says. that's what the record shows is important, as the director of the f.b.i. nobody intended that. nobody i've heard thinks that's necessary. it would save us a tremendous amount of work hours if we could fix that without any compromise to anyone's civil liberties or

civil rights." i agree with the director of the f.b.i. this amendment -- i'm astounded very frankly that there's not a unanimous vote on this. it's simple. if the f.b.i. is able to go into your financial written records, if they're able to go into your telephone records, then pray tell what is the difference between those and electronic records? it just so happens the electronic records are much larger. don't take my word for it, i say to my colleagues, but i would listen to the federal law enforcement officers association, that renowned corrupt organization. they say -- the federal law enforcement officers association, the nation's largest nonpartisan professional association which represents federal law enforcement officers

from every federal law enforcement agents, including the f.b.i., strongly support, strongly support this amendment. and they go on to say, again contrary to what the senator from oregon says, what the federal law enforcement officers association says -- quote -- "this amendment would correct an oversight in the law that has impeded the f.b.i.'s ability to obtain these records in national security cases on a timely basis." so they go on to say "over 0 -- 15 years including eight years after 9/11, the f.b.i. continue to use, they want to have to gather electronic transactional authority records." it goes on to say the amendment is necessary to protect america from terrorist threats and

transnational criminal organizations. this is what those men and women, the thousands of them that are members of this organization, the list is incredibly long, the federal law enforcement agencies, they believe that this amendment is necessary to protect them and america from terrorist threats and transnational criminal organizations. it's pretty clear. i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the federal law enforcement officers association letter be made part of the record, and the national fraternal order of police letter be made part of the record. and the federal bureau of investigation agents associations be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: so let me go on. here's the federal bureau of investigation agents association. it says this is a voluntary professional association

currently representing over 13,000 active duty and retired f.b.i. special agents. now here's 13,000 f.b.i. agents, act and retired, that believe that this amendment is essential for them to be able to do their job and protect america. by the way, hello, we just had an attack in orlando, 49 americans were slaughtered. and here we are arguing whether we should allow the f.b.i. to find out not the information in electronic communications but just find out about electronic communications. that's what this is about. i quote from the 13,000 active-duty and retired f.b.i. special agents. i write to express our support for addressing issues related to electronic communications transactional records, ectr's.

it goes on. the relevant referred to as the ectr fix would be wholly consistent with the effort to update electronic privacy laws and would help the f.b.i. more effectively investigate and thwart terrorist plots. don't we after orlando want to help the f.b.i. more effectively investigate and thwart terrorist plots? do we want to restrict their ability to do so? is that what the senator from oregon wants? i don't think so. not withstanding the well-funded efforts by technology companies. the truth is that clarifying the language would strike a familiar and effective balance between privacy and security. the ectr's provide information about the i.p. addresses routing and sessions times for electronic communications and electronic service providers have complied with f.b.i.

requests pursuant for years. so we go on. given the importance of protecting the public from terrorist threats, we support an amendment to include the ectr fix as well as the efforts to address the issue through other legislative vehicles. we hope congress will make these reasonable and commonsense changes in a timely manner. signed renaldo terees, the president of the federal bureau of investigation agents association. so you've got a choice here. you've got a choice here. those that are so worried about privacy and those whose job, whose solemn duty is to protect this nation. federal law enforcement officers, f.b.i., 13,000 of the f.b.i. agents. then of course we have those that are under assault on a

daily basis, our police. and this is a letter from the fraternal order of police writing on behalf of members of the fraternal order of police to advise you of our support for this amendment which will be offered. the amendment will provide federal law enforcement with the tools they need to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks. it isn't any more complicated than that. my remarks probably will be a little longer, but the fraternal order of police have it right. this will be an ability to prevent and counter further terrorist attacks. how many attacks do we need? how many attacks, i would ask my colleagues who are opposed to this simple amendment? how many attacks? another san bernardino? another orlando? two or three more? before we give the director of the f.b.i. the tools that he says he needs and wants to protect this nation.

that's what this is all about. so the fraternal order of police goes on to say the amendment would make clear congressional intent, that such requests do not allow access to any content, but that name, e-mail protocol, i.p. and physical addresses, telephone and account number, length and type of service as well as the means by which the service is paid for be made available to law enforcement. now the senator from oregon, if i got his remarks right, say, well, there's been corruption of it. there's been abuse. there's been misapplication. it's one of our jobs, it's one of our jobs of oversight if that's happening. but i also would say that's a damning indictment of these men and women who are putting their lives on the line every single

day and are begging for this tool to defend this nation. so fraternal order of police says i urge you and the members of the united states senate to support the amendment to ensure timeliness and effectiveness of our nation's counter terror and counter intelligence operations. our nation's security and defense should not be held hostage -- our nation's security and defense should not be held hostage or investigations jeopardized because of a typo. thank you as always for your consideration of the views of more than 330,000 members of the fraternal order of police. these are the views of more than 330,000 members of the fraternal order of police.

i kind of think that maybe the will of 330,000 men and women who are out there every day defending this nation, maybe we ought to listen to them. maybe they are the ones, they are the ones whose lives are in danger. they are the ones who are the first targets of the terrorists. maybe we ought to listen to their views rather than some misguided view that somehow this invades your privacy. to find out, to find out simply whether an address has been used and for how long -- not content. if content is involved, that requires going to the fisa court. so last week the director of the f.b.i. appeared before a rare open session of the senate intelligence committee to deliver a stern warning to the american people. isis has built a global apparatus with the intent to

plot and incite attacks against the west. he explained that despite our two-year air campaign in iraq and syria and debts -- despite efforts to build and fight with local forces and despite the best work of our special operators, isil and other terrorist groups continue to evolve and plan to kill innocent americans who reject their hateful ideology. that's the warning of the director of the c.i.a. the c.i.a.'s warning obviously comes after the attack. it's remarkable. the c.i.a.'s notice about isil's continued strength followed years of warning by the director of the f.b.i. and others in law enforcement who have explained to policy-makers time and time again that the use of advanced technologies by our enemies is making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement to uncover and stop attacks. that's their view. we give these people the

responsibility to defend this nation, particularly against these attacks, and they're telling us that they can't adequately defend against these attacks because of a provision that we have that they can't even look at the fact that a site was used. so -- and by the way, if the senator from oregon and others believe that this is an invasion of privacy, then why don't they propose an amendment that telephone and financial records should also be in that same category. of course that has the problem with being consistent. the law allows the f.b.i. to request telephone billing information, financial transaction records. but terrorists don't radicalize by phone and they don't listen to isil propaganda through

financial transactions. they radicalize through the internet. i repeat, they radicalize through the internet. so if they're radicalizing through the internet, shouldn't we gain as much possible information as we can by monitoring their use of the internet? reports indicate that in 2013, the orlando terrorist was removed from a terrorist watch list because there was insufficient information showing he was radicalized and therefore a threat. perhaps, perhaps, and i emphasize perhaps, if the f.b.i. had more effective authorities that allowed them to more easily determine internet activity of those suspected of radicalization, he would have remained perhaps on the watch list. currently the f.b.i. can only receive electronic transactional records information by going

through the fisa court process which is a time-intensive process. it often takes over a month. thousands of potential radicalized individuals already in the united states, with need to make it easier, not harder, for the f.b.i. to receive the critical evidence that they need so they can focus their investigation. so, let me state again to the benefit of my colleagues, clearly, what this provision does not do, it does not allow the f.b.i. to see the content of e-mails or conversation in internet chat rooms. as i said before, this provision is narrowly drawn and carefully limited. the administration, congress, the national security experts from both sides of the aisle have spoken repeatedly about taking on isil's internet radicalism. this provision, according to the director of the f.b.i., is a

most important tool to give the f.b.i. valuable data points to do just that. we face the threat from individuals who have been radicalized by the words, actions and ideology of terrorist groups. these individuals may act alone without clear direction from terrorist groups. but they fulfill the intent and desire of these groups. we must ensure that our law enforcement authorities keep pace with the tactics and methods of our adversary. if our adversaries seek to attack us by inciting lone wolf violence, we've got to make sure that law enforcement has the authorities they need to investigation and, we hope, stop those attacks. our intelligence and law enforcement officers are the best in the world. but as terrorist networks grow and metastasize around the world, we ask them to bear an increasingly difficult, some even say impossible, burden. we ask them to uncover threats

by individuals who are hidden among millions of law-abiding citizens. we ask them to determine which of us has been inspired by evil to do harm on our fellow citizens. and we ask that they do this difficult task with little or no impact on anyone's privacy. we have to recognize this threat for what it is. as our enemy evolves, so, too, we must evolve and strengthen our counterterrorism tools and authorities. let's stop tying the hands of those who wish only to keep us safe and on many occasions are ready to make themselves unsafe in order to protect our fellow citizens. so i guess my colleagues are presented with a choice here. you can, as the senator from oregon with great skill and

oratorical tools will talk about the rights of privacy and will talk about constitutional protections, all of those things. this is simple. this is a simple amendment. it has nothing to do with going into these sites and finding out information. that requires going to court. all it does is tell the f.b.i., whose director has pled for this capability, do you think -- does anyone assume that the director of the f.b.i. wants to act in an unconstitutional fashion? of course not. but you must accept the fact that it's his responsibility to protect the nation and therefore when he asks for the tools to protect this nation, then maybe we ought to pay attention and give them to him. i know of no one, i know of no one that was an objective observer who believes that it would be unconstitutional to adopt this amendment. i don't know about abuses in the

past that the senator from oregon says that have taken place. i know that abuses have taken place in the past on almost any aspect of american life. but i also know that when you have all of our police, 13,000 of them, 21 -- 330,000 of them representing them, 13,000 of the federal bureau of investigation, federal law enforcement agencies from all over america, the list is incredibly long, that they are all asking for the ability to defend this nation, by god i think we should give it to them. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: the senior senator from arizona, as i mentioned i worked with often, has said in effect if you oppose his amendment, you're interested in privacy.

the reality is my interest is in privacy and security, and i believe it is possible to have both, and i want to explain how that is the case. in the u.s.a. freedom act, mr. president, it was something i worked on for a long, long time. we included section 110 -- excuse me, 102, and section 102 said very explicitly that if the government, if the f.b.i. in a situation like orlando or san bernadino, for example, if the government believed that it needed information immediately, immediately, the government could get the information and then go back to the court after the fact. in effect settle up after the

government had been able to get the information of its own volition immediately so as to protect the american people. so what this is a debate about is are we going to have policies that advance both our security and our liberty? and i have felt very strongly, i see my seatmate, the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee. we sit next to each other on the intelligence committee. we talk about these issues often. and i pushed very, very hard as part of the u.s.a. freedom act of making sure that the government had those emergency authorities. this is a dangerous time. nobody disputes that. if you have been on the intelligence committee, as senator mikulski and i have for many years, that is not in

question. this is a dangerous time. the question is, are we going to have both security and liberty? and that's, in my view, where the amendment from the senior senator from arizona comes up short. that's number one. number two, the senator from arizona has said that the problem that he seeks to correct was just a typo, kind of a clerical error. not even close. the debate. back in 1993, we have the record, mr. president, we have the record. the house, the senate, the f.b.i., it was very carefully crafted in a way to ensure that there would not be abuse in the

digital area. when you look at that specifically, that is very clear. this was not a typo. this was carefully crafted. house, senate, f.b.i., 1993. when my friend from arizona says it was a typo, not even close, and i hope colleagues will avail themselves of our offer to look at the record. right now, nobody from the government, the f.b.i. has not said if it had the power, if it had the power that the senator from arizona seeks to give the government, nobody in the intelligence field or in the government said it would have prevented orlando.

the fact is the government has the authority, the emergency authority, and it was something i pushed very hard for. it was right at the core of my belief that we ought to be pushing for both security and liberty at a dangerous time and that the two are not mutually exclusive, so we added to the u.s.a. freedom act that emergency authority for the government, but it is also true that the administration of george w. bush specifically rejected the idea that the senator from arizona is calling for. they specifically said that this has created problems, and now there have been four separate inspector general analyses that support that. so i hope, as we continue this

discussion, that colleagues will see that we ought to keep the focus on both security and liberty, and that's why the emergency authorities we got in the u.s.a. freedom act are so important. they are intact. they can be used for any situation -- orlando, san bernadino -- and the other where the government, the f.b.i. feels that the security and safety of the american people are at stake with respect to the lone wolf provision, which i heard my colleague mention, we reauthorized that for four years in the u.s.a. freedom act. i supported that as well. so i just hope colleagues will really think through the implications of the amendment from the senator from arizona because under what he is talking about, the national security letter was called in the n.s.l.,

can be issued by any f.b.i. field office to demand records from a company without going to a judge, and in effect to support this, you basically are saying that you don't support oversight. you don't support court oversight because we have given the court the ability and the government to move quickly. so i hope that tomorrow we don't conclude that the f.b.i. ought to be able to demand email records, text message logs, web browsing history, certain types of location information without court oversight. the gentleman from arizona says well, you're not going to get all the content of those emails. that's true, but the fact of the matter is in a lot of instances when you know who emailed who,

you know a whole lot about that person. somebody emailed the psychiatrist four times in 48 hours, you know a whole lot about the person. you don't have to see all of the content of the email. so, colleagues, we'll discuss this some more, but i hope that senators will see that this is about ensuring that there is both security and liberty. the government has not said or intimated that if they had the power that the senator from arizona seeks to put back, that the bush administration rejected, the government has not said or intimated that this would have prevented the horrific tragedy in orlando. i hope my colleagues will oppose the mccain amendment tomorrow, and i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we have heard a spirited debate today between two distinguished senators, two distinguished americans who are very passionate about defending america, and i know there will be more debate on this. the gentleman from arizona and those who cosponsor his amendment want to add more authority to the f.b.i. i rise to say that in the next day when our amendment process returns to -- when there is an opportunity to offer another amendment, i will be offering an amendment to give the f.b.i. more money to do the job with the authority that it does have. right now, working on a bipartisan basis, the

distinguished senator from alabama and i try to produce a very good bill to fund the justice department, one of which was the f.b.i. we did do a good job. there is no doubt about it. but we operated within the budget caps, and within that we did the best we could, but that there is no doubt that the f.b.i. could use more resources to be able to enhance its counterterrorism efforts and also increase its surveillance by tracking the terrorist threats. so when the opportunity arises, i will be offering an amendment that gives more money to the f.b.i., that also gives more money working with senator -- the senator from wisconsin, senator baldwin, to deal with hate crimes, one of the other significant issues here, and also while we're talking about

again the more authority issue, this amendment would include a section by senator leahy, the vice chair of the judiciary committee that would have tough penalties for those who knowingly transfer or receive a firearm or know or have reasonable cause to believe that it will be used to commit a crime of terrorism, violence or drug trafficking. it will reduce the threat. so we can debate all we want about more authority for the f.b.i., and i think it's a good debate. the tension between security and civil liberties. the distinguished presiding officer is also a member, an active, diligent member of the intelligence committee. so these are not easy issues. but my amendment should be an easy issue. my amendment would add $175 million dedicated to the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism

efforts that would raise funding for the f.b.i. above what the house suggested. it would strengthen the f.b.i.'s counterterrorism work force. the f.b.i. was able to restore -- now, remember, not add but restore more than 350 positions, including 225 special agents for critical f.b.i. investigations related to counterterrorism and counterintelligence. it would also give the f.b.i. new tools to be able to go where these bad guys have access to new technology and new ways of avoiding detection. the number of terrorism threats disrupted by the f.b.i. grew from 214 in fiscal year 2014 to 440 in fiscal 2015.

so in one fiscal year, it almos. and as the threat grows, the f.b.i. needs increased resources to hire and sustain the agents and intelligence analysts who interrupt these plots. again, while we're talking more authority -- and that debate will go on -- i'm saying if you're going to give them more authority and whether you're not giving them more authority, the f.b.i. is really stretched thin. we did the best we could under the budget caps, but my amendment would be emergency funding. we don't look for offsets to be able to take from one important department of justice function to give to the f.b.i. or take to other federal law enforcement to give to the f.b.i. or to take from local law enforcement to give to the f.b.i. and it would be a tremendous

boost. it would also boost the f.b.i. surveillance capabilities and add critical personnel including special agents. additional funds would be provided for 36 new positions, 18 fully dedicated to tracking terrorist threats. and it would certainly help to gather evidence with high, high priority targets. so again, while we're looking at more authority, please regardless of where you come on the lone wolf debate, the mikulski amendment offers the opportunity to add more funding. mr. wyden: would my colleague yield for a question? ms. mikulski: certainly to the gentleman from oregon. mr. wyden: i appreciate my colleague yielding. i am a very, very strong supporter of your amendment because i think the idea of adding more resources is absolutely essential. and as i look at these cases --

and you and i have talked about on the intelligence committee, we know that the workforce is aging in the intelligence community. we're going to need more dollars for personnel. we're going to need certainly a lot of resources in a variety of areas. is that my colleague's intention, to make sure that we get the resources to in effect get out in front of these upcoming threats? ms. mikulski: the gentleman has identified my rationale and its actual underpinnings in a more accurate and precise way. you see, i'm from the school of thought along with, i know, the vice chair of the armed services committee, also a member of the appropriations committee, that the defense of the nation and the protection of its people doesn't only rely on the department of defense. there's another muscular way of also protecting it, and one of which is, first of all, response and surveillance and so on.

in existing constitutionally allowed authorities, in giving more money to the f.b.i. to operate under the law as we have currently defined it. but you know what? we need to dough prevention. -- we need to do prevention. prevention comes from really the kind of intervention that would occur. the state department, again a tool of diplomacy. what they do has a whole effort underway to deal with the recruitment and radicalization of islamic jihadist terrorists on the internet. we've got to support that. when they were going for more money for defense, we made that argument. i'm not going to relitigate old arguments. we have before us orlando. we have before us those who want to curtail the terrorist threat. i want to curtail that terrorist

threat. and one of the ways i want to do it is, number one, add more money for the f.b.i. number two, join with our colleague from wisconsin, senator tammy baldwin. when adding more money to deal with hate crimes, hate crimes, because often that is the aegis and incubator and so on of future violence. and then the other is to close the loophole to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, violent criminals and traffickers that our distinguished chair -- vice chair of the judiciary committee. mr. wyden: if my colleague would yield just briefly, what you have stated, which i strongly agree on, is you're trying to ensure that the resources are there for the future. i'm not going to drag my colleague into the earlier discussion. but what i was concerned about and have been is as the senator from arizona was relitigating the past in effect when the bush administration took away this

power because it was too intrusive, he wanted to go back to it. i propose to my colleague isn't that the heart of your case, that you are looking to the future, f.b.i. resources, resources to deal with hate crimes, resources to deal with prevention? it seems to me you're lying though lay out a blueprint for the future. ms. mikulski: the gentleman is absolutely correct. this would be funding that would begin october 1. given no cute tricks between shutdown and slamdown politics as we go into the fall that we actually could move our appropriations, this would provide money starting october 1 for these additional resources to help the f.b.i. be even more effective than twa it is and also to help our justice department being more effective than what it is in fighting hate crimes. mr. president, i will be discussing my amendment in even more detail, but i know that there are other colleagues on the floor.

i now yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i have come to the floor once again, as i have time and time again, with a simple message for puerto rico time is of the essence for the 3.5 million united states citizens who live there, time is of the essence. but getting it right is also of the essence. there are only eight business days left until puerto rico defaults on approximately $2 billion in debt. congress needs to act immediately to prevent this fiscal crisis from becoming a full-blown humanitarian

catastrophe. and while the house has attended to address -- attempted to address this issue by passing a legislative proposal called pro mesa, which means in spanish promise, it lacks the promise that would help the 3.5 million citizens in puerto rico. there are members here on both sides of the aisle who believe the bill is fundamentally flawed. so instead of simply rubber-stamping an inferior solution, the senate needs to follow the founding fathers' intent and thoroughly debate this critical issue which will have such a profound impact on so many americans. now i'd note that calls for a thorough debate on the senate floor are bipartisan in nature, and i thank my colleague senator wicker in joining me in a letter to the leadership asking for a full and open process to consider this bill.

and i'd remind my colleagues that each one of us was elected to this very chamber to debate and enact legislation to improve the lives of americans. but i fear that instead of a robust debate and thoughtful consideration of amendments to improve this bill, those who wish to see the house bill signed into law as drafted are going to delay and delay and delay until the last possible minute. just like they did today, they're going to prevent us from debating this until next week. and then they'll tell us it's too late to make any improvements to this bill. as a matter of fact, every article that i've read suggested that's exactly the tactic that is being pursued. so i come to the floor because it's not a new or novel tactic to quell dissent with the threat

of a deadline. but just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. how can we as united states senators shirk our responsibility when the people of puerto rico are at the edge of an abyss. they need our help and they need it today. the bill will affect a generation of puerto ricoans, and we owe it to them and their brothers and sisters who live in my state, half a million in my state of new jersey, five million throughout the country, to get this right. now let me once again remind everyone of my colleagues how deeply flawed this legislation is. first, the fate of 3.5 million american citizens will be determined by seven unelected, unaccountable members of a so-called oversight board that will act as a virtually oligarchy and impose their un-l

checked will on the 3.5 million united states citizens on the island of puerto rico. as the nonpartisan congressional budget office states, the board would have broad sovereign, sovereign words have meaning, sovereign powers to effectively overrule decisions by puerto rico's legislature, its governor and other public authorities. it can effectively nullify any new law or policy -- any new law or policy adopted by puerto rico that did not conform to the requirements specified in this bill. so the elected representatives of the 3.5 million united states citizens on the island of puerto rico, they just don't get listened to. they can't have their decisions overruled by a nonelected board

for which there is no guarantee that there will be any r-pgs by those who are elected to recommend to this board anyone to be placed on it. even the bill's own author noted in the interior committee's report -- quote -- "the oversight board may impose mandatory cuts on puerto rico's government and instrumentates. mandatory cuts. a power far beyond that kpwersed by the control bart established for the district of columbia. if the board in its sole discretion, which those words have enormous meaning if my colleagues take the time to read the bill as i have twice fully from the beginning to the end, 29 times the bill says that the

board in its sole discretion -- not the congress's discretion, not the bankruptcy court, not anybody, not the legislature of puerto rico, not the governor of puerto rico. no. the board in its own sole discretion, 29 times, uses the super pourp -- power that this bill allows it to have to close more schools, shutter more schools, more hospitals, cut senior citizens' pensions to the bone, if it decides to hold a fire sale and put puerto rico's national ron tkers on the auction block -- wonders on the auction block to the highest bidder, if it puts balanced budgets ahead of of the safety of families and family similar to the travesty that unfolded in flint, michigan, without their voices represented on the control board, there is nothing -- nothing -- that the people of puerto rico will be able to do. think about this. how many here in this

legislative body would allow such a board to take control over their state, no matter what their economic woes? the people on the island deserve a transparent oversight board where their voices and concerns are heard, not muted. where the deals made with creditors are in the best interest of the people, not just hedge funds. the fact that the puerto rican people will have absolutely no say over who is appointed or what action they decide to take is blatant, blatant neocolonialism. second, i said this before and i'll say it again, any solution needs a clear path to restructuring. that's the reason to do this legislation is to give puerto rico a clear path to restructuring in the bankruptcy court under the edicts of the bankruptcy law. the unelected control board created in this bill will have the authority to decide whether

puerto rico's debts are worthy of restructuring. so let's not fool ourselves in believing it's a sure thing that this bill guarantees the island the ability to restructure its debts in the first place. instead, the seven-member board, it would take a super skwrord of 5-2 vote by the control board in order for any of the island's debts to be restructured. what does that mean? it means that three people, a minority of the board, could derail the island's attempts to achieve sustainable debt payments. and without any authority to restructure its debt, all this legislation will do is take away the democratic rights of millions of americans and leave the future of wishful thinking and a prayer that the crisis will somehow be resolved. mr. president, i'm afraid we're opening the floodgates for

puerto rico to become a laboratory for right-wing economic policies. puerto rico deserves much more than to be the unwilling host of untested experiments in austerity. i'm not advocating to completely remove all oversight power. to the contrary, i support helping puerto rico making informed, improved decisions that put it on the path to economic growth and solvency. but despy -- despite its name, the oversight borden visioned by this bill doesn't simply oversee. it directs. it commands. it doesn't assist. it controls. so, mr. president, the senate has an opportunity to change that situation. we have a chance to improve this bill and strike the right balance. now, i would like to have the opportunity, and i welcome others as well, to offer a number of targeted commonsense amendments to restore a proper balance and ensure that the people of puerto rico have a say

in their future. by the way, because they are going to have to live with the tough consequences that are coming no matter what. it is always better when you have stakeholders engaged in the process to have a say about their future, and to temper the powers of the control board and give the people of puerto rico more of a same of who is on the board. and i encourage my colleagues to do the same, to offer amendments that they feel will improve the bill. i know, as all of us know, success is never guaranteed, but at the very least, the people of puerto rico deserve a thorough and thoughtful debate on the senate floor. i do not take lightly nor should my colleagues a decision to infringe upon the democratic rights of the people of puerto rico. the 3.5 million american citizens living in puerto rico, there are five million family members living in our state and in our districts in new jersey, in new york, in florida, in

pennsylvania, in ohio, just to mention a few, in connecticut. they deserve more than the senate holding its nose to approve an inferior solution. so i hope the majority leader stands true to his word when he said -- quote -- "we need to open up the legislative process in a way that allows more amendments on both sides. both sides are calling for amendments to this bill. and allow us to call this bill up for debate so we can do what we are elected to do, fix problems and make the lives of the american people better and do what the senate as an institution is particularly viewed by the founding fathers. to take the passions of the moment, think about it more logically at the end of the day and hopefully to refine and make proposals much better. now, there is no reason that this has to wait until next week on the verge of the fourth of july recess, but i will say thiy

colleagues a notice now that i am not ready to rush to celebrate independence and create a situation of colonialism for 3.5 million of my fellow citizens. so i hope we will get an early opportunity to debate this bill, offer amendments, and we'll see how it falls then. so in view of that desire, i ask unanimous consent to lay before the senate house message s. 2328, that the motion to concur with an amendment be considered made and agreed to with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i would just say to our friend from new jersey that it is the plan publicly announced by the majority leader to bring this legislation that's passed by the house to the floor of the senate next week. obviously, we are working on the c.j.s. appropriation bill and our deliberation on that has

been delayed by a number of the other amendments and other matters that have been voted on this week, but it has always been the intention of the majority leader to allow senators to offer amendments, unlike frankly when democrats control this chamber, but i do think it's going to require some cooperation and maybe even some consent agreements to agree to amendments that can be resolved in time to meet the july 1 deadline. to me, one of the best arguments in favor of this legislation is we want to avoid a taxpayer bailout. we want to avoid a taxpayer bailout. this legislation from the house does that. i understand the senator may have some objections to it, somber ideas in his mind, but we're going to have that opportunity next week. and if we want to see what the effect of left-wing fiscal

policy is, what we see is the bankruptcy that's occurring in puerto rico now, and i think they need to try something else, some fiscal responsibility and restraint, and frankly i worry for the rest of the country that if we don't do something about -- to get our own fiscal house in order here in the united states senate, that the rest of the country is going to find itself in dire straits at some point in the not-too-distant future. so i would just say that we're going to have a chance to have that debate and those votes next week. this is not the time to do it because we have other important work that's pending before the senate, nor the rest of us 99 senators are going to agree to a unanimous consent request to legislation we haven't even read or had the time to consider. so, mr. president, under those circumstances, i would be compelled to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i am disappointed but not surprised. i do hope that the senator from

texas' remarks that there will be time and opportunity for amendments is real, because every published report i have seen suggests this would be brought up next thursday on the verge of everybody trying to go on a recess, and my advocacy, my unanimous consent request wasn't to bring a bill to the floor that isn't already known. that bill has been out there for some time. it is to create the process to debate and begin to amend the bill. the bill passed by the house of representatives that has been out there for some time now, so i wasn't offering a bill of my own vision. it was to create a process. and of course i respect the importance of the present appropriations bill that we're discussing, but the urgency of the term limit as it relates to the default that can take place in july is not as pressing on that appropriations bill as it is for the people of puerto

rico, so i think there can be a reasonable opportunity to move to promesa, a false promise in my view, and a real opportunity to have debate on it. and more than debate. amendments, amendments to make it better. so i hope that's what's going to happen, but i want to signal now that if we're jammed on thursday and it's an up-or-down vote, take it or leave it, that i have every intention of doing whatever i can procedurally to make sure we have amendments on this. as it relates to the question of bankruptcy and bailout, we're not bailing anybody out here. that's why we want puerto rico to have access to restructuring. restructuring is a provision under the bankruptcy code that you take your debts whether you are an individual, a company or in this case a government, and you go before the bankruptcy court and you say here is all of our debts, here is our income.

we want to be able to restructure this in such a way that we can be solvent and at the same time be responsible to those debtors. and they will live with the dictates of the bankruptcy court, but this bill doesn't even guarantee that the bailout that my colleague is concerned about doesn't happen because it guarantees no absolute road to restructuring. and as it relates to left-wing policies, i would just note that someone who has been an advocate and a voice for the people of puerto rico for the 24 years i have been in the congress, since they have no elected leader -- representatives here who have a vote at the end of the day, there have been leaders of that government in puerto rico, many who have been republican in nature and others who have been democrat in nature, and the policies that have taken place that have accrued to this moment is a combination of some bad fiscal policies by leaders on both sides of the aisle, but also by policies that treat the

3.5 million united states citizens in puerto rico inferior to any one of them if they took a flight to any state in the nation for which they would have full rights, obligations and benefits. and so we have been part of creating the process here, and we have been part when we took away section 936 that was an inducement to the private sector to help build jobs and economic opportunity, we just took it away. they had provisions to elements of the bankruptcy code. somehow in the middle of the night, that was taken away from them, so we have treated them like a colony. and now we're worried. as it relates to left-wing policies, let me just say if raising incomes of people, if saying to people there should be a minimum wage that can sustain your family and help you realize your hopes and dreams and aspirations, if you're working overtime and you ultimately should have some protections that you should be paying over time, if that's left-wing fiscal

policy, then i think most americans believe that they should get a living minimum wage to be able to sustain their families, help their children be educated, take care of their health care and think about their retirement. so i don't -- i don't think this is about that at all, and if we are going to lose a fight for the people of puerto rico, it's going to be because we're going to have a fight at least to have amendments to consider what that future should be, but we're not going to take that as an up-or-down vote on a house-passed bill that has no voice of the senate, no imprint of the senate. that's not what i got elected to the united states senate for. with that, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, tomorrow we will have a chance to begin to talk about the real cause of what happened that horrible night in orlando at the pulse nightclub, and that is a home-grown terrorist attack

inspired by the poisonous ideology of isis, the islamic state, and we'll have a chance to revisit the total lack of any coherent plan coming out of the white house to deal with the threat of the islamic state over in the middle east and the consequences of failing to deal with that here at home. the poisonous fruit of that failure is already self-evident. a massacre of american soldiers at fort hood, texas, in 2009 took the lives of 13 people and an unborn child. a deadly attack on two military facilities in chattanooga, tennessee, in 2015, that took the lives of five u.s. service members. an attempted attack in garland, texas, about a year ago that but for a vigilant security officer was -- was thwarted, that could

have been disastrous. and then of course the shooting in san bernadino where 14 people were killed. add to that poisonous fruit of the failure to have a coherent policy to deal with the islamic state and its poison. the 2013 boston marathon bombing where three were killed and hundreds more wounded. not by a gun but by a pressure cooker bomber made by the terrorists. and most recently the worst terror attack in our country since 9/11 in orlando where a jihadist who pledged his allegiance to isis and then viciously gunned down 49 people in that orlando nightclub. it is telling that the attorney general sought to withhold from the american people the 911 calls to the orlando shooter, to excise out, to rewrite history

and to diminish the terrorist influences that motivated him in the first place. and it is further evidence that the obama administration fails to see what is plainly right in front of its face when it comes to the threat and continues to refuse to deal with it in a way that would crush isis, and it would discourage people from becoming radicalized because they feel like isis is winning. if isis was crushed and destroyed, which should be our goal, i don't believe you're going to have radicalized americans here pledging allegiance with the leader of a crushed or destroyed islamic state. so jihadi terrorism on american soil is not just some one off, some freak occurrence, it's now an undeniable pattern. how many isis-inspired attacks

do we need in this country before we start talking about and taking the threat seriously and begin targeting the evil ideology it's selling? typically, in an investigation, law enforcement have to work hours on end to answer the question of who did it, but that's not the case with these examples of islamic extremism. we know who the enemy is, but the obama administration has failed to call it for what it is. and the president has failed to offer any strategy to root out and exterminate promises to defeat and degrade appear just about as hollow as the president's threat of retaliatory action if red lines were crossed with the use of chemicals in syria. when that happened, there were no consequences. so the result is isis isn't

contained, and it's surely not retreating. don't take my word for it. the director of the central intelligence agency just last week suggested that isis would continue to -- quote -- intensify its global terror campaign. they're not giving up and they're not going away. they're doubling down. and like the terrorists in orlando, isis is actively using every tool at its disposal to recruit, to train, and radicalize individuals here in america and in other parts of the world. this terrorist army figured out a long time ago that it could accomplish its objectives of death and destruction on innocent americans without even having to send its operatives from the middle east to the united states. all it had to do was to export not its soldiers, but its ideology and poisonous ideas to

the united states via the internet, with the propaganda that it uses. to, again, poison susceptible minds, those who are sympathetic to the cause and are willing to swear allegiance to it and carry out the horrific acts like we saw in orlando. over the weekend, the house homeland security chairman noted that isis supporters are posting an estimated 200,000 tweets a day. 200,000 separate messages a day on twitter. how long will it take before the administration recognizes that this propaganda poses a growing national security problem? and once they acknowledge it, how much longer will it take them before they do something about it? in fact, we've heard from f.b.i. director comey that there are

open investigations in all 50 states of individuals suspected of being radicalized. i don't see the administration doing anything, anything at all to effectively counter this terrorist propaganda popping up all over the internet turning some susceptible americans into cold-blooded jihadist killers. well, we can fight back by equipping our law enforcement personnel with the tools they need to keep us safe. the fact of the matter is you can't connect the dots unless you can collect the dots. and that means robust intelligence consistent with our constitution, including the fourth amendment. too often law enforcement officials have to operate with one hand over their eye or one hand behind their back, however you want to characterize it,

because they can't access key information in a timely manner. and because of that, they're not able to discern the pendency of an attack or the motivations of somebody who's planning an attack. if they could collect the information, maybe just maybe they could then go to the fisa court and get a search warrant. maybe just maybe they could get a wiretap upon showing probable cause in court. those, of course, are consistent with the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the burden should be on law enforcement to produce probable cause evidence in order to justify collection of the content of those communications. we saw the consequences of our

flying blind in garland, texas, just last year. on the morning of the attempted terrorist attack, the two men who came from phoenix dressed in body armor with semiautomatic weapons, they had sent more than 100,000 messages overseas to suspected terrorists and vice versa. but unfortunately, the f.b.i., at least the last time director comey testified before the senate judiciary committee, he said the f.b.i. still doesn't have access to that information because of encryption. this means that our law enforcement authorities could be missing critical information that could uncover future terrorist attacks or identify the network of terrorists here so we could stop them before they kill again. but the garland case isn't unique. the f.b.i. is regularly slowed down by outdated policies that make their job of protecting the

homeland much more difficult, more difficult than it needs to be. we saw that in san bernardino too. we've got to address this gaping hole in our legal authorities and do all we can to give the f.b.i. and our other law enforcement officials the tools they need and a good place to start would be tomorrow morning. by allowing the f.b.i. to use national security letters to obtain key information about what suspected terrorists are doing on the internet and who they're communicating with online in counterterrorism investigations. this operates -- this is not for content, as the presiding officer knows. this is information about internet addresses accessed and e-mail addresses, much as national security letters are currently authorized to collect telephone numbers and financial information. in fact, the f.b.i. director

said the omission of this authority years ago, he believes was an oversight. but it now provides a gaping vulnerability and has blinded the f.b.i. to information that could well allow them to have detected the intentions of jihadists like the one in orlando earlier. i just wonder -- i don't know for a fact but i just wonder if the f.b.i., back when they were vetting the orlando shooter on two separate occasions because of things he said and did, when they put him on the watch list so he couldn't -- so they had their eyes on him so if he purchased a firearm, they would be notified immediately. well, as we know now, the f.b.i. investigations were inconclusive and he went off the watch list. but i wonder if back then if the f.b.i. had access to a national

security letter that would allow them to gain information about the i.p. addresses he had been visiting from his internet service provider along with male addresses, again -- with e-mail addresses, again not content -- you can't do that without a warrant, without a showing of probable cause and a warrant issued by the fisa court. but if they had been able to get access to that information and you'd been able to tell, let's say, for example, he'd been viewing youtube videos on the internet of anwar al-alwaki who was responsible for radicalizing major nidal and fort hood and others, the p president of the united states authorized the use of a drone so he could not kill innocent

americans. you get my point. we need to make sure that the f.b.i. has access to all the information that they could legally get their hands on, and a good place to start would be voting tomorrow on the mccain-burr amendment so that the f.b.i. can obtain this information about what they're doing on the internet and who they're communicating with, and if it's justified to be able to go to court and to demonstrate probable cause sufficient to actually identify content to prevent terrorist attacks. i want to be clear about one thing. the f.b.i. already has the power to review financial records like western union transfers. and the f.b.i. already has the power to review telephone records. here again, telephone numbers, not the content of the conversation. again, unless there's further authority issued by a court of law. but because of an inadvertent omission in the law, the f.b.i. can't readily access the exact

kind of information that isis is using to recruit and radicalize violent extremists lurking in our midst. we've seen how difficult it is to identify these people before they kill. and why in the world wouldn't we want to make sure that we provide all the information under our constitutional laws that could be available to law enforcement to identify these people before they kill? i introduced a similar proposal to the mccain-burr amendment a few weeks ago in the judiciary committee that would address this and provide access to this counterterrorism information. so i'm glad that our colleagues, the senior senators from arizona and north carolina have now offered this amendment to the underlying legislation. as the presiding officer knows, this provision, or one very similar to it was contained in the intelligence reauthorization bill that got the bipartisan support of everybody on the

intelligence committee save one. so this is long overdue. it's bipartisan. and i think our failure to act to grant this authority, particularly in the wake of this terrible tragedy in orlando, would be inexcusable. this is something the f.b.i. director appointed by president obama had said he needs. he said this is their number-one legislative priority. the administration, president obama's administration beyond just the f.b.i. director supports it. what's stopping us from providing this authority? so the truth is these threats are at our doorstep. isis is using every tool it has to spread fear and chaos, and we owe it to those on the front lines of our counterterrorism efforts to get them what they need more effectively to counter these efforts. it's our duty to do something about it. and unlike some of the provisions that we voted on last

night that would do nothing to stop people like the orlando shooter. this could actually stop him. i'm all ears if there are other ideas, when it comes to advancing commonsense proposals to fight terrorism at home and make our communities safer but this is a good place to start. i hope going forward we can do a better job of providing the f.b.i. and law enforcement officials the resources they need to keep us safe. this is within our grasp, and all we need to do is take advantage of the opportunity tomorrow morning in a strong bipartisan vote to pass the mccain-burr amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president.

i take this time to continue the discussion as to the tragedy that occurred on june 12 in orlando, florida. the shooting occurred at a popular lgbt club, pulse. the club owner, barbara poma lost her brother to the aids epidemic. the club is named to remember a pulse that faded from this world far too early. pulse was not just a place to socialize. it was a refuge, a place of acceptance and solidarity where members of the orlando lgbt community could be themselves without judgment. that an attacker would target this venue especially during grade pride month is an horrific tragedy and senseless loss of human life. my deepest sympathies are with those killed and injured in this terror attack, along with their families and loved ones. my thanks go out to the first responders who saved lives in the midst of such danger.

this attack and others like it in recent years tears at our hearts and leaves us angry, frustrated, and confused. we as a nation must resolve to stop those who wish to do harm to americans from committing and encouraging acts of terror. the orlando shooter apparently subscribed to an extreme system of beliefs that led him to carry out this heinous attack. no religion condones or encourages such violence and killing. we must reject any ideology that leaves room for discrimination and dehumanization to a point where someone could commit these types of acts. no one should ever fear for their life simply for being themselves or expressing who they are as an individual. american values of tolerance, compassion, freedom and love for thy neighbor must win out over hate intolerance, homophobe i can't and xenophobia. the time for talk is over.

we as a nation and as a community, as an american family must take actions to change minds, change hearts, and finally change policies. the attack in orlando was a terror attack and a hate crime. we can stop others and save lives by taking immediate action. mr. president, i was disappointed that we missed opportunities to do that yesterday with sensible gun safety amendments. i cosponsored the murphy amendment which would have created a system of universal background checks for individuals trying to buy a gun. the amendment would have ensured that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the napolitano instant crime, criminal background check system and would require a background check for every firearms sales. we know that there's loopholes today. why do we allow those loopholes to continue? it should not matter whether you

buy a gun at a local gun show, gun store or on the internet. you should have to pass a background check so we can make sure guns are kept out of the hands of people who should never have one. this amendment would have kept -- would have helped keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers and seriously mentally ill who have no business buying a gun. studies have shown nearly half of all current gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from conducting background checks. it makes no sense that felons, fugitives or others who are illegal prohibited -- legally prohibited from having a gun can easily use a loophole to buy a gun. once again, the use of a universal background check will have no impact on the legitimate needs of people who are entitled to have a weapon. but universal background checks could and would help us keep our communities safe by helping us keep weapons out of the hands of our criminals and those who have

serious mental illness or domestic abusers. we need to stop their ability to easily be able to obtain a weapon. universal background checks are strongly supported by the american people. those background checks can be completed very quickly and do not inconvenience a purchaser at all. to my colleagues who have reservations about this legislation, let me just cite the heller decision. in june, 2008, the supreme court decided the case of district of columbia versus heller. the court held that the second amendment protection of the individual's right to bear arms rather than a collective right to have firearms. the court also held that the second amendment right is not unlimited and it's not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner for any purpose. justice scalia wrote for the court in that case, and i quote -- "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or

laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms." that was justice scalia for the court. justice scalia recognized congress' right to make sure those who are not qualified to own a firearm do not get that firearm. we have an obligation to make sure that background checks are effective to keep out of the hands of criminals and those who have serious mental illness the opportunity to easily be able to obtain a firearm. the legislation pending before us in the senate is fully consistent with the heller decision. that amendment would have been fully consistent with the heller decision in justice scalia's opinion. i know we can protect innocent americans while still protecting the constitutional rights of legitimate hunters and existing gun owners. we should take that action on behalf of the american people. mr. president, there is a second amendment that i cosponsored

that unfortunately was rejected yesterday, the feinstein amendment, that would close the terror gap. if you're not safe enough to fly on an airplane, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. the feinstein amendment would give the attorney general the authority to block the sale of guns to known or suspected terrorists. if the attorney general has a reasonable belief that the weapons would be used in connection with terrorism. the amendment would have ensured that anyone who have been subject to a federal terrorism investigation in the past five years would have been automatically flagged with the existing background check system for further review by the department of justice. note that this amendment being included on a terrorist watch list is not by itself a sufficient justification to deny a person the right to buy a firearm. the attorney general may deny that weapon transfer only if she determines that the purchaser represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the purchaser is engaged or has engaged in

conduct related to terrorism. so there is a standard there. a recent g.a.o. report concluded that approximately 90% of the individuals who were known or suspected terrorists were able to pass background gun checks. this amendment would have closed this loophole and would reduce the risk of a terrorist being able to acquire legally a firearm. under current law, individuals who are known or suspected terrorists and do not fall into one of the nine prohibited purchaser categories can legally purchase a weapon. while the f.b.i. is notified when an individual on the terrorist watch list apply for a background check through the national criminal background check system, it does not have the authority to block the sale. the feinstein amendment contains remedial procedures so that an individual is given the reason for denial, the right to correct the record and the right to bring action to challenge denial. in other words, what's due process in the feinstein amendment. so i was disappointed that the

two amendment chances that we had yesterday were not approved by the senate. i think both would have helped in making our community safer. congress has an obligation to act here. mr. president, as i have indicated before, we need to act. inaction is not an option. the president of the united states has already acted to the extent he is permitted using his executive authority. many of our states have acted as well, including my own state of maryland, but we need a national law that applies in all 50 states to avoid criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers and others who should not get their hands on a gun from simply driving to a nearby state with less restrictive gun laws and being able to acquire a weapon legally. i encourage my colleagues to continue to work on a compromise legislation on the issue of universal background checks and terror watch lists. congress should also act to ban assault-type weapons which have no legitimate civilian use, and

we should ban the sale of high-capacity magazines which only increase the level of carnage in a mass shooting. the time for action is now. we cannot wait. mr. president, with that, i would suggest the -- yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to express the urgent need to pick up and pass a piece of legislation that has great meaning for me and my fellow west virginians and that is to our nation's coal-mining n communities and that's the miners protection act. 70 years ago, in 1946, president harry truman secured an agreement committing the federal government to protect lifetime health and pension benefits for our nation's miners. these men and women earned this

through their tireless and often very, very dangerous work to produce the coal that has powered our nation and spurred economic growth for years. over the course of seven decades, congress has kept their promise. in 1992, a bipartisan effort in congress led by my predecessor, senator rockefeller, resulted in the passage of the coal act to address the health care needs of orphaned coal miners. those are miners whose companies are no longer in existence. in 2006, i voted for legislation that built upon the coal act and continued the bipartisan congressional tradition. fulfilling our promise to coal miners and their families and retirees and protecting their promised health care benefits. in 2012, the bankruptcy of patriot coal placed the health care of more than 12,000 retirees and dependents at risk. a temporary solution which has been going on for a couple of

years has preserved health care for these individuals, but that short-term solution is nearing an end. additional coal industry bankruptcies that i feel like we hear about one a week, and they're major, have threatened health care benefits for more families. if we don't act now, health care for more than 21,000 miners and families will be lost by the end of this year, just six months from now. you know, west virginians really know what mining has meant to our state and to our nation, and our miners have depended on these benefits. every day i'm reminded of this. as char from bob white, west virginia -- and bob white is the name of the little town he lives in, recently wrote to me. we are desperate. our benefits are about to lapse unless we get this legislation passed. it cannot be ignored again. many retired miners cannot afford to pay for their medications if we lose our health care.

or kenneth who lives in mullins, west virginia. quote -- "it seems more and more that the attack on coal is no longer an industry attack but one that is personal on individuals." he went on to ask this question -- "what about folks like me that worked hard their entire life? " recognizing the significance of this problem, i joined with congressman david mckinley to introduce legislation in 2013 that addressed both the retiree health care and a looming insolvency of the mine workers multiemployer pension. last year, senator manchin and i introduced the miners protection act, a very similar bill. the bill demands immediate action. we need to follow through with our commitment to all the hardworking west virginians and other coal miners across this country. in addition to addressing the health care needs of retirees through the same mechanisms supported by congress in 1993

and 2006, the miners protection act will ensure the solvency of the multiemployer pension plan that provides benefits to almost 90,000 retirees and surviving spouses. more than 27 of those, nearly one-third, live in my home state of west virginia. the miners protection act uses unobligated funds authorized by the 2006 a.m.l. reauthorization bill to support existing mine working health and pension programs. let's be clear. mine retirees do not receive lavish benefits here. the average pension payment is only $560 per month. but these funds are vital to our retirees who live on very small fixed incomes. they are a key part of a local economy in west virginia and other states where these retirees live. if we fail to act, the pension plan will become insolvent,

imposing projected liabilities of over $4 billion on the pbgc known as the pension benefit guarantee corporation. if we pass the act, the pension plan will remain in good standing, benefiting taxpayers, beneficiaries and coal communities. in may, the trustees of the umwa health and retirement funds announced that contributions to the pension funds have dropped by nearly two-thirds from last year's levels. this just shows you how devastating our coal communities are. the continued regulatory assault on the coal industry has hastened the decline and threatens the retirement security of our miners. in 2001, the e.p.a. finalized the mercury and air toxins rule for coal plants. since that time, our nation has lost more than 40,000 coal jobs, and a thousand of those workers are west virginians. our state's unemployment is among the highest in the country

for this very reason. the impact of other e.p.a. proposals like the keep clean power plan which has been stayed by the supreme court and the stream protection rule that is currently being finalized would make the situation even worse in our coal communities. as i said many times before, the negative regulatory impact on coal extends far beyond the tens of thousands of families who are most directly affected. a loss of coal severance tax has triggered drastic budget problems which we just got a one-year solution for for our state and a lot of our local governments are having to lay off county workers and school workers and schoolteachers. the severe impact of the health care and pensions on our miners is another consequence of the administration's war on coal. given that federal policies have played a major role in causing this problem, it is appropriate for the federal government to fulfill its commitment to retired miners who will lose

their promised benefits unless we act. the miners protection act is critically important to so many people in my state and across this country. we need to keep the promise of lifetime health care for those retired coal miners whose companies have gone through bankruptcy, and we need to make sure that our retirees receive the pension benefits that they have worked so hard for. the miners protection act is truly a bipartisan effort. it is supported by democrats and republicans and independents in the senate, and there are 72 cosponsors on the house bill, including 39 republicans and 33 democrats. west virginians understand that this need not be a political football. as thomas from shady spring, west virginia, put it -- quote -- "this issue is not partisan. this is an easy fix to fund promised pensions." it is important this bill be enacted this year before the temporary solution expires and ends the health care benefits

for so many retirees. and before the continued downturn takes an even greater toll on the pension fund. i will continue to work with my colleagues in in the west virgia delegation -- senator manchin, congressman mckinley, congressman mooney, and congressman jenkins and all of the other cosponsors of this legislation, to see it become law before it's too late. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i would like to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: first of all, i want to thank my colleague, senator capito. we come from the same state and we've known each other a long time. we basically represent the same group of people who have given so much to this country. i want to thank her. this is truly bipartisan. that's what it should be in this body. when you have something in your people and your state or the country is hurting, you don't worry about the politics, whether it be democratic or republican. he reach across the aisle and dot right thing. i want to thank her so much. she's been right up front about this and i thank her so much. this goes clear back to 1946 under president harry truman. at that time john l. lewis was going on strike for the mwa. every miner in the country back in the 1940's was belonging to the united mine workers.

this is the miners protection act that basically fulfills the promise that a president of the united states had an executive order. what we've asked for now is let's fix this. we have a pathway forward. democrats and republicans on both sides of the aisle, as senator capito has said, have stepped forward. and i'm so appreciative of that. if we don't do something quick this year, the end of this year, they lose their health care. another year or two they're going to lose their pensions. we're talking mostly widows. we're talking -- most of their husbands have passed away from black lung or other causes. and these are widows that don't have much to begin with and these are stipends as far as that and as an assistance to their medical and health care. this is basically something that should be done and should have been done a long time ago. we're going to take it right to the end of the wire. that's what we're concerned about it. we found pay fors also. here's a really good pay for. this thing -- the 1974 fund was solid. it was solid until 2008 with the

collapse. the collapse didn't happen because the miners pension people did something wrong. it happened because of wall street. guess what? we have a $5 billion fine on goldman sachs. it would take three and a half million. that's what caused the problem. we're using abandoned mine land money, not doing any litigation we're responsible for. so senator capito has laid this out to the point. we're worked together. both of our staffs have worked close on this. we would hope that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would encourage the leadership to take a position on this and put this up for a vote. we think it will pass. we know it will pass if it gets its day in court. this is the body that can make it happen. i think on the house side we can do the same thing. with that i want to thank her again for the hard work she's done. it's always a pleasure working with her. we can show bipartisanship is alive and well in west virginia and should be alive and well in the united states of america. thank you.

i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coats: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to vacate the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: madam president, terrorist violence against civilians in israel has been accelerating in recent years, which is amounting to what is now called the silent intifada,

a term meaning violent uprising. perhaps it's called silent because we're not paying enough attention to the atrocities that are currently taking place in israel. the first intifada lasted from september, 1987-1993. the second from 2000-2005. this third uprising, the so-called silent intifada, began in jerusalem in 2014. last year, the latest intifada was characterized with a new name, knife intifada. earlier, we witnessed media accounts of palestinian terrorists slaughtering israelis and others, including american citizens by blowing up restaurants or school buses or using automatic weapons. breaking news on cnn or fox or whatever we were watching showed us the scenes of body parts, pools of blood in the street,

ambulances with sirens screaming, rushing to the nearest hospital or aid station with mutilated and badly injured victims of these attacks. lately, though, the weapons of choice seem to be increasingly the knife or the primitive acts. in some ways, apparently the palestinians think that the direct face-to-face bloody slaughter of a teenager or a grandmother by a knife-wielding thug makes it even more personal and horrifying. americans may know through recent media reports that this wave of violence injecting new poison in the region, they might know about that, but what they don't know, most of them, i think, is that americans, taxpayers, are supporting it with their tax dollars. let me repeat that. while we may be aware of some of

what is going on in israel through this knife intifada, through the continued horrors of what has taken place there and the murders that are taking place, what americans don't seem to know -- in fact, what many of us have now learned is that their tax dollars are supporting this effort. since 1998, the palestinian authority has been encouraging such attacks by honoring and supporting palestinian terrorists serving criminal sentences in israeli prisons and rewarding the families of those who were martyred by their own violent acts. since then, the system of payments has been formalized and expanded by president abbas in presidential directives. palestinian terrorist prisoners are regarded by the palestinian authority as patriotic martyrs, fighters, as heroes, and

actually as employees of the government of the palestinian authority. while in prison for their crimes, they and their families are paid premium salaries and given extra benefits as rewards for their service, their service being a criminal act, an assault and even a murder. interesting they use that word. under release from custody, the terrorists then become civil service employees and shockingly monthly salaries for both incarcerated and released prisoners are on a sliding scale, depending on the severity of the crime and the length of the prison sentence. thus, the more heinous the crime, carrying a longer sentence enables the criminal and his family -- or his family to a much higher premium salary. for example, a prisoner or his family with a five-year sentence

receives about $500 a month, whereas a more serious criminal serving a 25-year sentence will receive $2,500 a month. six times the average income of the average palestinian worker. where else in the world does a prisoner receive such benefits that actually increase with the severity and violence of the crime? now, in may, 2014, palestinian president mahmud abbas issued a presidential decree that moved this payment system from the p.a., palestinian authority, to the p.l.o., the palestinian liberation organization. the openly acknowledged reason for this shift was to sidestep the increasingly critical scrutiny of this payment system by foreign governments, including the united states, who are contributing much of the money that is keeping the palestinian authority afloat.

in 2014, i cosponsored, along with senators graham and kirk, an amendment to the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill providing for the reduction of budgetary support for the p.a. by an amount the secretary of state determines is equivalent to the amount expended by the p.a. as payments for acts of terrorism by individuals who are imprisoned after being fairly tried and convicted for acts of terrorism and by individuals who died committing acts of terrorism during the previous calendar year. that is something that we worked together on, senator kirk, senator graham and i, to try to address this issue. subsequent annual appropriations legislation continues now to include this provision, but once that pro hicks was enacted and became law, p.a. president abbas

-- quote -- formally ended such -- the program and transferred that support function to the p.l.o. by transferring to the p.l.o. the exact amount that had been budgeted by the palestinian authority accounts for this prisoner support purpose. in other words, nothing but a shell game. oh, we're getting a lot of criticism about providing support to these so-called martyrs to these criminals that have been convicted in israeli courts, we're getting criticized for doing that. actually, people telling us it's an incentive to do this, and that's really the sickness of this, is that families benefit by having one member of their family actually go out and commit a crime, including a murder, getting sentenced to prison for a number of years and then the family being rewarded

or the criminal being rewarded for that very act. so when the criticism came and the language which we passed here in the congress and which enforced this came, abbas simply pulled out a shell game and said i will just shift the money and the authority over here, designating that the cutoff of aid by the u.s. and other countries now was going to a different authority. now, the relationship between the two organizations is -- while it's complex, it's also very intertwined. while the p.l.o. claims it is an independent body, the p.a. receives its legitimacy and mandate from the p.l.o. and agreements with israel. in effect, the p.a. is subordinate to the p.l.o. i am speaking today on the senate floor because i have become increasingly concerned that this payments issue is not receiving the public attention

and criticism that it deserves, people thinking that while we have solved the problem through the language which we passed a couple of years ago, but now discovering that simply a shell game was in play and that money is simply fungible and then shifted over to another function under the p.a. called the p.l.o. that is then -- now distributing the money to the families. it appears that some pro-israel organizations may be hesitant to bring more pressure on the financially weak, independent p.a., believing that it would deprive abbas of what little remains of his authority and status as a negotiating partner, thus making a negotiated settlement with israel less likely, and it also appears that some israeli officials have been reluctant to support the cutoff of aid to the p.a., presumably to preserve the p.a.'s stability as a west bank security

provider. our administration, the united states administration, is similarly not eager to enforce this issue. the department of state's bureau for counterterrorism said in a report last month that this payment system was, and i quote, an effort to reintegrate released prisoners into society and prevent recruitment by hostile political factions. there is nothing in the p.a. presidential directives establishing this system that justifies such an absurdly positive view of its purposes. the u.s. government should not see this payments program in such a positive light at all, nor does the palestinian authority deserve immunity because of its fragility. these payments provide rewards and motivations for brutal terrorists plain and simple. to provide u.s. taxpayer money to abbas and his government so that they can treat terrorists

as heroes or glorious martyrs is morally unacceptable. to tolerate such an outrage because of concern for abbas' political future or reserving the p.a.'s security role for israel amounts to self-imposed extortion. if the p.a.'s fragile financial condition requires u.s. assistance, then it is their policy, not ours that must change. let me be more specific as to why we need to take immediate steps, immediate action to stop the use of u.s. taxpayer dollars to reward the p.l.o. for its barbaric acts. since 2014, there have been at least 45 terrorist attacks in israel, killing 85 people, including americans. just this past march, taylor force, a u.s. army veteran of iraq and afghanistan, was stabbed to death by a palestinian terrorist in haifa.

taylor was a graduate of the u.s. military academy and as a former u.s. military officer, he was buried with full honors. the attacker, his attacker was killed by the israeli police. this terrorist then received the honors of his own community in a burial ceremony that glorified him as a martyr, the highest religious achievement in islam. the official palestinian authority suppose p.a.n. said the celebration funeral was and i quote, a national wedding befitting of martyrs, the belief that a martyr marries 72 dark eyed virgins in paradise. the family that presumably paid for the celebration received substantial rewards from the palestinian government and now will receive a permanent monthly stipend. some of that money is paid into the u.s. treasury by american taxpayers transferred to the pmplets l.o. -- p.l.o., to the

palestinian authority which is moved over to the p.l.o. and then provided as a reward for killing an american soldier. i for one, and i'm sure i am speaking for the american taxpayer, i am not interested in paying for a martyr's funeral or his so-called wedding. i'm also not interested in paying for what amounts to civil servant sl ray -- salaries for the to terrorists who shot to death four israelis this past june or the two palestinian boys who attacked customers in a supermarket in february or the 16-year-old terrorist who stabbed -- who was stabbed to death -- who stabbed to death an israeli mother of six in her own kitchen last january. and i could go on and on with these atrocities and these murders, and to think that american taxpayer dollars are paying the families and the criminals who committed the

crimes, they're being paid by our tax dollars. as i've said earlier, we need an immediate response to this outrage, and i'm ready to lead this effort. first, i intend to work with my colleagues, particularly senator graham and senator kirk who are on the relevant committees and who had joined me years ago to try to put a stop to this. i want to work with them to end american financial support for incarcerated terrorists or the families of the so-called martyrs who have earned that status by the brutal slaying of jewish citizens, including some americans. we will identify the amount of money that flows to the -- from the p.a. to the p.l.o. for this purpose and cut u.s. assistance by that amount at least. if that partial cutoff of u.s. aid is not sufficient to motivate the p.a. to end this immoral system of payments to terrorist,ly propose a complete suspension of any financial assistance to the palestinian

authority until their policy is changed. i'm aware that suspending assistance to the palestinians will have other consequences that we and israel will have to address, but i believe the pressure that we and other like-minded governments could apply and should apply in this manner will bring president abbas and other palestinian officials to their senses. whether or not this will occur, the moral imperative is clear. payments that reward and encourage terrorism must stop. we have a moral obligation to do all that we can as soon as we can to stop financing the murder of innocent israelis and israel's friends and supporters. mr. president, with that i'm going to yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be sis spended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i have taken the floor many times to call the attention of the senate to abuses by for-profit clernlings an industry that -- colleges, an industry that enrolls 10% of those who graduate from high school receives 20% of all federal aid to education and accounts for 40% of all student

loan defaults. 10% of the students, 40% of the student loan defaults. i've spoken about specific companies involved in this industry, for-profit colleges and universities: corinthian, university of phoenix, devry, i.t.t. tech, westwood, ashford -- it is a long list. i've spoken about congress' responsibility and the responsibility of the department of education to reform higher education laws and be aggressive in overseeing these companies. fortunately, thongs are starting to -- things are starting to change at the department of education. today i want to speak about the accreditors, and one in particular: the accrediting counsel cul for independent colleges and schools, or acics. accreditors are, according to the department of education, responsible for ensuring that education provided by

institutions meets acceptable levels of quality. in that role, they're frankly the gate keepers for federal dollars to flow to these colleges and universities. wrought accreditation -- without accreditation, the schools can't receive the money through the students for pell grants and federal loans. but by law the department of education decides which accrediting agencies are -- quote -- "reliable authorities as to the quality of education and training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit." in order to be a federal gatekeeper of federal educational funds like loans and grants, these accrediting agencies must be approved by the department of education. the department performs periodic reviews of federally recognized accrediting agencies to ensure they're still reliable. here's where acics comes in.

this operation is currently undergoing one of those regular reviews by the department and the department's advisory board. it's a group called desici, the national advisory committee on institutional quality and integrity. last week in the first part of this review process, the department of education staff made its initial recommendation to naciiqi to review the recognition of acic snchts an accrediting agency responsible for about 20% of all for-profit colleges and universities. this is the right decision. i commend the department. and i hope that naciiqi and the secretary of education, secretary king, will follow the recommendation. last week i followed the senators warren and blumenthal to write to the department of recommendation. for too long they've acted as a rubber stan for some of the

worst for-profit colleges in america. let's take one example to start w corinthian. some will remember this company. it lied to the federal government and to the students who went to school there about its job placement rates. listen to this. they use add scheme where they paid employers to hire recent graduates of corinthian in temporary jobs so that corinthian could report to the federal government that their graduates got employment. they were caught. the fraud was systemic in corinthian and ultimately resulted in its bankruptcy. they were defrauding the government. and, even worse, they were defrauding these students and their parents. i wrote to the department of education and asked hem to look into these allegations of fraud about corinthian in december of 2013. that psalm day i wrote to dr.

dr. albert gray. he was the c.e.o. of this acics. that was the agency which accredited corinthian. that was the agency that said to the federal government, this is a real college. you should led federal funds flow to this college. so i wrote to dr. gray and i said, what are you doing with your accrediting agency to hold corinthian accountable and ensure that they do not continue their fraudulent practices? i received a response from dr. gray. his letter said the allegations were -- quote -- "a source of great concern" -- close quote -- and that the counse the councild review information and make a determination of what actions to take regarding additional inquiries, compliance hearings, or more serious sanctions. and so this so-called review of corinthian by acics continued for more than a year. even as states like california, massachusetts, and wisconsin and federal agencies such as the

consumer financial protection bureau filed suit against corinthian for their corrupt practices. meanwhile, their accrediting agency was really looking into this, really looking hard. as the evidence of corinthian's fraud and abuse mounted, caics, this accrediting agency, continued its washy washy monitoring that never led to anything. in fact, up until the day that corinthian colleges declared bankruptcy in may of 2015, they were still fully accredited as a university by this acics accrediting agency. that's disgraceful, but it wasn't disgraceful to acics. in response to an effort by senator chris murphy of connecticut at a 2015 senate help committee hearing to get dr. gray to admit that acic is the -- aciccs made a mistake by

accrediting corinthian, doctor gray said "i will the first to admit that agencie agencies make mistakes." incredible. here is a group that's defrauded students, defrauded the federal government, under investigation by at least three states and other federal agencies, is now on the precipice about to declare bankruptcy and the accrediting agency is still standing firmly behind it. is this an organization that we can truly trust as taxpayers to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education? this is the gatekeeper, this agency, accrediting agency -- the gatekeeper for millions and sometimes billions of dollars to flow out of the treasury from taxpayers through students and their families to a lot of c.e.o.'s at for-profit colleges who are doing quite well, thank you. history tells us we can't trust them.

corinthian isn't the only embarrassment an the acics accreditation resume. according to the center for american progress, more than half of the $5.7 billion in federal student aid awarded to acics accredited schools in the past three years went to institutions facing state and federal investigations or lawsuits. 20% of the students at these for-profit schools accredited by this discredited agency default on their federal student loans. does this sound like an organization that is reliable when it comes to quality education? in my home state of illinois, attorney general lisa madigan, who's been a real leader on this subject, settled a lawsuit last year against the notorious westwood college. westwood's practices were not that you will different from corinthian: lying to students about job prospects.

i remember meet ago young girl in chicago. she had been smitten by all of these criminal investigation shows on television, so she signed up at westwood and she signed up to take courses in criminal law enforcement. took her five years to finish to get her so-called degree from westwood college in chicago. you know what she found afterwards? not a single law enforcement agency would even recognize her diploma. she spent five years, but even worse she went deeply in debt, almost $90,000 in debt. for a worthless diploma from westwood college. she moved back into her parents' home, living in the basement. her dad came out of retirement to try to earn some money to help pay off the student loan at this worthless westwood school. guess who accredited westwood university? acics, the same agency. in fact, in the course of their investigation, the attorney general's office found that acics was not annually verifying

even a sample of jo job placemes by westwood and other institutions it accredited. there are so many other examples of negligence by this accrediting agency. that's why 13 attorney generals have written to revoke acics recognition. i ask unanimous consent that the letter be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. acics has shown time and again it is not a reliable authority when it comes to the quality of education. it is not a responsible steward of taxpayers' dollars. follow the money in this case. think of schools like corinthian that took billions of dollars out of the federal treasury through loans that are assigned to students paid into corinthian so they can maintain their operations and pay handsome salaries to their c.e.o.

now they go bankrupt. at that point the students of corinthian have a choice. they can keep their worthless semester hours from corinthian and keep their debt, or they can walk awray interest both -- away from both. and when they walk away, they wasted years of their lives but even more important, taxpayers have just taken a beating. these are corrupt capitalist ventures that rely for 85% to 95% of their revenue directly from the federal government. these are not free-market entities. these are not for-profit corporations. it's crony capitalism at its worst. so i want to commend the department of education today making its recommendations to withdraw this acics accreditation approval. i hope this is the beginning of the end for this awful organization that has been complicit in defrauding students and the fleecing of taxpayers by

major for-profit education companies for way too long. i encourage the department to retain -- to remain steadfast in its current position, to ensure that the students at institutions that acics currently accredits are well-informed that this process is under way. these students are being duped into more debt for worthless semester hours at the colleges accredited by acics. finally, i'll say that rating our higher education system of acics is a good first step but a lot more needs to be done to reform them. in the coming weeks i will be introducing an accreditation reform bill and hope this issue will be front and center during the senate's consideration of the higher education act reauthorization in the next congress. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am here for the 141st time to urge my colleagues to wake up, in this case more

specifically to the political influence, particularly the dark money that perpetuates the climate blockade in congress. in 1831, alexis de tocqueville traveled the united states to write his famous "democracy in america." de tocqueville described our american style of government as -- and i'll quote him here -- quite exceptional." he wrote about it with affection and with facination. he may have been the first american exceptionalist. as the son and grandson of foreign service officers, i can personal l. taste to the the -- attest to the importance of america as a paragon of governance across the world, as a country that others count on to come and help, not to loot or

concur. the roots of our american exceptionalism are found in the three simple words that introduce our constitution: "we the people." the notion that the government belongs to the people seems unremarkable now, but in its day, it was literally revolutionary. today this proposition is under threat from a few very well-heeled special interests and their shadowy front groups, all powered up by the supreme court's disastrous 5-4 citizens united decision. in that decision, the court's conservative block overturned long-standing laws of congress, rejected the common sense of the american people, and gave wildly

outsized influence over our elections to a little stable of big money interests, creating what one up in in kentucky has -- newspaper in kentucky has aptly called "a tsunami of slime." the evidence is in. the evidence is found in our elections where the tsunami of outside cash has wiped out previous campaign spending records and created whole new campaign spending categories that never existed before, like dark money. and the evidence is found in this chamber where before citizens united, we had a thriving bipartisan debate on climate change. now we have exactly the silence the polluters want from the

republican side. it wasn't very long after de tocqueville published his famous book on american democracy that the physicist john tyndall wrote about excess heat trapped by the build-up of certain gases in the atmosphere. he wrote "to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times, a slight change in the atmosphere's variable constituents would suffice for this. such changes" he wrote, "in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal." those various constituents to which tyndall referred include carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.

he was writing about what we now call the greenhouse effect. we have understood this greenhouse effect for a century and a half. abraham lincoln was president when this was published. it's nothing new or controversial in real science, as i think every single one of our major state universities would attest. and it's starting to have a pretty pronounced effect. noaa just reported that the earth passed what they called another unfortunate milestone. carbon dioxide concentrations passed 400 parts per million at the south pole last month. that was a first in four million years.

noaa also announced that the globally average temperature over land and ocean surfaces for may 2016 was the highest for any may in the noaa global temperature record. this marks the 13th consecutive such month, breaking its monthly global temperature record, the longest streak in noaa's 137 years of keeping records. we understand what's going on, so why is congress stuck asleep at the wheel? why? because since the supreme court's decision in citizens united, the big fossil fuel polluters and their network of front groups, a well-documented crowd now in academic literature and in journalism, have poured

money and threats into our politics. just one group, the koch brothers-backed front group, americans for prosperity, openly proclaimed that if republicans support a carbon tax or climate regulations, they -- and i quote them here -- "would be at a severe disadvantage in the republican nomination process." it would mean -- and i quote them again there -- "political peril." the threat is plain. it is funded by the very deem pockets and the highly motivated schemes of the fossil fuel industry enabled by citizens united, and much of it is hidden from public disclosure. candidates get it.

it's the public that doesn't see what's going on behind the scenes. every election since citizens united has broken spending records, and this year's on track to do it again. super pacs, anonymous so-called social welfare 501-c-4 groups and other outside groups have so far spent nearly $400 million on this election. and we're still nearly five months from election day. "politico" has reported that donations to super pacs are expected to exceed $1 billion this election cycle. gee, for $1 billion, what could they possibly want? we know where this money will go. it will fund an onslaught of the

ugly, noxious, negative campaign ads that americans hate. they hate the negative messages smearing the ads' targets, but they also hate another message. they hate the message that this smear was paid for by some shadowy group, that they know perfectly well has no role in their state or in their life, this they've usually never heard of but which has suddenly commad their tv screen to deliver the smear attack. that secondary payload which has delivered negative ad after negative ad is piling up, and its message to the american viewer is clear: this has gotten weird. this has gotten out of hand. and you don't count. not surprisingly, americans are becoming more and more disillusioned with our politics. according to a bloomberg poll,

72% of americans report being fed up with politics and politicians and 59% feel the -- quote -- "political system is broken." according to a recent rasmussen poll, three-quarters of likely voters believe the wealthiest individuals and companies have too much influence over elections and eight in ten agree that wealthy special interest groups have too much power and influence. they're not wrong. that citizens united decision has even helped make americans feel by a ratio, believe it or not, of nine to one that an ordinary american won't get a fair shot against a corporation in the united states supreme court. by nine to one. it's a dirty circle. the strength of america lies in

its people, stoking distrust and contempt for our political system breeds cynicism, and that cynicism gives special interests more influence in their age-old battle to loot the public. that failure also jeopardizes the exceptionalism that has made america an example for good throughout the world. fat chance that we're an example for good on climate change when the fossil fuel industry has done what it has with its campaign spending. it's a mess, and to clean it up a group of us have assembled a "we the people" suite of legislation. the "we the people" legislation is a collection of straightforward reforms designed to loosen the grip of big money on our elections, reduce the

influence that wealthy special interests have over our government often behind the scenes, and return america's democracy to its true owners, the american people. how do we do this? well, first we bring transparency back to our elections with an updated disclose act, a bill i've introduced in the last three congresses. disclose would require every organization spending money in elections, including superpacs and tax-exempt 501-c-4 groups to promptly disclose donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle. and to get spending information online within 24 hours. it would prevent super pacs from acting as de facto extensions of a candidate's campaign and it would reform the federal election campaign to break the partisan dead look that cripples enforcement of existing campaign

finance laws. second, we undo the court's dreadful citizens united decision. citizens united was wrong treating corporations as if they were people. it was wrong that corporate money won't corrupt. it was wrong not seeing that whatever special interests are allowed to do politically, they can threaten and promise to do, and that those threats and promises are corrupting. finally, it overlooked that a small class of special interests can actually make a bundle buying influence. the fossil fuel industry, for instance, even when it spends $750 million in one election, is still making a bundle protecting the massive subsidies that support fossil fuel in this country. according to the i.m.f., that number is about $700 billion

every year in effective subsidy. so "we the people" includes senator udall's constitutional amendment to give congress the power to once again pass commonsense measures regulating presently unlimited corporate cash in our elections. and finally, "we the people" includes proposals championed by senators bennet and baldwin to stop the spinning of the revolving door that so often makes officials beholden to corporate special interests. mr. president, it was not long after alexis de tocqueville described our unique american democracy, and it was about the same time john tyndall described the basic science of the greenhouse effect that president lincoln reminded a war-weary

nation of the point of all that bloodshed. that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. allowing special interests to secretly buy elections and influence government officials gives away an american pat try mow ni that was -- patrimony that was dearly bought. make no mistake, without citizens united and without the maligned and dishonorable use of its weaponry by the fossil fuel industry, we would have had by now a bipartisan solution to climate change. a faction on the court that unleashed that new political weaponry, an industry that took

shameful and remorseless advantage of it, and a party that has willingly subordinated itself to that influence to keep the money flowing all share the blame for where we are today. mr. president, we need to clean this up. the polluters don't just pollute our planet. they are polluting our very democracy. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, for months now i've been coming down to the floor to talk about an issue that i know the american people # want us to talk about. and that's the economy. and that's the importance of growing our economy. and i've been highlighting what unfortunately has been a very anemic record of economic growth over the last ten years. highlighting what's called the gross domestic product for the united states. now i've been doing that, mr. president, because certainly the obama administration doesn't want to do that. when we look at these numbers, we know that these are some of the weakest economic numbers certainly in the last seven years.

some of the most weakest economic numbers in u.s. history. and the media doesn't want to talk about it, so i believe it's important that we come and have a debate on the economy because the american people want us to talk about this. i want to remind my colleagues that the gross domestic product, what we have here on this chart, is really a marker of the health of our economy. it's really a marker of progress, a marker of the american dream, and right now we have a sick economy, by any measure. last quarter, the u.s. economy grew at .8% g.d.p. growth. barely grew. put that in perspective, mr. president, what's made our country great year after year, decade after decade has been an economic growth rate of about

3.7%, almost 4%. if you look at this chart, it has many different administrations. this red line here is the 3% g.d.p. marker, which is considered okay, not great. usually most administrations are above that. but year after year, decade after decade, democratic administration, republican administration, what's made the country great is economic growth, and if you look at the obama years, right here, never even hit 3% g.d.p. growth. now, that's why they don't want to talk about it. when the president does talk about it, he doesn't remind americans that this is the -- this is the slowest, weakest recovery in over 70 years. but when he does talk about it, he still points fingers at those who came before him.

a senator: after nearly seven and a half years, two terms, this economy is his. he owns it, and he should take responsibility for it. as michael boskin, the well-respected stanford economics professor put it, -- quote -- "mr. obama will likely go down as having the worst economic record of growth of any president since the trough of the great depression in 1933." unquote. and whether or not the president owns up to it, there is no doubt, just look at the charts, these are their numbers, by the way. these are the obama administration numbers, that we have experienced a lost decade of growth that is really, really harming not only the economic security of our country, the national security of our country, but most importantly american families who are

experiencing this. the great engine of our economic growth driven by the american worker, the most productive worker in world history, is now idle because we can't grow our economy. and, mr. president, we had more evidence of this last month with the abysmal may jobs report. now, again, nobody talked about it. the media didn't talk about it, certainly the white house didn't talk about it, but we should be talking about it. what happened in may? the reports show that in may, employers throughout the entire united states added 38,000 jobs. 38,000 jobs. that's an $18 trillion economy that employs 126 million americans. 38,000 jobs is nothing.

and everybody knows it. as a matter of fact, the fed chairman janet yell intoday talked about -- janet yellen today talked about a an abysmal report that was in may. in fact, that's the lowest monthly gain since 2010 in terms of jobs. in 2016, this year has seen the worst employment start since 2009, since the beginning of the obama administration. all of this is very bad news for the country, for the economy and american families and american workers. every economist, including the fed chairman today, every pundit , even politicians who understand this issue know that this is a big problem, and yet the president and members of his administration refuse to level with the american people about what's going on. you didn't hear anyone talking about the jobs report. in fact, they're calling our

economy the strongest in the world right now, and they're tout being the fact that despite this economic jobs report, the unemployment rate actually ticked down, it went down from 5.1% to 4.7%. they're kind of bragging about that. that's normally good news. unemployment rate going from 5.1% to 4.7%. they're talking that up. so what's going on here, mr. president? what's really the story behind the numbers? because the people who know these numbers know what's going on. so i thought i would try to explain a little bit of why this administration is not leveling with the american people at all. first, having the strongest economy in the world right now is nothing to brag about. the president used to brag about how we're growing more than europe. that was last quarter. we're not growing more than europe now. e.u. grew at 2% g.d.p. growth

last quarter. we grew at, like i said, .8%. so even that comparison is not working. an economist recently stated that bragging about having a strong economy right now globally is -- quote -- like having the best-looking horse in the glue factory. not a lot to brag about there. but really, mr. president, the only comparison that matters when the administration tries to spin hey, we're doing better than japan or better than brazil, the only comparison that matters is this one. how are we doing relative to american history? that's all that really matters. not the spin of how we're doing relative to another country. this is what matters. and again, by any measure, we are performing very, very poorly for the last ten years. second, let's unpack the

unemployment numbers. the 4.7% unemployment rate sounds pretty good, but what the president knows and what his administration knows but won't tell the american people is that that rate from the jobs report last year had numbers behind it that were very, very worrisome. if we only created 38,000 jobs, then how does the unemployment rate go down from 5.1% to 4.7%? well, here's how. the standard measure of unemployment in this country, the unemployment rate, includes only people who are actively looking for work. that's a term called the labor force participation rate. so if the labor force participation rate goes down, then the unemployment rate will also go down.

even if we have a weak economy. so what happened in may? why did the unemployment rate tick down to 4.7%? that's normally good news. we know it's not because of robust job growth because there was only 38,000 jobs created. nobody thinks that's robust. what happened in may -- and the white house isn't talking about it -- the unemployment rate went down because almost 700,000 american workers quit working, quit looking for a job. think about that, mr. president. in one month. 664,000 americans in one month, almost 700,000 americans who have been looking for work, they got discouraged, they said there's nothing out there, this economy is so weak, so i'm

quitting even looking for a job. that's why the unemployment rate went down. not a strong economy, not strong growth. discouraged american workers saying i'm done. i'm not even going to look anymore. and of course, mr. president, that is nothing to celebrate. 700,000 americans completely discouraged and said i've had enough. i'm not even going to try. think about the families. think about the workers who made that decision. unfortunately, this is one of the dismal economic legacies of the obama years. year after year, as exhibited by this chart, millions of americans have simply left the work force. they just quit. this is a chart of the labor force participation rate.

at the beginning of the obama administration and now. and you can see, mr. president, year after year, more americans just say i've had it. i give up. the economy's too weak. i'm quitting. quitting even looking. and again, they're not counted in the unemployment rate. now, the labor force participation rate is a rather ungainly term, but what it really measures is the hope of the american worker and his or her family. so we should call it the american worker hope index. here's the hope index for the american worker. and as you can see by the chart, it has been crashing year after year under this president with his economic policies. hope has been declining for american workers ever since the president got into office. in fact, it has not been this

low since the economic malaise years of president jimmy carter. if you see the right hand here, 62%, the carter malaise years, clinton, reagan, reagan, clinton, bush and then the obama years, back almost on par with the carter years. that is not a strong legacy. the last time we had an american worker hope index this low was in 1978, at the height of the carter stagflation, when so many americans were discouraged from even trying to work, and that's the legacy that we have right now. so, mr. president, the most recent jobs numbers that came out in may was the day that the

president gave a speech to a bunch of high school students. and to the children, the high school kids, the president painted a rosy picture of the economy. he told them that the economy was strong and that he had cut the unemployment rate in half. now, we know that that's not a fully accurate statement. if we had the same labor force participation rate today that we had at the beginning of the obama administration, our unemployment rate would actually be 9.7%. almost unchanged from the beginning of 2009 when it was 10.1%. so bottom line, the main reason, indeed almost the sole reason that the official unemployment rate has been -- quote -- cut in half, as the president said, is because millions and millions of americans have left the work force because the hope of the

american worker has crashed, and it's now reached the same low levels as it did during the carter years. now, the president did also tell these high school students that to create a better, stronger economy, we -- quote -- have to be honest about what our real economic challenges are, unquote. well, here i agree with him, so let's start with an honest assessment made recently by former president clinton. here's what he said about the obama economy. quote -- "millions and millions and millions of people look at the pretty picture of america president obama has painted, and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives." unquote. this is former democratic

president bill clinton talking about the loss of hope over the last eight years. and he goes on. president clinton recently said -- quote -- "the problem is 80% of the american people are still living on what they were living on the day before the 2008 financial crash, and about half the american people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day i, meaning president clinton, was in office 15 years ago, so that's what's the matter. unquote. that's president clinton. he is talking honestly about this economy. that's what honesty looks like. family incomes have declined during the obama years, wages have been stagnant, and the economic hope of the american worker has crashed to levels not seen since jimmy carter. so, mr. president, i want to

close with a few words for the american people as we get to the final months of the obama administration. the president is going to make the claim and some of his supporters and maybe even secretary clinton are going to make the claim that the unemployment rate during the obama years went from 10.1% to 4.7%. they're going to talk about this. they're going to make people believe somehow this is a great accomplishment. and while technically true, what the president is not going to do, what secretary clinton is not going to do is actually unpack the numbers. it's -- actually tell the whole truth because that unemployment rate declined -- decline is due primarily to the fact that so many american workers have simply quit looking for work.

that's the full truth. so when you hear this great number, 10.1% unemployment to 4.7%, the real number is 9.7%. the real number is in this index. the real number is that the american workers' hope over the last eight years has crashed. so when the president and the white house start to continue to tell us that everything is fine, that jobs are plentiful, that the unemployment rate has been slashed in half, that our economy is strong relative to other countries, it's really, really important to look at what they're really saying. we shouldn't believe that. and the vast majority of americans don't believe it

because they're hurting. they are hurting because this economy is hurting. millions of americans want to work but can't find a job. millions of americans have just quit looking for a job and as the president says, we need to recognize that fact and to be honest about it. only then can we do what is one of the most important jobs this senate can do, which is grow our economy again and create real job opportunities for the millions of american workers who want to work but have been so discouraged that they've left the workforce. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider individually either of the following nominations. calendar number 357 and 358, 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 nominations, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of monk business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 507 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 507

designating july 8, 2016, as collector car appreciation day and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the committee on homeland security and government affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1777 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1777, an act to amend the act of august 25, 1958, commonly known as the former presidents act of 1958 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the ernst substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill

as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the finance committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 2736. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2736 a bill to provide improve access to durable medical equipment for medicare beneficiaries under the medicare program and for other purposes. the presiding officer: there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the thune amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered to be read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i n know of no further debate on the mairchlt. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the passage of the bill, as amended. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended passed. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the engrossed version of s. 2943 be printed as passed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes i think business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, june 22. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2578, with the time until the cloture vote equally divided between the managers or their designees. the presiding officer: woks without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the snarks senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

business in the senate until continues to be the 2017 commerce justice and sign spending bill. unless an agreement is reached to vote on amendment will happen to get tomorrow. much of the focus has been on a gum proposal by barb pod partisan group of senators led by republican susan collins. it will prevent people who are on the no-fly list from buying guns. those denied will appeal to a federal court. senator collins says the gun proposal will be voted on as an amendment to the spending bill currently being debated by the senate. >> you realize this is something i would not only like to do but something that would be really different from the kind of books that would be written about

macarthur in the past and the way in which to rethink and reevaluate who this person was, what his real significance was what is the virtues were that made him the most adored an edge related in american history but also what were his flaws of the things that made him come in many ways unpleasant and even hated by millions of people. >> sunday night, on q&a. hudson institute sr. fellow, arthur herman takes a look at the life of u.s. army general, douglas macarthur in his book douglas macarthur, american hero. >> i thing that's one of the things about macarthur, he saw the future more clearly often then he saw the present. whether it was america's role in asia, the rise of china, the split between china and the soviet union which he foresaw, but also perhaps two, the fate of american justice politics.

>> 's now an update on broadband network for first responders. the senate commerce senate committee is one hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible] >> good morning. i'm glad to coming today's hearing with my friend and colleague, ranking member shots. shots. we like to focus on the progress of her steps made and the challenges that lie ahead in

deploying additional public safety network. the first responder network authority also known as the first net was established under the middle-class tax relief of the job creation act of 2012. it is intended. it is intended to address communication failures that slow recovery efforts during major national emergencies including the 9/11 attacks and hurricane katrina. in in mississippi we saw firsthand the consequences of munication network breakdown. the the red cross mothers were hindered from providing the emergency recovery services needed during and after katrina. tasked with with building and operating a nationwide public safety have been network, the 2012 act allocated 7,000,000,000 dollars $7 billion from spectrum option proceeds to launch first net. the aws three spectrum which was in january 2013 raise the $7 billion needed for planning the development stay. it has made progress in the first year, questions linger about the future viability of

the network. i would appreciate first net commitment to providing our rural communities with the same services as larger urban cities. but rural and and remote coverage remains a major concern of mine. the cost of coverage or maintenance of the network in these hard-to-reach areas needs to be addressed on the front end of deployment. an accurate accurate inventory of towers and equipment is critical. we need to ensure that infrastructure is capable of withstanding 200 mile-per-hour winds during storms similar to katrina. each region each region of the country faces unique set of challenges and addressing these challenges is critical to fulfilling congresses role of creating first net. we should ensure that their plan for deployment includes the technical requirements that may be necessary. however, we recognize that nationwide deployment will not occur overnight. over the next several months

first that will be looking at bids to award a contract for all aspects of the planet. as this process moves for, i urge first net and all stakeholders to look carefully at the long-term viability of the network, with a limited user base, first net must have the sophistication to determine who is not only the technical capacity but also the ability to monetize the network in order to keep it running in the future. the cost placed on public safety entities to use the network are also a major concern with regard to long-term sustainability. last year's oversight hearing oversight hearing examined the partners that have been made in first that's plan for outreach to stakeholders in each state or territory. today, i look i look forward to hearing about their accomplishments in the past year. what benchmarks have been met? what work needs to be done?

i want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for testifying this morning. our panel include the number of stakeholders overseen the deployment process that can help shed light on the challenges ahead. >> think you mr. chairman and thank you to our witnesses. i especially want to offer my welcome to general logan, we are here today to discuss the progress first net has made toward creating an interoperable nationwide wireless broadband network for first responders. in 2012 congress created% we made an important commitment to public safety. the new federal entity we created is a unique public-private partnership mandated to deploy this network for first responders. at the time the legislation was passed, we still like to nationwide interoperable public safety community network in spite of glaring indication problems have been exposed following tragedies of septembee

katrina. until this network is built our first responders will have to carry their bulky, land radios for critical voice commute occasions and carry around a commercial smart for phone for their data needs. there's no reason a 16-year-old with a with a smart phone should have more technology at their fingertips then our first responders. percent will will provide first responders mission-critical data used for the first time. this that network will be built and have rugged and specific public safety applications. for example firefighters can download a new print of a burning building for the enter. a police officer arriving on the sink and run a background check or get pictures of a suspect accessing federal law-enforcement database. most are partly, emergency personnel will not be competing with commercial users for bandwidth. they will have priority on this

network. first net staff and board should be congratulated for releasing its rfp earlier this year which is a real milestone towards the construction of the network. they received bids them will be evaluating potential vendors during the next several months. while they continue to work with states on their participation. as they progress, first and its commercial partners will have to make sure first responders and each state sees the value in the network. as a general logan made an touch upon today we need to make sure the specific needs of all states and territories are respected in order to accommodate for geographic and other differences across our great country. while congress will will continue to keep a close eye & work, the reality is that we are in a wait-and-see mode until first net chooses its private sector partner. i expect that mr. post may not be able to address every issue race today as they are in the middle of a procurement process. once the vendor has been chosen, first net and all of them can

start working on their promise that they made to public safety in 2012. thank all the witnesses were appearing in the committee and i look for to your testimony. >> thank you senator shots. our witnesses today are mr. michael -- ceo of first net. mr. jeffrey mcleod, director of homeland security a public safety division of the national governors association. senator shots has already mentioned general logan, the signal point of contact in the state of hawaii and the hawaii general. and fourthly, mr. andrew. [inaudible] whose inspector general for audit and commerce in washington dc. we appreciate you for being here today we begin with the testimony.

i ask each of you view can limit your verbal testimony to five minutes. thank you. >> acute chairman and ranking members are members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. since i began at first net a little over ten months ago i have seen firsthand the dedication that the first net board and staff have towards the successful deployment of national safety broadband network. public safety, that is who we work for everyday and we have never taken our focus off of the goal of delivering the best possible network for the men and women who keep us safe and put themselves in harm's way every single day. we are the stewards for the network. i like to take a moment think the public safety personnel in the audience today, senators, their presence is an indication that they are keeping all of our feet to the fire as we work together to making first net a reality. we have accomplished a great deal over the past 12 months, wrapped up our initial consultation meetings with every state and territory partner who requested one. we kicked off 2016 consultation with consultation with our single point of contact meetings, and

are well underway in the state government board meeting and coronation with our spots. we released the rfp and are now moving board aggressively toward award. it is round the rfp that i would like to focus the majority of my comments today. when the first net testify before the full committee around 15 months ago she laid out the roadmap that first net was planning to move along to successfully conduct consultation with the state and develop upper cumin strategy that would result in a public-private partnership with the vendor. for snack continues to honor our commitments to do what we set out to do, on time, and under budget. we have to ensure that our 16 core objectives including role buildout, cyber scaredy, public safety adoption and financial sustainability to be met by the vendor community, but community, but we have to propose a business opportunity model that would ultimately be a win for public safety, when for the state, went for first net, and a win for our commercial partners.

true public-private partnership across the board. based on what we've seen in the past, the financial incentive was not enough of the commercial community to do this on their. we know that the taxpayer funds are not there to do that by ourselves. in essence, essence, we had to develop a business proposition to fill the needs of both parties. in developing the rp we met with hundreds of commercial entities, educating them on business proposition, listening to their concerns and trying to bring in the commercial world to the table. we are in the marketing mode to create the demand of the buildup to the release first net held numerous industry days, informational sessions with investment community, educational webinars, public speaking on both rp documents and the final rp. ultimately, after one year of intense work where able to release the rfp back in january of this year, it was open to vendor community for a little over five months and was closed on this may, 31st. we are confident the rp will lead to a successful private

partnership that congress and vision. we also will enable our party to achieve public safety user targets, the coverage goes, the, the price points, and financial sustainability that we need. we will maximize the value of the 7,000,000,000 of the 20 megahertz spectrum that congress and the american tax payer provided first net. we also know that public safety user base exist and user adoption targets will become a contractor. we have designed the rfp to incentivize our partners to achieve the goals so we are allowing the markets to work in both our and public safety advantage. we have structured financial safeguards and operational oversight control over a partner to ensure that we have the ability to keep them accountable throughout the duration of the contract. today, we are in the evaluation phase of the project due to regulations that are placed upon first and come i cannot comment on any aspects of the current actions of the organization

related to the human. in 2060 we still continue consultation efforts with the state, conduct outreach with safety agencies, we will select a partner and begin developing of state plan. art previously established partnerships will be critical for this is of the effort. while we are proud of our efforts thus far, we cannot afford to rest for one moment. too much work needs to be done. public safety is long been demanding that broadband network and we are now in reach of achieving this goal. the men and women who protect us from harm's way are counting on us to deliver the network and we must do so for the sake of all first responders across the country. the need for the network has never been higher in order to meet the lofty expectations of public safety everywhere, i'm the organization is committed to achieving the goals that congress laid out for us just a few short years ago. thank you again for your support i look for to your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. mcleod.

>> chairman wicker, ranking member shots, distinguish, distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is jeff mcleod, and tract of the homeland security public safety division at the national governors association center for best practices. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you as a representative our nation's governors. to discuss our to discuss our shared commitment to building and sustaining a nationwide broadband network dedicated to public safety. angie angie it was a leading advocate of the public safety legislation that led to the creation first net. we have presented governors before congress like implementation issues and challenges facing states. a blood test why today will adjust factors that governors must weigh in reaching a decision whether to join the deployment of the public safety broadband network is posed by first the, or to opt out and take on the responsibility of the plane, operating, maintaining a a radio access network in their state.

specifically i was focus on three issues, 11 coverage, too, cost and three the consultation process that it requires to engage state leaders. i like to summarize my remarks and as my full written testimony be slid to the record. a primary consideration for governors in reaching their decision is the network's ability to offer reliable coverage state way. this is a top concern in states with large rural areas and states with challenging geography. first net has started the buildout maintenance of the network would be funded by miller from excess fees generated from the user base in more densely populated areas. thus they are likely to prioritize buildout in metropolitan areas before rural areas. however, the financial needs of the network must be balance with the needs of the public safety community. states will require the network be built in rural areas were commercial access is more limited. in addition to concerns about coverage, questions of cost is on the top of the agenda. governors want to know whether

the network can be built with existing cost model, whether the user fee is to connect, and and what are the long-term administrative operational costs. the financial models underpin the networks long-term sustainability requires a robust and diverse user base. if these are two highs public safety users do not utilize the network, the financial financial success of the network could be in jeopardy. states remain concerned that this could use to user fees that out way the usage. given the unprecedented nature building i maintain a network of this size and complexity, states are concerned that the possibility of the cost been shifted to them. regarding first that's outreach to governors, on the the consultation piece, some express concerned about the terms of engagement. after the consultation process first net has the constituents.

this me the appearance of the word choice it alters the tenor of the engagement and lessens the focus on partnership. first net must you states is the full partners in this endeavor. states have key information, processes and expertise that must be brought to bear in the full range of personnel activities. in closing to many states it is false choice, there are number of unknowns associated with opting in, very, very few states are in a position to take on unknowable and significant financial liabilities associated with the building, operating, maintaining, and upgrading of all radio access network or if they choose to opt out. the man would like to know the transitioning governor's administration with the coming election cycle presents a communication and education challenge for first net. on behalf of nga and our members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look for to questions you may have. >> thank you very much. general logan. >> chairman victor, ranking

member shots, all members of the senate committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. i made sure general author logan for the state of hawaii and governor appointed me as the state single point of contact for first net in january of 2015. when he first called me i had to think back to star trek in the 1970s and touch the top of my ears to make sure that they were not pointed but i gather they were rounded so everything is good. i'm also the director of emergency management homeland security advisement for the governor and i also oversee the hawaii and air national guard. from those perspectives in my 20 years of law-enforcement experience i want to share with the members of this committee the importance of first. the time i was appointed in january 2015, the team had already been engaged in hawaii and prepare it for the deployment of first net very much the effort focused on education and outreach to public safety and public policy stakeholders as well as working

toward establishing governance, governors model and strengthening hawaii's current public safety communications infrastructure. my first year and have a job a job involve briefings from key staff in hawaii meeting with leadership in attendance to the biannual meetings. an leading state efforts to develop key public safety communication plans. let me just cover a few of the brief activities. hawaii sponsored the first first net form for noncontiguous states in territories in july of 2014. so hawaii had the foresight to anticipate the needs and concerns of noncontiguous states such as hawaii, alaska, kuan, american samoa, the commonwealth of the northern mariana islands, puerto rico, the virgin islands. we know we are different than our sister states in the lower 48 who are connected by borders and can share coverage. to that end, 2014 hawaii sponsored the first ever noncontiguous states and territories meeting on the island of quae. the intensities included policymakers and government

public safety and communication experts from hawaii and alaska and the people from representatives of the other states. the office of emergency communications, while walk participants to the evolution of technologies used in public safety communications. from the current standard of land mobile radios to the future of public safety broadband. first net heard directly from these jurisdictions and actively participated in the dialogue. one year later in july we sponsored it executive level briefings and invited the ceo, tj kennedy kennedy and the director of government affairs at parkinson who flew to hawaii and engaged in the governor's cabinet to bring the new leaders up-to-date in the concept of first net and how it may value to public safety and why. and in august of 2015 was 15 was our first net state net

consultation. they brought their technical and state plans staff to hawaii for day and have meetings with all hawaii stakeholders. while first net updated the attendees on the progress of the progress, hawaii stakeholders of over 90 county, state of federal partners also had the opportunity to inform first net about the challenges of public safety and communication that arise in hawaii. over the time of the media there is an active participation in the community and good questions are generated. it was said that it was the first meeting in hawaii where people stayed the whole time. they're not out on the beach enjoying the fine weather. later on, the first net environmental team came out to hawaii and proposed a problematic environmental impact statement help public meetings on a wahoo and shared their findings with the public. lastly, dated submissions. we work within our state, public

safety throughout hawaii to supply first net with a great deal of data regarding specific communication needs for public safety drill to stay. first net will use that data in putting together state plan. they conclusion, as a state single single for the contact i'm grateful for the committee to share hawaii's perspective and i look for to the questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good morning chairman wicker, ranking member shots, and distinguish members of the subcommittee, thank subcommittee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to talk to today about first net, more than four years since the passage of the act that established the authority.

i appreciate the invitation to be here to discuss this important topic. i am the principal assistant inspector general for audit and evaluation at the department of commerce office of inspector general. our testimony today will focus on three areas that we have identified as ongoing risks the first that will face. we believe that these challenges will become apparent during their efforts to ensure limitations of a nation wide interoperable wireless private network for the public safety community. specifically, these three areas of risk include one, acquisition management. two, consultations with states and localities. three, internal control. our office believes that if these three areas with short and long-term risks are not addressed between now and the launch in approximately midyear 2018 the implementation may not succeed. the first of the three topics i will discusses that first net must effectively manage the acquisition. the deadline for bidders have passed and they plan to issue a final word as soon as november of this year. the approach to final issuance of this award may prove difficult with everything left to accomplish and we believe the schedule is aggressive. we also believe that successfully managing the request for proposal including

evaluate vendor proposals on avoiding conflicts of interest, is critical critical to the development and implementation of the network. in executing that implementation we believe that first net will face geographical challenges in providing service to all 56 states and territories in a competitive cost. finally, for first net to succeed multiple federal agencies will have to collaborate efficiently over the 25 year term of the contract. the second topic i will discuss is that effective consultation with states another localities is critical for first net success. the act requires first not to consult with a variety stakeholders as it built a network, including but not limited to, federal, state, tribal, local pipe safety entities. they they have made progress in their safety efforts in ways including conducting visits with 55 states and territories, attending, attending conferences, speaking at gatherings, attending national safety events and outreach meetings, working with law-enforcement leaders, and engaging in social media.

for the network to succeed we believe that first net must continue its complication and outreach efforts to identify public safety needs. while doing this, first net must use input from its consultation to develop individual plans for each state and territory which uniquely satisfy their needs. finally, that their potential risk of data discusses that first that must continue to strengthen its internal control. in each of our audit reports we have identify control weaknesses , similarly as part of first net's annual financial statement audit, independent auditing auditing firms also identified areas where controls need strengthening. what made aware of these issues, first net management responded properly stayed in the plans and addressing their concerns and in many instances has begun to implement change. in conclusion, these skills are three areas of risk to first net in the group's effort to minimize potential impact must be both ongoing and attentive. chairman, ranking members

members and members of the subcommittee, thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today. i asked them a testimony be entered into the record and i will be have happy to answer any questions. >> well thank you very much. let's do five-minute rounds of questioning. let's talk about the fact that 7,000,000,000 dollars does not go as far as it used to go. the $7 billion really was startup funding, is not intended to sustain the network for very long. with vastly rule populations having differ emergency needs, what challenges do you have there and what are your thoughts about covering the rural areas of this nation? also with regard to that, once

first noticed a play that is going to charge user fees. do you think the user fees will generate enough revenue to sustain first net, and and is this going to be a problem for rural areas in terms of a cost burden? >> thank you very much for the question. you are exactly right. $7 billion does not go as far as it used to. what we have done with the 7,000,000,000, but more important that 20 megahertz of spectrum that congress gave first net, that becomes the true value to then sit at the table with a partner to come together with their assets in our assets and we believe that 20 megahertz of spectrum is a beachfront property and we should and will maximize the value of that for

public safety. we expect that the commercial partners will come with exxon a capital on their side to start the nationwide buildout of the broadband network. part of of the components that we built into the rfp also we are not satisfied just to attack the densely populated areas. we're also very focused on the role coverage and even though it is a statutory requirement, we we built into the rp that every phase of the buildout, at least a role coverage component will be contained in there. we expect expect our commercial partners who are typically incentivized by only going out as far as economically feasible will have to look at that mandate we are expected to the responses exactly what that coverage component will be. we have have also required in the rfp with each phase of the buildout role coverage components which by the fifth year of the buildout 100% of what they had proposed in role coverage will be accomplished. we have also to address concerns

about cost out in the rural areas, we are driving in through the rfp for public safety prefer pricing. we expect the commercial partner to be very successful and we hope that they are in commoditizing the access spectrum on the commercial side though keep the peace in revenues coming into first net for not only the sustainability, but also keep the cost down for public safety users, whether they're they are in role, urban, or suburban areas. we think with all those various factors together we have provided a platform for success for both public safety and the partner to be successful on this contract. >> okay, well continue to keep us posted on that. the one minute 42 seconds remaining i don't know know if i can ask you to respond to one of the other panel members testimony.

but he did mention some concerns no doubt about it particularly about first that continuing to strengthen its internal control and i think the clear messages that it is not where it needs to be. that is the way i took the testimony. so let me just ask you, your team has participated in outreach efforts throughout the country to assess needs in each state. do you believe the decision-making process as it stands today is as good as it

should be? >> there's obviously room for improvement in everything that you do, but i will make a run at trying to answer some of the concerns. on the acquisition management we have a very rigorous process in place to ensure the ultimate. >> let me just, let's go then to the one that i specifically mentioned which first that must continue to strengthen its internal control and i do believe i've characterized the testimony is that it is not where it should be. >> rate. i think we believe the internal controls have been in place and thanks to the work of the working collaboratively with the inspector general we have instituted even more rigor in the internal controls and audits, both within first net compliance committee reviews, people and processes, processes, we have strengthen those sand with the inspector general's audits. i think think we believe now that the controls that are in place are allowing us to be successful toward the future for the partnership going forward. >> and you think the decision-making processes it stands today is as good as it