making serious progress in the battle to degrade and to destroy them. and when i say "we" i'm not just talking about the u.s. i'm not just talking about us and canada, not talking about just the u.s. and canada, maybe parts of europe. i'm talking about a coalition that now includes 60 nations, 60 nations from around the world, including some that are muslim nations, and i think they're an important part of this coalition. we have this map here. just for a little familiarity here, here's iraq, part of iraq over here, anbar province. here's baghdad and a town called fallujah we've heard a lot about in recent years and especially recent days. a place up here called tikrit, saddam hussein's hometown and a town here called mosul. this is the kurdish part of

iraq, if you will. and this part here frankly doesn't have a lot of people but a lot of land. coming over here to syria, there's a syrian town called raqka which is the strong hoald of isis, part of the caliphate. if you look at -- this is syria down here and damascus, lebanon and up to a place called aleppo. if you go back a year or so ago, this area that's green and this area that's salmon, that was sort of the high water mark for isis in terms of land that they had taken control of. what has happened in recent months is this coalition, mr. president, of 60 nations has struck back.

you remember the empire strikes back. well, the coalition in this case is striking back. and this land up here and this land masses in the green, particularly in the part of iraq, about half of the area of iraq -- within iraq that was controlled by isis maybe a year ago, maybe two years ago, about half of that has been reclaimed. half of that has been reclaimed. the biggest battle that's going on right now has been in fallujah where the coalition forces largely led by the iraqi ground troop, not american ground troops but largely led by iraqi ground troops have taken over the center city and they're battling out in some of the neighborhoods with isis forces. the next -- hopefully they'll be successful. i think they will. the next battle, the big battle sup here in mosul. and -- is up here in mosul. the role of the u.s. --

southeast asia during the vietnam war and another 18 years in the cold war as a commander. i served a long time in the cold war. this coalition we have a coalition that's large. you don't -- every nation doesn't do the same thing. that would be foolish. what we do, bring to the battle is americans -- as americans is we provide some of the equipment that's needed, some of the training that is needed. we provide intelligence. we provide air support. we have special forces and counterterrorism troops, not tens of thousands of them but they're in the thousands. but that's what we bring to the battle. we don't bring a lot of boots to the ground. we bring -- some people are on the ground but for the most part that's not what we do. and the iraqi army which did not distinguish itself well. a year or two when isis pushed through this part of iraq, the iraqis are getting their act together and they have some

special -- i'll call them special forces. it's probably not what they call themselves but special forces which are pretty darn good in terms of their capabilities. they're much involved in the efforts around fallujah and hopefully and i'm sure they're involved in tikrit which again former stronghold, hometown of saddam hussein. i think other fighting has gone on here. the -- so what's happening is the coalition is striking back in iraq. interesting things going on over here in syria. again, this is the area in the salmon, the salmon color, is still controlled by isis and the landmass they control, so-called caliphate, which is i think steadily being eroded but what's going on in iraq is something interesting because what you have is the russians are providing air support and the troops loyal to the president

assad of syria, who most of the world thinks should step down, not too long from now as president and put together a new kind of government there, but in any event, the assad, the syrian troops are pushing up from the southwest with support from the russian air. and in this part we have u.s. air support and we have coalition forces, the coalition that we're an active part of. so kind of a squeeze movement going on here on raqqah. is the battle over? no, it's not. is it going in the right direction after a tough couple of years? i think it is. and i want to just mention a couple of metrics that i think are good for us to keep in mind. again at height of his power, isis controlled all the area in green and in salmon. right through the outskirts of baghdad.

and in recent months, isis has lost the area in the green and they still control the salmon area, but as you can see, the coalition forces are on the march. and that is good. isishas lost, again, half the ld they control in iraq. they've lost about 20% of the land that they control in syria, and there's real pressure being put on the key city that they control, rakka. ramadi, a good victory for our troops, for our coalition, and tikrit, which is right here, and mosul is an area where we have coalition forces that have pretty much encircled mosul, and they're preapg to enter -- preparing to enter that city in the weeks to come. as we speak -- as we speak, kurdish, iraqi, and syrian

forces backed by the u.s. special forces are making preparations again to take mosul -- right there -- and rakka, in an interesting coalition with the russians and the syrian fighters. we have cut isis funds by, i'm told, up to a third. we've destroyed -- literally destroyed a lot of their money, found out where they had their cash, holding their cash, hiding their cash, and literally bombed it and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars that they were using to pay soldiers and provide for things that they immediate to fight their -- that they need to fight their war n this fight, we've killed some 25,000 isis fighters and more recently 120 of their key leaders. we've drastically slowed the flow of foreign recruits from a high of about 2,000 per month down to about 200 per month. the folks that were joining you-

joining up with isis a few months ago when they were trying to create this caliphate right here, that stopped. and the enthusiasm, their ability to actually recruit people, has diminished dramatically. when this big fight for this whole area here was under way two years ago, there were, i think, about 2,000 people a month showing up from around the world who wanted to be part of this fight with isis. today it is not 2,000 people a month. it is about 200 from around the world. in the u.s. about two years ago we had about ten americans per month leaving the u.s. and going to join forces with isis and be part of this. it is not ten people a month now. it's about one. the folks that are turning out, whether it is in the u.s., in the world, down dramatically. they want to be part of a inwithing team. -- they want to be part of a winning team. our job, the coalition's job, is

to make it clear, eye circumstance they might have been a -- isis, they might have been a winging team two years ago. but they're back on their heels, we're pushing them hard. we're making slow but steady progress. if we keep working together, we'll make a whole lot more progress. there is an african-american proverb, mr. president, you've probably heard before. it goes something like this. "if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, travel together." and we're doing this together, with a lot of other countries from around the world. it's taken a while to get our act together. as somebody who's fought in a war and worked with other coalition forces, different languages, not used to working together, it takes a while to get it done. i think we've made real progress in that regard. and what -- what's going on now that isis is doing badly on the

battlefield, they're still using social media to try to project the idea that, oh, they're doing just fine and things are going just hunky-dory. and these guys are really good at social media. what they're trying to do is win here through social media in the u.s. what they've been unable to win on the battlefield. and one of the things that isis tries to do in recruiting people in this country is to convince them that there's going to be a caliphate and that they can be part of a winning team. what we want to make real clear is this ain't going to be a winning team for much longer. in fact, i think the winning part of their season is behind them and what lies ahead is not good. a sports metaphor here -- had a big nba finals a couple nights ago, about a week ago, where the cleveland cavaliers did an amazing comeback, one three

straight games at the end and became the nba champs again a very good team from california. i was happy to be in cleveland for the funeral of george voinovich the day of the finals. and everywhere i looked i saw people wearing cleveland cavaliers shirts, hats, paraphernalia. my guess is the day after the game when cleveland won the championship, you saw even more of that -- all over cleveland, all over ohio. when are ever cleveland fans were, they brought out their allegiance to their femme. probably a little bit less on the golden state warriors' side, despite the fact that they played brilliantly. but it is real important that we continue to make clear on the battled field who is winning -- on th the battlefield, who is winning. and that reduces the ability of isis to radicalize and recruit

people in this country who want to do harm, hurt people, kill people in this nation so, first, degrade and destroy -- that's going on; second, make sure the message is clear, that good progress is being made for our side, for our forces and the coalition we're a part of. i think that's about it. i see one of my colleagues on the other side with whom i enjoy working about to take the field, and so i would yield and thank you very much for the time to share these thoughts today. thanks so much. i yield the floor. mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, before i get started on what i really want to talk about today, which is the real threat facing our nation, i want to reflect for a few minutes on the antics and the theater that's going on in the house. mr. president, you and i were both speakers of the house, in your great state of florida and

my great state of north carolina, and i don't know about you, but the business of the house is more important than the antics that we see going on there, and if it were my chamber, it would be cleared and people would be arrested, if that's what's necessary to get us back to the task at hand. we have a number of things that we need to work on here -- economic security, national security, homeland security. and why people would use the pulpit of the house floor of the house chamber to advance their political agenda, to advance their fund-raising -- go out to their political web sites and see how many of them have sent out an e-mail over the past week expanding a political tragedy for their political purposes? i think it is disgusting. i think what we need to do is recognize that there are issues with handguns going into the hands of people who are men it y

ill. we should have an open discussion about thousand fix that. we heard a report about some two dozen souls who lost their lives in a theater in germany. germany has some of the most stringent gun laws in europe. we see another tranlic outcome in germany. let's continue to have a debate about how we keep guns out of the hadgeds of -- hands of terrorists, out of felons, out of people with mental health. make no mistake about it on june 12 in orlando, that was an act of traimplet the perpetrator is either self-radicalized or maybe was radicalized through some contact with terrorist organizations. but it is a death cult that wants to destroy our way of life. it is actually a death cult that particularly focuses on the lgbt community. they're murdering thousands of people in the middle east, many of them simply because they're

gay. so we have to recognize that, make no mistake, while this attack occurred in orlando, it could happen anywhere in the united states. why is that so? the distinguished gentleman from delaware talked about progress we're making with isis. he said we're having fewer foreign fighters. you know why? because isis has figured out how to radicalize people in the nations they live. we've seen it in san bernardino, in orlando, at fort hood. how long do we have to take before we recognize the fundamental threat to this nation is terror and isis spreading its tentacles into our own homeland? so, mr. president, it wasn't -- the distinguished gentleman from delaware is a good friend of mine. we've worked together on legislation. for those of you in the gallery, this is an opportunity for you to hear two very different perspectives on the situation we're dealing with now. i don't think we're making progress. i think when i have someone come before the senate armed services

committee or come before the judiciary committee and tell us that the number of threats in the united states are greater than at any time since 9/11, that's not progress. when i have an f.b.i. director tell me that they have about 1,000 cases similar to what you saw in orlando that they have to research every year, that's not progress. when we find out that there are investigations, active investigations that have the potential threat of what we saw in orlando in every single state, that's not progress. and i think the president is either in denial or wants us to believe a kind of propaganda. and the reason for this is his own administration is at odds with what he says publicly. he doesn't want to discuss his own party -- he doesn't want to discuss the threat of radical islamic terror. over the past week, the attorney general said that the ultimate

solution to terror is compassion, unity, and love. how many people think that isis, that al-nusra, that hamas, hezbollah, the iran terror network -- do we honestly believe that they will respond to compassion, unity and love? we need to have compassion, unit unity, and love in our community. we need to have our hearts pour out to the victims, the 29, in orlando. we need to show compassion and love to that community. but icy isn't going to re-- but isis isn't going to respond to that kind of threat. i want to give you some examples of why i think the president isn't listening to the heroes and experts in his own administration. starting on january 15 -- or, 2015, the president said "we are lead ago broad coalition ... to degrade and ultimately destroy this terror group."

the former c.i.a. director and secretary of defense in the obama administration a month after the president said this, "... to destroy isis with the means he has approved so far, i think that's an unattainable objective." who do you believe? someone who wakes up every morning and looks at this threat? or the president who clearly doesn't want to relate the reality to the american people? let's go to the next november. the president bragged that his nonexistent strategy to defeat isis was succeedings. he said, "... our goal has been first to cantain, and we have contained them." them being isil or isis. this american hero, former commandant of the marine corps, now chair of the joint chiefs of staff, within two months said, "we have not contained isil." which one do you want to believe? one that had the confidence of the marine corps to have him

being their commandant and now joint chiefs of staff, or someone who's apparently not listening? now, the day after the terrorist attack on american soil, president obama made another bold statement. he said, "isil is not going to pose an existential threat to us. we have hardened our defenses, our homeland has never been more protected." a week later, another obama administration official, an extraordinarily talented and bright person, head of the f.b.i., director james comey, poured cold water over that statement. director comey said, "their ability to have a safe haven from which to gather resources, people, and a plan and plot, increases the risk of their ability to mount a sophisticated attack against the homeland." "increases the risk." from the f.b.i. director. that was nut that administration by -- that was put in that administration by president

obama. now, we have one more. with the president's disconnection from his administration, you know, we've -- we got to realize that the rhetoric and the reality is just not matching. on june 14, two days after the orlando shooting, president obama once again insisted that isis is on the run. he stated, "we are mawing significant progress ... this campaign at this stage is firing on all cylinders. and as a result, isil is under more pressure than ever before." two days later, ladies and gentlemen. over the past week and a half. two days later the president's director of the central intelligence agency, james brennan, made a dramatically contradictory assessment. "despite all our progress against isil dot on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach." the c.i.a. director's comments

are incredibly straightforward. isis still poses a threat to our homeland and our allies. every single member of the senate knows this reality ands, in addition to the hearing and public statements. i have a he gone to the middle east. i've traveled to saudi arabia, to iraq, to the kurdish region of iraq, to afghanistan, to jordan, to egypt. to a person they say the president is in denial. we're not taking the fight to isil. what happens when you don't take the fight to your enemy? they bring the fight to you. that's what we're seeing with these self-radicalized or isis-inspired radicals in this nation, and there's a growing number, a thousand active investigations going on every year. so ladies and gentlemen, you have to recognize that isis and these terrorist organizations are very sophisticated. they have a platform that no other -- in no other time in our history any other foe has had, social media.

they've -- the threat to the homeland is increasing. it's not decreasing. we have to recognize that. we have to have a president who either gets out of denial when his administration tells him what the real threats are or stop pretending that we're doing well. we have a threat to this homeland. we have a threat to our men and women in uniform who have sworn to go across seas, defend the freedom of other countries and defend our own freedom. we have an obligation in this body. the president has an obligation to recognize we are not winning. and i'm not saying this as a republican trying to build political rhetoric. i'm sayin saying it because thef -- the chairman of the joint chiefs, the f.b.i. director, key officials in this president's administration is saying this. so ladies and gentlemen, i just hope that over the course of the next week, we can focus on the real problem.

god forbid another orlando happens in this nation. we'll find out what the specifics are for the lost souls in georgia, and my heart goes out to them. in fact, i had some staff wonder whether or not i should give this speech today in light of the tragic events in germany. i think it's even more important. we need to recognize that this is a very, very unsafe world that we live in. we need to recognize that democrats and republicans have to solve that problem. we need to continue to look for ways to keep guns out of terrorists. and i should add why don't we come up with a policy where if it were implemented, maybe orlando could have prevented but the policy offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle last week wouldn't have done it and they acknowledged that. let's focus on policies where they will. our nation diservegs a leader who listen, to his expert -- deserves a leader who listens to his experts. our nation deserves a leader who will take the fight to isis. and our nation will be less safe

unless our president recognizes that it's his number one goal. thank you, mr. president. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: very seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: tank you, mr. president, for the recognition. mr. udall: in five months americans will go to the polls and vote. that's our heritage. it's something to celebrate and something to protect. but this year many americans are fed up with our political system. they're tired of corporations and the super wealthy controlling our politicians and our elections. they don't trust our democracy to reflect the will of we, the people. what has changed since our founding fathers began the constitution with those words? what has changed since several decades ago when many more americans had more confidence in our government?

i'll tell you what i think has changed. people are now questioning the integrity of our elections. our campaign finance system is under siege drowning in record president as of money, much of it from outside groups and much of it, hidden money, dark money. our election should not be for sale to the highest bidder. over 150 years ago abraham lincoln saw the danger of too much money in politics. lincoln warned about and i quote from him, "corruption in high places until the republic is destroyed." we are reaching that point. money has poisoned our political system. it's no wonder the american people have lost faith in us. this is constant money chasing from special interests and very little else getting done. our constituents want congress

to get to work and to work together finding real solutions to real problems. that's why a few months ago several of my colleagues and i got together to discuss the state of our democracy, our electorate system, our political system. the question we asked ourselves is what can we do to repair this damage, to return the government to the people? the product of those meetings is the bill we introduced last week, the we the people act. it will bring dark money out of the shadows, create a real watchdog to enforce campaign finance laws, rein in the influence of special interests and lobbyists. the we the people act includes my constitutional amendment to allow congress and the states to enact even more significant reforms, reforms five conservative justices on the supreme court can't overturn. we are offering this to start a

conversation about what needs to be done to fix a broken system. i hope it will even lead to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in this effort. i want to talk specifically about two sections of the bill, and i thank my -- think my colleague senator merkley will be here to talk about some of the portions. some of the other portions of the bill that are especially important to him. the first is a democracy for all constitutional amendment which i introduced area the supreme court's disastrous citizens united ruling when the court put a for sale sign on our elections changing the -- on our elections. changing the constitution is a big step. i know that. as james madison said, it should be amended only on great and extraordinary occasions. and i agree with him. but i also believe we have

reached one of those rare occasions. citizens united was wrong. it's dangerous. and it cannot stand. amending the constitution can take a long time, but this movement actually was started decades ago by a republican. many of our predecessors from both parties understood the danger. they knew that money was a corrosive impact on our elections. they spent years championing the cause. senator ted steven, a republican icon from alaska introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn buckley v. file fileto. he saw the expect that campaign extend turs were having on congress over three decades. he recognized over 30 years ago that we were in an arms race, that the drive for money would only get worse and congress' ability to function would suffer. that was only the beginning.

in every congress from the 99th to the 108th, senator fritz hollins introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment very similar to the one that i'm carrying this year. senator schumer and senator cochran continued the effort in the 109th congress. even majority leader mcconnell once had his own constitutional amendment to limit the influence of money on our elections. that was all before citizens united and ma cuch chin, both of those decision, by the scowrpt. it walls before things went from bad to worse, the out of control spending since those decisions has further poisoned our elections. in a few minutes senator merkley and i and our colleagues will hold a press conference about this bill. we will highlight the growth of one special interest group that has increased its spending

exponentially since citizens united. that group is the n.r.a. fueled with contributions from gun manufacturers, it has republicans so scared they don't even hold a vote on commonsense steps to protect families from gun violence. even when americans are crying out for action, even after tragedies like sandy hook and orlando, even when democrats are holding a protest in the house chamber itself, i went to stand with them for a while yesterday. republicans could loosen the hole the n.r.a. -- hold the n.r.a. has over ourselves and has over themselves in the congress if they would join us in this effort to reform our elections as they have in the past. i know the political climate of an election year makes it even more difficult, but i will reintroduce this amendment in the next congress and the next and i hope my republican

colleagues will join me. poll after poll shows that our constituents across the political spectrum want this amendment. new york just became the 17th state calling for congress to pass this constitutional amendment. it's time we listen to the states. i'd also like to talk about my bill to replace the dysfunctio dysfunctional federal election commission with a new federal election commission, we would replace it with what we call a new federal election administration. it's also included in the we the people act. my constitutional amendment will allow congress to finally enact meaningful reforms. but meanwhile it's more important than ever to have a cop on the beat enforcing the rules on the books. that job is supposed to go to the federal election commission, but in today's high bipartisan environment, the f.c.c. is

powerless to enforce the law. gridlock is pervasive. one of its own commissioners admitted that there's a slim chance they would be able to do anything this year. she called it and i quote from her, "worse than dysfunctional." "the new york times" editorial board called it and i quote, "borderline useless." reform groups have dubbed it a different kind of fmplets e.c. it's time to replace it with a new agency, one that's empowered to keep a close eye on the candidates, super packs and the parties and that will finally crack down on election law violations. my friend senator john mccain was one of the first to propose to abolish the f.e.c. as we know it and replace it with an agency with the teeth it needs to do

the job. he and senator fine fine introduced this bill several times in several congresses. the federal election commission act will eliminate the f. e.c. and start afresh. there will be a new sheriff in town standing up for voters nationwide. my constitutional amendment and the federal election administration act are just two pieces of the we the people reformage. i'll let my colleagues discuss the bills they've contributed to the effort. senator whitehouse, senator leahy, senator king, baldwin and bennet all have important pieces of this legislative package. and let me be clear. this is just a starting point. the we the people act includes many important reforms, but there are additional things we must do to return democracy to the people. we must ensure every american has access to the polls. we need to end the gerrymandering of congressional districts, a practice that

allows incumbents to stay in office indefinitely. and we must enact comprehensive public financing that will empower small donors and make their voices heard again. this is an opportunity for congress to respond to the american people. they want, they demand reform. congress has a long history of regulating campaign finance. often in the wake of scandal. since 1867 we've had the pendleton act, the tillman act, the federal corrupt practices act of 1925, the hatch act, the federal election campaign act of 1974, and the bipartisan campaign act of 2002. first scandal, then reform. that is the unfortunate pattern, a pattern we can break with the we the people act. let's reform the system before there is another major scandal.

let's respond to the voters, republicans and democrats, who want a better government, a government of we the people. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that a summary of the we the people act be included in the record at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. the senator from colorado.

mr. merkley: my colleague from new mexico has laid out the case that our nation is far off the track from our founding principles. our authors of the constitution wrote these initial words in supersized font so that decades or centuries later we would realize that this is what our form of government is all about. it is not about a small group of highly powerful individuals charting the course of our country. it is not about a small group of highly privileged individuals charting the course for our country. that our nation was to be very different, and it symbolized -- and it's symbolized by we the people, or as summarized by president lincoln many years later, a system of government of the people, by the people, and

for the people. but we are at a time now when this core principle is being profoundly, profoundly challenged. let's think for a moment about how thomas jefferson laid this out. he said, we can claim to be a republic only to the degree that our decisions reflect the will of the people and that we can claim to be a republic only to the degree that the individuals within that government have an equal voice. so there is the principle. he referred to it as the mother principle, that the test of whether or not our government lived up to this vision "we the people" would be whether our decisions reflect the will and that that would only be possible -- only be possible when the citizens each have an equal opportunity to participate. well, in fact, today that vision

of equal opportunity to participate has been profoundly undermined. we have a court case 40 years ago, buckley v. valeo, that basically said money is speech and money can be spent without limits. we have the on-going situation of the court taking a look and saying, corporations can be treated as if they were people. this gives a small group of individuals on the board of a corporation the assets of thousands or millions of americans, and they can spend it at their will with never informing the people who own that money, the owners of the corporation, without ever informing them about the political positions that they are taking. this is not free speech. this is stalin speech. if a group spends my money without telling me how they're spending my money, it is stolen speech. and yet that is what wref in citizens united. the supreme court in a 5-4

decision went way off track. the supreme court where the majority failed to understand the heart of what our democracy, our republic is all about. now, if we turn the clock black back -- now, if we turn the clock back, there was a world where we had the town square. the town square was free. anyone could stand up and express their position an policy issue or express their position on a candidate. didn't cost a thing. but then we evolved into the electronic age. the electronic age, the town square is on radio, television, the internet. it costs a lot of money to participate. and then a supreme court that says you can spend unlimited sums, which means that the affluent, whether they are a multimillionaire or billionaire or they are a corporation, the affluent, the powerful can buy up the town square and exclude deliberately the voice of the

people. they can exercise a megaphone that is equivalent to that of a stadium sound system that drowns out the voice of the people. that's what our supreme court has allowed to happen with our precious, our beautiful "we the people" republic. this must not stand. we see a multiplication of the corrupting influences embodied by these decisions. it was in 2014 when the senator from new mexico and i were up for reelection that the koch brothers decided to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to essentially buy control of this chamber, the u.s. senate. they spent their money in an unlimited fashion. at ththey do so in louisiana, arkansas,, north carolina, iowa, new hampshire, and michigan, in colorado, alaska, and, yes, my home state of oregon. and they won most of those races. in most cases, their megaphone

worked pretty well because that's what happens when you control the town square and exclude the people. and now we have a chamber that responds to the every whim of the koch brothers like a puppet on a string, from the very first bill that was ever considered here in this chamber after my colleagues across the aisle took control until now, where for the first time in u.s. history -- the first time in u.s. history -- the republican party, the majority party has gone on a job strike, failing to do their responsibility under our constitution, a constitution that carefully laid out a check called advice and consent. that check on nominations was laid out by jefferson and hamilton. they said, we are going to place a responsibility for nominations with a single person because

then there's accountability. but we're concerned, if that single person goes off track, if that single person hires cronies who are unqualified, hires people who don't have the appropriate background, then there has to be a body that says, that individual is unfit -- of unfit character is a term that hamilton used. so that's our responsibility. to determine if a person is of fit or unfit character. it isn't to undermine the executive branch, to undermine the courts. yet that's the way it's being wielded at this very moment here in the senate. and never have we seen such an abuse of the constitution as to fail to hold any effort to fulfill responsibilities to determine if a nominee is of fit character. a nominee for the supreme court

-- this is a deliberate effort, driven by the koch brothers, to pack the supreme court, to say we'll go on a job strike for more than a year in the hopes that we can get a nominee to the far right who will support changing "we the people" to "we the powerful;" a nominee who will support changing "we the people" to "we the privileged." that's the goal of the majority of this chamber that has essentially been chirred by the koch brothers in -- hired by the koch brothers in the 2016 campaign. we must reclaim our republic. that's why this "we the people" legislative package that's put together is so important. the first major principle of this package is disclosure and transparency. virtually every member of this body has at some point said, disclosure is the sunlight that

disinfects the political system. when it came time to actually vote for disclosure, the koch brothers intervened and said, no, no ... that'll take away some of our power of the ultra-wealthy if we have to disclose what we're doing. and just again like a puppet on a string members switched their positions, deeply disapointing, supporting the web of dark money entities. we must change this. we must secure disclosure because it does help disinfect the political system. it may not completely cure the problem, but it is an important way to advance as a remedy. the package includes senator king's realtime transparency act which would require all candidates for federal office to report contributions over $1,000 to the federal elections commission within 408 hours.

that is a -- within 48 hours. that is a valuable contribution. it includes an act to end individual candidates' super pacs and strengthen the rules, prohibiting coordination between outside entities -- that is, a super pac -- and an individual's campaign. because right now that coordination has grown to the extent it makes a mockery of the supreme court drawing a distinction from third-party campaigns and an individual campaign. and it includes my colleagues from new mexico, his federal election administration act that he was speaking to just moments ago. a second area that the "we the people" package takes on is to take on lobbying and the revolving door. senator bennet's close the revolving door act, which would put in place a six-year ban for congressional staff from lobbying, and a lifetime ban for members of congress. if you have the honor and the

privilege of serving in this chamber, it shouldn't be that you do so with an eye to becoming a multimillion-dollar-per-year lobbyist when you resign. yet, that is all too common in the halls of congress, corrupting the responsibility that we have to the american people. it also closes the lobbying registration loophole by requiring someone who has two or more lobbying contracts in a two-year period to register as a lobbyist so that they're more accurately understood when somebody is a paid advocate. and senator baldwin's financial services conflicts of interest act which prohibits private sector employees for offering bonuses for leaving to join the government. picture this: a wall street firm says, oh, you're going to go serve in the treasury department? you're going to go serve in the securities and exchange

commission where you will have vast influence over the rules that we live by? great, we're going to give you a bonus. we will pay out that bonus at multi-thousands of dollars every month while you serve in the government. it is essentially a way for powerful entities to put a government employee on their payroll. and we have another problem. people leave these commissions, they leave that's appointments with the executive branch and return to industry and get a platinum paycheck in appreciation for what they did for the industry while they were here in the halls of congress. that, too, is extremely corrupting. so there is much work to be done. i never thought in my lifetime i would see the situation that the supreme court majority of five fails toed understand the -- fails to understand the core principles on which our nation was founded, becoming an activist for the powerful rather than for the people.

we must reclaim our core institution. we must reclaim the ability to have balance of power between our three branches of government. wree must reclaim -- we must reclaim transparency. we must reclaim our nation with its beautiful, revolutionary concept of a nation of, birks and for the -- of, by, and for the people rather than of, for, -- rather than of, birks and for the powerful. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: i come to the floor today to mark a milestone in the fight for gender equity in america. 44 years ago a committed group of people fought and made huge strides in the battle for our equal opportunities for women in education. they passed title 9. many people across the country

think the sole purpose of title nine was to revolutionize women's athletiraq, but it does so much more. title 9 provided a world of new opportunities for women who for too long faced discrimination, disparagement and quotas in our education system. and we owe so much of the progress that we've made in the past 44 years since the passage of title 9 to my good congresswoman patsy mink. she was a woman ahead of her time. gender discrimination in our education system was not an abstract issue for patsy. she felt the weight of it personally. patsy dreamed of becoming a doctor, but her dream of becoming a doctor was shattered when she tried to get into medical school and was total that their quota for women had already been filled. years later a quota prevented

her daughter wendy from enrolling at stanford university. these experiences fueled patsy's fight for gender equity. and even in the face of overwhelming odds along the way, patsy's determination resulted in the passage of title 9. upon patsy's death, title ix was renamed the patsy mink equal opportunity in education act. the fruits of patsy's efforts are plain for everyone to see. last year we came together as a nation to cheer on the u.s. women's national soccer team as they won the women's world cup. this was the women's third world title. in fact, in their 31-year history, they have not placed lower than third in the world cup. much of the team's success can be attributed to the impact of title ix. title ix's implementation meant

that schools had to give girls equal opportunity to play sports. and this opened the door to a new generation of girls who grew up on soccer fields and went on to represent our country in the u.s. women's national team including hawaii's own natasha kye who came a breakout star playing for cam the high schoold university of hawaii. this he became part of the 2008 women's u.s. soccer team at the beijing olympics and they brought home a gold medal. while natasha and the women's national team are examples of the success thanks to title ix, they also remind us that our work is not done. after years of getting paid less than their male counterparts, even though they were more successful, five members of the women's national team filed a complaint with the equal

employment opportunity commission alleging wage discrimination. earlier this year this senate unanimously passed the resolution supporting their fight for equal pay. of course the fight for equal pay and equal rights is not limited to women and sports. it extends to women in all fields. this month i'm introducing two new bills that build on patsy's work to further improve gender equity. the equity and career and technical education act will give schools more resources to close equity gaps in career and technical education. it also provides support to students interested in nontraditional career paths. the second bill, the gender equity educational act would increase training and grants to help states, school districts and institutions of higher learning implement programs and policies to reduce sex discrimination and comply with title ix requirements.

this bill includes nondiscrimination also on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. science, technology, engineering and math or stem is one area where gender equity improvements need to be made, especially in light of the fact that there will be a need in our country for millions of workers with stem backgrounds. in march i read an op ed from a biology professor at the university of hawaii. she wrote in "the new york times" about the pervasive challenges women faced in education and the work plais, particular -- workplace, particularly in the stem fields. she painted a very disturbing picture about how widespread harassment and other barriers discourage young women from pursuing stem careers. women are much more likely than men to switch out of stem majors in college and have -- and leave

the stem work force. moreover, many girls drop out of stem pursuits long before they ever get to college. the many reasons for women abandoning stem pursuits include negative stereotypes about women and stem, perceived gender barriers, feelings of isolation in their jobs, and a lack of role models and mentors. these challenges are only compounded for women of color. asian american and pacific islander women often report facing bullying, sexual mayorsment and discrime -- owe harassment and discrimination in education settings because of language issues, cultural stereotypes and even immigration status. i have introduced two bills to combat these systemic barriers. these bills seek to improve outreach and success of women and minorities at all stages of the stem pursuits. we need to keep women in the

stem pipeline. if we are going to come up with the millions of workers we need with stem backgrounds in our country to keep us cop pettive. -- competitive. title ix has been life changing for millions of girls and women for 44 years. passing this law was a landmark achievement. it's a strong foundation that we must continue to build upon. i'd like to close this morning by turning to another law, the voting rights act that made real for millions of americans their fundamental right to vote. saturday is the third anniversary of the supreme court's devastating and disastrous ruling in shelby county. in a 5-4 decision that case essentially gutted the voting rights act. it made it easier for states to make voting harder. at least 13 states have done just that. alabama passed a law that would

require voters to show a photo i.d. the state then kept 31 driver's licenses offices in predominantly african-american communities open just one day a month, one day a month for people to get their i.d.'s. the city of athens, georgia has proposed closing nearly 12 polling places replacing them with only two early voting centers both of which would be located in police headquarters. intimidating? i'd say so. these are just a few examples of laws that in effect make it harder to vote. so our work is not done. three years after the shelby decision and the ensuing laws passed by too many states to limit voting, we must in congress enact laws that recognize beyond a shadow of a doubt that voting is a fundamental right of a free

nation. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i ask consent that the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the subject to the call of the

>> on the specifics of immigration, i don't anticipate that are additional executive actions that we can take. we can implement what we've already put in place that is not affected by this decision. but we have to follow now what has been ruled on in the fifth circuit because the supreme court could not resolve the issue. and we are going to have to abide by that ruling until an election, and a confirmation of

a ninth justice of the supreme court so that they can break this tie. because we've always said that we are going to do what we can lawfully through executive action, but we can't go beyond that. and we have budget up about as far as we can on this particular topic. it does not have any impact from our perspective, on the host of other issues we're working on because each one of these issues has a different analysis and is based on different statutes or different interpretations of our a story. so, for example, on climate change, that is based on the clean air act and the epa in previous supreme court rulings as opposed to a theory of prosecutorial discretion that in the past as every other president has exercised. the supreme court was a definitive this on one way or the other. the problem is they do not have

a nice justice so that will continue to be a problem. with respect to the republicans, i think what it tells you, if you keep on a blocking judges from getting on the bench, then courts can't issue decisions. and what that means is then you're going to have the status quo frozen and we're not going to be able to make progress on some very important issues. that may have been their strategy from the start, but it's not a sustainable strategy. and it certainly is a strategy that will be broken by this election, and less their basic theory is that we will never confirm judges again. hopefully that's not, that's not how democracy is -- [inaudible] >> it was a one court opinion who says we can come up with the decision. i think i would be a little bit of a stretch. maybe the next time they can, if

we have a full-court issuing a full opinion on anything, then we take it seriously. this we have to abide by, but it wasn't any kind of value statement for decision on the merits of these issues, all right? thank you, guys. >> we will show you all of the president's briefing later in the program schedule also at c-span.org. the president on by the immigration ruling at the supreme court at the supreme court today, the supreme court voting 4-4 letting stand a ruling in the federal appeals court in new orleans on the obama administration's efforts to shield millions from living in the u.s. illegally from deportation to a live look at u.s. capitol for house democrats continue their sit in on the house floor on gun legislation. we should be hearing from senate

democrats about gun legislation and about 15 minutes or so. we will try to take you there live as the senate itself has recessed so that the republican conference can meet and we will have live senate coverage when they capital backing. back to the immigration decision by the supreme court, we heard more about that on the senate floor from the minority whip dick durbin. >> mr. president? >> minority whip. >> i ask consent to speak in morning business. >> without objection. >> fifteen years ago introduced a bill called the dream act. the d.r.e.a.m. act was designed to give children brought to the united states by their parents who were undocumented a chance, path toward legalization.es a path toward citizenship. these were people now in their teens and early 20s who were brought to the united states as infants and children.

it was not their conscious decision to come to this country. it was a decision by their parents. they had grown up in the united states. it is estimated 2.5 million young people came to this country under the circumstances. so many of them have been everything they have been asked to do, completed theirll education, stood up in the classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flight, the only flag they've ever known, become part of america, excelled academically, started dreaming about what they might as americans to make their lives better in this country better. by the law in detroit is very harsh when it comes to the young people. the law says in its bleakest terms they have to leave the united states for 10 years and petition to come back in. here they are 18, 19 years of age being told now that you graduate high school whatever your status, leave, go back somewhere where you cannot ever remember living, and wait 10

years. so introduced the d.r.e.a.m. act at a city these young people have completed their education, if they have no series criminal issues, if they are prepared to come forward, serve their country an in the military, finh their college education, we will give them a path to citizenship. 15 years we have waited. i can remember when these galleries were filled with young people, dreamers, undocumented n young people who sat one saturday morning in their caps and gowns in the gallery praying that we would pass the d.r.e.a.m. act and give them a chance to become part of the only country they have ever known. the measure failed on the floor of the senate. it was a brokenhearted moment for me. facing these young people, many of them in tears, sobbing, not knowing what their lives would lead to. and i said to them, if you will not give up on me i will not give up on you. let's keep working on this. and so i sent a letter in apri

april 2010 to my friend the president of the united states have been a cosponsor of the d.r.e.a.m. act, and i said to president obama, can you do something? can you do something to allow vision people a chance? give them a chance, and he did. came through with a program called daca, and is deferred action program was really designed to give these young people a temporary stay from deportation. it's only temporary, for several years, but in order to get that, they had to come forward, register with the government, pay a filing fee, make sure all their vital information had been backgr disclosed, go through a thorough criminal background check, and then if they got a job, they would pay their taxes as required of every person living in this country, and they would have a temporary stay of deportation, to stay here, go to school or work.

several years later they would have to do it all over again and go through the same background check and pay the same fees. the president signed an executive order and said it was within his authority as the chief executive to decide what are the highest priorities that should be deported from the s united states? the president rightly said let'i go after felons and dangerous criminals.criminals. they shouldn't part of our country. why would they go after these young people who only want to complete her education and be a positive part of our future? the president signed executive order for transit. sometime later came and opportunity to consider families in similar circumstances. most people have the mistaken u notion if you're undocumented, everybody in your home is undocumented. i have not found that to be the case. more often than not only one parent will be undocumented. the father may be an american citizen. all the kids may be american pre citizens but mom may be undocumented.

so the president put in another proposal and said in those circumstances where you of somec undocumented and the country with a child who is an american citizen, you can about what's se known as dapa which gave them the same temporary stay of deportation. all you do -- ya peter farley the, go to a criminal background check again, pay taxes on any money you've earned, and for temporary period of time you would not be deported. when the president signed that second executive order, a number of governors, all republicans from across the states filed an action to stop theer. implementation of the president's executive order. that's a big deal. it literally affects millions of people in this country who were undocumented. and these governors argued that if they were forced, for example, in the state of texas to give drivers licenses to undocumented people, they would have administrative expenses, so

the president order would create a hardship on this day. what they fail to acknowledge, of course, was that these the people under the executive order and they their taxes to the federal and state government, and they would pay any fee necessary to get a driver's license imposed by the state of texas. case went before the supreme court, and petition was handed down just a few minutes ago. the decision of the supreme court, sadly, shows the terrible human cost of the senate republican strategy to recklessly refuse to fill the vacancy on the supreme court created by the death of justice scalia. you know what happened several months ago when justice scalia was on a hunting trip, and sadly passed away to shock of everyone. and there was a vacancy on the supreme court. the president of the united states did what he was supposed

to do. article to a because addition there is a requirement that thew president fill the vacancies on the supreme court.

to dapa and expanded daca, the executive orders of the president. the result of that tie vote, 4-4 tie vote, the result of that tie vote leaves millions of families across america in legal limbo. i urge the justice department to consider all the legal options to swiftly overturn the injunction that is blocking president obama from using his legal authority to set negligence enforcement priorities. dapa and an expanded daca will make our country safer and allow law-abiding individuals with deep roots in our communities to step out of the shadows and contribute more fully to the country they love. tie vote on the united states supreme court. i can't remember the last time that happened. it happens very rarely. it happens very rarely. it didn't have to happen.

if the senate republican majority had done its job, had this is constitutionalhave responsibility, held a hearing from merrick garland and voting up or down, i have confidence hd would of been approved and a member of the u.s. supreme court. we could have avoided we now face. i split court 4-4 which cannot resolve critical and controversial issues. the net result of republican a refusal to fill that vacancy isg to create an injustice across america for millions living in this country.e. and uncertainty about their future. that is the type of constitutional responsibility and it is played out across the street and was announced justcae minutes ago. this is what happens when the senate republicans refused to do their job. when they say we will play politics with the efficacy onmp the supreme court, we will hopey and pray that donald trump will come forward and fill this

vacancy with somebody we like a little better than the nominee of the president obama. it is a sad day and now we know what is constitutional the responsibility by the republicans have done. it has created a fractured court. it is split our nation in terms of the law. it has really derogated one of the most important institutionst in our government. i hope, i just over the republicans will step up and realize that waiting foro president trump to fill this vacancy is the wrong answer.hisy we need to accept the constitutions mandate to move quickly to fill thi the vacancys quickly as possible. and in the meantime with the split court decision when you do call on our justice department do everything possible to try to find a path toward a just resolution which the supreme court was enabled to fight today. i yield the floor. >> senator durbin talking about the immigration ruling of the

supreme court. the ap says a tie vote by the court is blocking president obama's immigration plan. that sought to shield millions living in the u.s. illegally from deportation. the ruling was 4-4 surrealist and the ruling by the federal appeals court in new orleans. it on c-span2 is send it is in recess because senate republicans are leaving. it's likely there would be back in an hour or so. live coverage event. initiatives will take you live to the capital to from senate democrats on gun legislation. this is house democrats continued their sit in on the house floor. speaker ryan repackages out and more in his briefing that just wrapped up a short while ago and we will show you what we can't of the speaker's comments as we wait to hear from senate democrats.

>> you know, one of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. no matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy. we can disagree on policy but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system. otherwise it all falls apart. i'm not going to dwell on the decor of the house here today, other than to say we are not going to allow sounds like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business. why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is one. let's just be honest. here are some facts. yesterday the house appropriations committee considered its bill for homeland security spending that

committee, democrats offered in committee an amendment offering that can measure they say they want. that amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. so just yesterday the democrats offered this can measure they claim they want and it failed on a bipartisan basis in committee. there was a vote. in the committee regular order and the vote failed. that's the fact they didn't want to talk about. here's another one. if democrats want to go for bill on the floor, there's a way to get one. it just takes 218 signatures on a petition and then they can have a vote. it is that simple. that's how the house works it's a well-known process. but they are not doing that. they are not trying to actually get this done through regular order. instead they are staging protests. they're trying to get on tv. they are simply tout fundraising solicitations, like this one. house democrats on the house

floor, your controversial goes to the dccc, $15. this one says try giving us 25 bucks but if you want, you can send us 50, 100, $250, $500, $1000. look at what we doing on the house floor. send us money. if this is not a political stunt and why are they trying to raise money off of this? what they call for failed in a committee in the house. the reason i call this a stunt is because they know this isn't going anywhere. it already failed in the senate. they may not like this fact, but this bill couldn't even get 50 votes an in the united states senate, let alone 60. why is that? why is it that this bill failed

on a by person basis in committee, is bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the senate? because in this country we do not take away people's constitutional rights without due process. this is not just republicans saying this. it's groups like the aclu who are saying this. a more to the point, our focus needs to be on confronting radical extremism, terrorism is the issue. let me say it again. terrorism is the issue. and defeating terrorism in our focus here in the house. so let me be really clear. we are not going to take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. we are not going to allow publicity stunts to stop us from doing our job. that's why the house power to had lastly to provide important resource in the fight against the zika virus. one of our must do items on our

list this week was that we had to respond to the zika virus. we know this is something we have to get on top of. and in the face of this distraction we passed the responsible bill that provides the level of funding that was within the senate bill that received a big bipartisan vote. with a mix of offsets we felt was aborted this is a good compromise. it needs an urgent need and to urge the senate to take it out and pass it. now, democrats can talk all they want. i'm not sure what their endgame is, but the bottom line is that despite these distractions, we did our job. we did the people's business and we will continue to do so. one more point i want to bring up. i want to say a word about the sprinkler one that we just got that holds the president's executive amnesty. this is a win for the constitution. it's a win for congress and if so when in our fight to restore the separation of powers. presidents don't write laws.

congress rights laws. this is a case of the house weight in a because it's fundamental to our system of checks and balances. congress not the president might our laws and today the supreme court validated that very court essential fundamental principle. >> a two-part question. what were your personal feelings when you are being screened at and yelled shame? not even a year into your speakership. secondly, are you worried this sets a precedent for the shoe is on the other foot speak as i do worry about the presidency. i'm very worried about the presidency. i of an obligation as the path to protect this institution. are the oldest democracy in the world. so when we see our democracy to send in this way, it is not a good sign. it is not a good president said yesterday were. i've been around.

i've done the iowa state fair, you know, the soapbox. i've done wisconsin recalls. so that i can use to but on the house floor, no. on the house floor where we have rules, where we of order, where we have a system converter boxes post work its way out in a deliberative respectively? no, i did not respect that -- expected because i think what we did was we watched a publicity stunt, a fundraising stunt to sit and institution that many of us care a great deal about this i think it sets a very dangerous precedent. >> you pledged when you came in to run and more open house. last night -- the zika bill passed without -- to redo it according to your own -- imac the rules also -- imac on the

gun vote you're not going to bring this forward. >> already failed in committee. >> but are you essentially undermining your own -- >> not in the least. what our members as well as an open process by functioning process. we learned that democrats were not interested in advancing the process. they are interested in stopping the process. our members want congress to function. our members want us to do the people's business and do our jobs. with the democrats are trying to stop congress from doing anything, that is not an open process. that is a no process. to the point of last night. do you think we would have a civilized debate about the zika virus? do you think they're interested in coming to the mic into dating zika? of course not they were screaming and shouting over each other. so we are going to get our job done. our job this week was to make sure we were getting the azores, the cdc, giving the vaccination,

getting ourselves prepared for the zika virus. we are going into summer. people will be out on the fourth of july and mosquitoes will be biting people and want to make sure we have the proper response and that is why we did our job and pass this bill. >> why not just hold the vote like this and did earlier this week? it would've taken 15 minutes? >> we have a process. this is a bill that isn't supported by bipartisan majority. this amendment was brought up and appropriations committee and it failed there. that's point number one. point number two, if you want to bring a bill that you can't get through committee, you can do discharge petition with 218 signatures. they are not bothered with these things. they only for publicity stunts. this is about making law. because the senate already defeated. so they know it's not going into law. this is about a publicity stunt than a fundraising scheme. >> the senate -- >> what did i say yesterday or the day before at a press conference? want to see what the senate produces. we are looking at this issue.

what did i said over the weekend? we know there's an issue with suspected terrorist watch list and people attempt to buy guns. we are look at the, doing it deliberately. we wanted a publicity stunt on before. we are looking at this issue so we did it by because of what the fbi told us. you get this wrong you ask care of the investigation. you will screw up our ability to go after terrorist. we want to get it right while protecting peoples constitutionally guaranteed rights and not by letting their due process rights speak if the protest continued to play to take further action against democrats for breaking the rules? >> we are we doing everything right now as to what happened at had to make sure that we can bring order to this chaos. this is the people's house. this is congress, the house of representatives. oldest democracy in the world and europe descended into chaos. i don't think they should be a very proud moment for democracy over the people who staged this stunt. jonathan spent on appropriations

-- to have to come back, how long do want to see -- >> you can see all of this online at c-span.org. we will break away from the last few minutes and take you live to the other side of the capital. from democratic senators talk about gun legislation. live here on c-span2. >> energy stand up the reform of our gun laws. promise ways to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, keep guns out of hands of the seriously mentally disturbed, commonsense ways to keep guns out of the hands of felons. perhaps no issue could better reflect the challenge we have with special interests taking over our government here in washington, d.c. that's why senate democrats are standing up for a we the people agenda. and agenda that includes

disclosure, includes reform of the federal elections commission, an agenda that includes changing the role that super pacs play and single candidate packs. changing the role that happens as all of us in congress are tempted by the revolving door into the lobby. my colleagues are united in restoring a we the people republic. that's what this is all about. we see this vast increase from $10 million to more than $30 million in citizens united was passed. it is time we reclaim our republic, and i'm honored, and privilege to be with colleagues to put forward superb ideas, superb apostles on how we do this. -- superb proposals. we want to reclaim our democracy. senator udall.

>> great to be with my colleagues. like all americans i was heartbroken by the shooting in orlando this month, and the shootings had occurred at cities across our nation. that same night, a man and well in my home state, tragically shot and killed his wife and family. and still that same night a man was shot to death in downtown albuquerque. there are hundreds of people affected by gun violence in communities every year. the american people are crying out for action. they want us to vote. they want us to move forward, and we could easily deliver on commonsense steps that would keep guns out of the hands of people who mean harm. while respecting our second amendment rights. only we can't. why? since the supreme court put a for sale sign on our elections with the citizens united ruling, the nra has increased its

spending exponentially. increased spending exponentially. and it is bullying our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in blocking this legislation. even after tragedies like sandy hook and orlando, even when democrats are holding a protest, which i went to yesterday in the house chamber, we can't even get a vote on commonsense steps to protect families from gun violence. that's why i'm here with my colleagues, pushing for the we the people legislation. a for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united. mccutchen followed citizens united. it ruled that one person can give $3.6 million directly to campaigns and parties, a full-time minimum-wage worker would have to work 239 years to make that kind of money. the court is following the presidents of 1976 from buckley

v. valeo when it first ruled that money and speech are the same thing. it's time to get our elections out of the hands of the special interest, to put them back into the hands of the american people. to loosen the hold of the inner a over congress and to make government work for the people again. changing the constitution is a big step, very big step, and james madison said it should be amended only on great and extraordinary occasions. well, this is one of those times. citizens united is wrong, it's a dangerous and cannot stand. thank you. >> what is it, you might ask, that went 80% of the american public wants action on commonsense gun legislation, nothing happens? why is it that when huge

majorities of the american public want action on climate change legislation, nothing happens? why is it that americans look with such frustration at washington and see over and over things that large majorities support not getting done? there is a common thread. there is a root cause, and that would cause is that the citizens united decision gave the persistent special interest to occupy the city huge new political weaponry. they brought down on guns into what had been a musket fight. and the result has been over and over that special interest have been able to log congress down and forbid the american people getting the things that they want.

we have to fix that underlying root cause. we can't just lose issue after issue after issue that the american people care about. and that is what this we the people agenda that we are pursuing is all about. one, disclosure. we should know who is putting the big money into our politics. we should run the dark money out of our politics. and when we do it will make a difference. number two, we should we empower the congress to legislate in this area by constitutional amendment. it was a ridiculous and disgraceful decision by the supreme court to say that money is speech, corporations are people, and, therefore, all corporate speech couldn't possibly corrupt. well, if they're not going to fix it, we need to fix it here. and, finally, the american public have lost faith in

members of congress who go off into high paid lobbying gigs, and who knows what effect that has on figures in congress as they were looking forward to the revolving door. so those are the three parts of we the people we think if we don't get that this would cause or continue to see the american people frustrated by the big career special interest who got a whole new set of political our material thanks to those of five judges at the supreme court, and the person who let us on this is chuck schumer, and that will turn a mic over to him. >> well, thank you. first the leaders really giunta, they have been pushing these issues for a very long time and i salute them. and we are going to win this fight. we have no choice. there's so much anger in the land. one of the main reasons there's anger in the land is because people don't think they control the government.

they've got a point. office money cascading in, that's what happens. so to this week as we try to do with gun safety in america, we are living with the consequences of a system has been flooded by a licit dark money. this is one of many examples talking about today because it's apropos, apropos. just look at what's happened on the senate floor, supposed to happen this afternoon on the senate floor. democrats and republicans have been working together on a high partisan compromise on gun legislation. it isn't perfect. it's far from everything the four of us walked. but it's a small step forward. but if republicans leaders decided to do? that going to give it a fake vote that will not do a single thing to make the proposal law. we have a bill that would keep guns out of hands of suspected terrorists, a republican leaders cynically choose to give it a path to nowhere.

why? nra. simply put. even the most modest of gun safety proposals can't get a real up or down vote. 90% of the people support background checks. checks. that's what he just gets a no, we are not going to do anything. so they have come up with this cynical ploy to table the legislation. well, we say to leader mcconnell, if you don't have the vote to table but, then let's vote on it. let's see if that happens. if you don't have the votes to table lit, let's put it on the floor and vote for it. but why everyone else wants to keep guns out of hands of terrorists, suspected terrorists, why are we going through this? ..

so we can do the people's work and that's exactly what we the people should do. if were going to buck the nra, we need to shut down darkmoney, that is their lifeblood once and for all. just look at the impact that the senator talked about that this decision will pass. tons of dark money , nra money , cascading into our government. and most people disagree with you whether you're the nra, an oil company or anybody else, you resort to this and the supreme court, one of the

most awful decisions that is just ruining america, the america we love. it said, go right ahead, do whatever you want. you don't have to disclose, you don't have to show who it is and you can spend unlimited dark money and by the way, we add that these dark money runs have nothing to do with the issues these people support. it's just awful. so as long as the nra and groups like them or able to plow millions of dollars into dark money in our elections, they will be able to threaten and cajole and here they are doing it, to put the rights of suspected terrorists about the health and safety of the american people. as long as the system is rigged against america and in favor of these special

interests, where going to be stuck with a congress that can't pass the most sensible of legislations for the sake of tens of thousands of items of gun violence every year, for the sake of over 300 million americans who want their government back. who are we the people. let's get something done. and we are going to get the vote on this one way or another in september. let's see where our republican colleagues stand, let's see where every senator and, bringing the government back to we the people. that was the message over all of this election season so far. okay. any questions for any of us? senator mcconnell is having a caucus with his members now and from what we've been told, they're going to move to table the collins amendment. i don't know if it will get 51 votes. if it gets 51 votes, it's still a cynical ploy but if it doesn't get 61 votes and if they will not, then why don't we just vote on it?

that's what we are asking. [inaudible question] it seems to be a cynical ploy to just push collins out of the way, to say here, we voted on it, there are 60 votes. >>. [inaudible question] >> no, that's the we the people agenda. >>. [inaudible question] well, look. i think it does. there's always a balanced debt. the very same same people, not the aclu and not the nra but many of our republican colleagues who seem to be howling due process don't pay any attention to it on most every other issue so i think it's an excuse and the corning amendment was so, so,

so difficult to overcome that every terrorist would have gotten the gun. there's got to be a balance. there's got to be a balance on both sides and there's got to be due process and there's got to be stands to heal but it shouldn't be such a high barrier that no terrorists would be prevented from getting a gun.>>. [inaudible question] >> someone asked me about john lewis. i want to say this. i'm going to answer your question. someone asked me about john lewis and speaker ryan: what did last night a publicity stunt. i remember when john lewis was marching in the bridge in

selma, the biggest downtown that was a publicity stunt. should john have stopped because he didn't get things the first day he launched across the bridge at selma? number but are we going to stop? number you've got to keep at it and keep at it and keep at it and we will win this fight. otherwise, our democracy is so totally broken that americans aregoing to give up on it . >>. [inaudible question] this is not aimed at elections. this is aimed at getting it done. if we were aiming at elections we wouldn't have tried to compromise. that's not fair, in all fairness to you but we are trying to get this done and if we're quiet, we will never get it done. >>. [inaudible question] well,

one of the things we hope to do, should we take back the majority and should we get a democratic president is that a full supreme court of nine and hopefully that supreme court will hear the citizens united case and by most of the legal authorities i heard, it was a stretch to come up with it to begin with so there's a very good possibility that citizens united could be overturned because it was on such flimsy legal grounds and no one has stretched the first amendment to such levels since this court. >> you just heard donald trump give his best impression of elizabeth warren. in his speech attacking

secretary clinton. talking about how the game is rigged and politics is rigged and everything needs to be on rigged . now, he's the last person in the world likely to do that but the fact that he felt as the presumptive republican nominee that he had to model himself on elizabeth warren and bernie sanders in order to try to put a little bit of wind into his flying campaign is, i think, a really strong indication of the public sentiment that is out there and i think if we can force votes on things like disclosure and drive that point home, that will actually have an effect. there are too many republicans who know that this is a racket and who know that this is wrong. one of them said to me, would

you guys please catch up and start getting as much dark money as we do so we can fix this damn thing? it's disgraceful. so people get it and i think the american public is tired of not being listened to and they get that dark money is an absolute mess and if we pick this plate and forced this battle whether we have theleadership and the majority or not, republicans are going to have to ultimately give way to what the american people want . >> did you want to say to something just, please. >> the state of oregon is a state where citizens greatly loved their guns. target practice, recreation, hunting and when i was a youngster, the nra was all about gun safety and promoting opportunities to employ guns in a safe way. while in 1998, i was running

for the first time for the oregon house, a young when man went into a high school and he shot dead to students after having killed his parents a short time before and he carried with him 1000, 127 rounds of ammunition and three guns. he could have killed far more but fortunately, blessedly, he was tackled early in his rampage by a wounded student. we attempted to pull this up in the legislature in oregon in 1999 and were unable to do so because of the influence of the nra having become a lobbyist gun merchant rather than an advocate for hunters and gun safety. they gone through that transition.the citizens of oregon then said enough is enough, we will take it directly to the balance and in a citizen initiative, they closed the gun show loophole.

this is what we are talking about. this is about changing policy in america. it's about changing policy in the direction that millions of americans believe, that 80 to 90 percent of americans support. instead of having our process frozen by a powerful special interest that has become a lobbyist for the gun merchants. that's what we are fighting for. the citizens of the united states are with us and that's why we need to restore our leadership to the public. >>. [inaudible question] you can ask about the got. >>. [inaudible question] look, i believe, i don't know if they

said it officially but it's extremely likely given what came out last night that the white house , have they said anything yet? and there's not enough to override the veto in the house so if were going to get this done, we ought to do things that enhance, preventing funding to planned parenthood? that's a poison pill, we know that. it was put in i guess because they didn't have enough votes to do it otherwise. underfunding veterans? rolling back environmental protection? it became sort of a hard right wish list, not related to zika to get past and they know it's not going to get past. they're trying to get off their back and it further raises ebola money . i think it deals with contraception and birth control as well. it had last night, i haven't seen the new language so to get the got funding were going to have to do a good faith effort, not something that says get this issue off

our backs. >>. [inaudible question] not without funding planned parenthood, no. not without funding contraception. thank you. last one. >> are you afraid that how you jammed democrats on the first bill and how crucial it is ... [inaudible question] >> what we're trying to do with puerto rico to get amendments. there's a lot of democrats undecided but certainly one amendment because some of the provisions and particularly some of the labor and control board provisions we object to and we hope mcconnell will give us amendments because i think there are a good number ofdemocrats who would not vote for a bill if they didn't have a chance to amend it once they had a chance to amend it, they might pull up

and vote for it so it's in mcconnell's hands . >>. [inaudible question] it's pretty serious. >> senate democrats holding a press briefing on gun control legislation, part of what house democrats have been protesting in the house. the senate in a recess with lawmakers are continuing their deliberations on the science spending bill. you can see the senate when members return shortly here on c-span 2. late over gun control legislation remaining a hot topic in congress despite not being in session.is officially adjourned for the recess. democrats process continues although it does appear that it is about to wrap up for now. you can see all of the action on the house floor on our

companion network c-span. jim henson on our newsmakers program, he's a republican from texas and here's a portion of what he had to say about the protests over the lack of gun-control legislation. >> personally, i think it's a little disturbing when i see members of congress holding up names or images of the deceased and chortling on the house floor, i find it to be very unseemly number one. number two, i think it's a huge disrespect to the american people and democracy. i used to see so many democrats act in such a undemocratic fashion just because barack obama became president and i didn't support him, i would not counsel those trying to occupy his office and shut down business so this is an attempt bydemocrats to frankly shut down the government . we managed to get needed funding for the zika virus done notwithstanding. their particular protest area i guess last, i find it somewhat ironic you are

calling for votes. they had votes. the senate voted down one of their provisions on the house side and appropriations committee.it's a procedure, it's kind of inside baseball but is known as a motion to recommit anytime they want to. it's the one hope that the minority in the house is always guaranteed. i've been in the minority, i've been in the majority and frankly it's a more satisfying to be in the majority but anytime they could have brought up this provision. instead, i wish they would come together and work with us to make sure that we can more effectively conduct this the u.s. senate is in recess

behind the scenes on the commerce, justice and science spending bill, live coverage when lawmakers return here on c-span2. house speaker paul ryan celebrating a short time ago to talk about what's happening in the house and the protests over gun control. >> hi everybody, good morning. you know, one of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. no matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy. we can disagree in politics but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system. otherwise, it all falls apart. i'm not going to dwell on the decorum of the house here today other than to say we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from

carrying out the people's business. why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is on. let's just be honest here. here are some facts. yesterday, the house appropriations committee considered its bill for homeland security spending. at committee, democrats offered in committee and amendment offering the gun measure they say they want. that amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. so just yesterday, the democrats offered this gun measure they claimed theywant and it failed on a bipartisan basis in committee . there was a vote. it was in the committee, through regular order and the vote failed. that's a fact they didn't want to talk about. here's another one. if democrats want to vote for a bill on the floor, there's a way to get one. it just takes 218 signatures

on a petition and they can have a vote, it is that simple. that's how the house works, it's a well-known process. but they're not doing that area they are not trying to actually get this done through regular order. no, instead they are staging protests. they're trying to get on tv. they are sending out fundraising solicitations like this one. house democrats on the house floor, your contribution will go to the d triple c. $15, thisone says try giving us $25 but if you want you can send us 50, 100, $250 , $500, $1000 because look at what we are doing on the house floor, send us money. if this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this? off of a tragedy . what their call for failed in

a committee in the house. the reason i call this is done is because they know this isn't going anywhere. it alreadyfailed in the senate . they may not like this fact but this bill couldn't even get 50 votes in the united states senate, let alone 60. why is that? why is it that this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in committee and this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the senate? because in this country, we do not take away people's constitutional rights without due process. this is not just republicans saying this. it's groups like the aclu who are saying this. but more to the point, our focus needs to be on confronting radical extremism . terrorism is the issue. let me say it again, terrorism is the issue and defeating terrorism is our

focus here in the house. so let me be really clear. we are not going to take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans and were not going to allow publicity stunts to stop us from doing our job. that's why the house powered and had last night to provide important resources in the fight against the zika virus. one of our must do items on our list this week was that we had to respond to the zika virus. we know this is something we have to get on top of and in the face of this distraction, we passed a responsible bill that provides the level of funding that was in the senate bill that received a big bike bipartisan vote with a mix of offsets we felt were important. it's a good compromise. it meets an urgent need and i urge the senate to take it up and pass it. now, democrats can talk all they want. i'm really not sure what their plan or endgame is here but the bottom line is despite these distractions, we did our job.we did the

people's business and we will continue to do so. one more point i want to bring up. i want to say a word about the supreme court ruling just got that calls the president's executive and the sea. this is a win for the constitution. it's a win for congress and it's a win in our fight to restore the separation of powers. presidents don't write laws, congress rights laws. this is congress issued the house waiting on because it is fundamental to our system of checks and balances. congress, not the president writes our laws and today the supreme court validated that fundamental principle. >> two-part question. what were your personal feelings when you were being yelled shame, not even here in your speakership and secondly, you and a lot of members of your own conference, are you worried this sets a precedent for the shoe on the other foot that this could happen with anyone

in the minority party that wants to prove a point i'm very worried about the president here. i have an obligation as the speaker of the house to protect his institution. we are the oldest democracy in the world. we are the ballast of the world of free people and so when we see our democracy descend in this way, it is not a good sign. it is not a good president so yes, i do worry. i've been around, i've done the iowa fair. the soapbox, i've done wisconsin recalls so that, i am used to. but on the house floor? number on the house floor? where we have rules, where we have order? where we had a system, where democracy is supposed to work its way out in a respectful and deliberateway? i did not expect that because i think what we did was we watched a publicity stunt, a fund-raising stunt , descendent institution that many of us carry great deal about so i think it sets a

dangerous precedent. >> speaker ryan, youpledged when you came in to run a more open house. last night , the zika bill passed without sufficient time to review it according to your own lieutenant, can i finish my question? the rule on amendments for the probation bill have structure now and on this gunboat, you're not going to bring this forward for amendments. >> it already failed in committee. >> but are you actually undermining your own promises for transparency? >> not in the least. what are members asked for is an open process but a functioning process. we learned that democrats are not interested in advancing the process, they're interested in stopping the process. our members want congress to function. our members want us to do the people's business and do our jobs and when the democrats are trying to stop congress from doing anything, that is not an open process, that the no process, that's a holding process to the point of last

night. you think we're going to have a civilized debate about the zika virus? you think they were interested in coming to the mic and debating zika? they were screaming and shouting over each other so we were going to get our job done and our job this week was to make sure we were giving the authorities, the cdc, giving the vaccination, getting ourselves prepared for the zika virus. were going into summer. people are going to be going out on fourth of july and mosquitoes are going to bite people and we want to make sure we have the proper response and that is why we passed this bill why not just hold the boat like the senate did earlier this week? >> we have a process for this. this is a bill that isn't even supported by a bipartisan majority. this amendment was brought up in the appropriations committee and it failed there. that point number one. point number two, if you want to bring a bill that you can't get through committee

you can do a discharge petition with 218 signatures. they're not bothering with these things, they're looking for publicity stunts. this isn't about making law because the senate already defeated it so they know it's not going to law. this is about a publicity stunt and now a fund-raising scheme . >> let me just go back on that. what did i say the day before in our press conference? we want to see what the senate produces. what did i say over the weekend? we know there's an issue with respect to terrorist watchlist and people who attempt to my guns. a look doing that, over doing it deliberately, not publicity stunts on the floor. were looking at this issue till we get it right because remember what the fbi told us. you get this wrong, you're going to screw up terrorist investigations. you overreact and do this the wrong way, you're going to screw up our ability to go after terrorists so we want to do it right while protecting people's constitutionally guaranteed rights and not violating due process if the protests

continue do you plan to take further action against democrats for breaking the rules? >> we are reviewing everything right now as to what happened and how to make sure that we can bring order to this chaos. this is the people's house. this is congress, house of representatives, oldest democracy in the world and they are descending into chaos. i don't think this should be a proud moment for democracy or for the people who staged these stunts. >> on appropriations, the process certainly before the giant july and, you're going to come back in december. how long will this go for? >> i don't want to get into how long a cr gets you because i want to do as much as we can to get our job done. i want to move as much appropriation product through the house floor aspossible and i don't want to start talking about cr because that means we are shortchanging the process . >> you're going to have to do cr. >> we will see. >> mister speaker, why not shut off the light, republicans pointed out that essentially what nancy pelosi did in 2008 to end debate.

>> we are following the rules as they have always been in place. when you're resource ends at the chair, that's one process . when you adjourn, that's another process. we are simply following the rules as they have always been written and the rules as theywere in 2008 as well . >> mister speaker ... >> we leave paul ryan to go live to the senate floor. he senm kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to commit the bill to the judiciary committee with instructions to report back forth with with an amendment numbered 4858. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions number 4859. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for

mr. johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 4859 to the instructions of the motion to commit h.r. 2578. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk, number 4860. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 486 to 0 -- 4860 to amendment numbered 4869. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i think a little later on this afternoon, we will have an opportunity yet again to express ourselves on the terrible shooting in orlando a little over a week ago, and some have wanted to make this a debate about the second amendment. others have said, well, maybe it

would be more productive to actually try to solve the problem and prevent people like the orlando shooter from ever being able to commit this terrorist attack. sadly, yesterday we voted down the mccain-burr amendment which would have provided additional tools to the f.b.i. who had already had this shooter under investigation two previous occasions and then taken him off the watch list having found no evidence or not sufficient evidence to keep him on the watch list, but the problem is that unfortunately that -- that failed. we know that -- we know it's important to stop our people who would commit acts like this from buying guns. we know that we need to alert our law enforcement agencies when people who they have reason to suspect are planning a terrorist attack, we know it's important to keep them from buying guns, and frankly the

feinstein amendment and the cornyn amendment we have previously voted on both share those in common. no buy -- no fly, no buy. the only difference -- or i should say the major difference is whether we are going to engage in a presumption of guilt and deny due process of law. in other words, just because your name appears on some secret list maintained by the obama administration or any administration, that you could somehow be denied a constitutional right, and i've said earlier the second amendment is one of those constitutional rights in the bill of rights, but there are others. obviously, the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, you name it. and if we are going to say somehow that based on a mere suspicion by a government and your name on a secret list you can be denied a constitutional right, that is a dangerous and slippery slope.

but previously we voted on an amendment that i introduced. we got 53 votes, bipartisan support for that amendment, which would provide a means where the f.b.i. was notified if somebody was on one of these lists attempted to buy a gun, there would be a three-day waiting period and then the f.b.i. would be able to conduct additional investigations. let's say go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap, find out what this is all about and whether they ought to act, because frankly terrorists, if they are too dangerous to buy a gun, they are too dangerous to be loose in our communities. and it would provide a means consistent with the constitution or the -- for the f.b.i. to do their job and to keep these dangerous terrorists off the street. we were told by some of our colleagues that, well, the three days we provided in the bill wasn't enough, so we said well, we would be willing to discuss

that. there is nothing magical about three days. it can't be a year, but it certainly could be more than three days, and we have suggested that there be an alternative perhaps where more members of the senate found that they found comfortable with -- or that were comfortable with, and so we said that's flexible. then there were some who said well, a probable cause standard is too high a standard to impose on the government to deny somebody a constitutional right. we said well, these are people who haven't yet committed crimes, so that is a criminal evidentiary standard. maybe there is another standard we can agree on that something more than just a suspicion or because you happen to be from a certain ethnicity or perhaps your region, there's got to be more than just targeting people based on ethnicity and religion or suspicion. but we've said that would be

flexible as well. so what it comes down to and really the differences between the two pieces of legislation that you're going to likely vote on this afternoon is those who believe that the government should not have to present the evidence they have in hand to an impartial magistrate or judge. it's just that simple. so some say well, the fact that the government put you on the list ought to be enough to deny you your constitutional rights. well, having said that, we all believe that terrorists should not get access to guns, but we can't do this in a way that denies who we are as a people or denies our most fundamental law of the land, which is the due process provisions of the united states constitution. so unfortunately we are engaged in this exercise that frankly i don't think would have much -- make much of a difference in what happened in orlando. to me, that's the great tragedy of the debate we have been

having this week and last week. i doubt that any of these provisions would have stopped somebody who was a licensed firearm owner already and who was a licensed security guard from doing what oscar mateen did. the mccain-burr amendment which was voted down yesterday i think had some real potential because while the f.b.i. conducted two separate investigations of this shooter previously because of comments he had made, suspicions they had but didn't find sufficient evidence, an authority that the f.b.i. calls their number-one legislative priority had lapsed, and that is to be able to use national security letters to not only gain access to telephone numbers, not content and financial information, but also the internet addresses and the email addresses on mateen's computer. and get that from his internet service provider. what's so important about this

is this is not a grant of access to content. that requires a showing of probable cause in a court of law consistent with the fourth amendment to the united states constitution, but unfortunately yesterday the one tool that might have, just might have given the f.b.i. some additional information that might have triggered a further investigation, that might have kept mateen on one of these lists which would have heightened the surveillance and the investigation of this person, it didn't happen, and i would just ask our colleagues are we engaged here in trying to solve problems and save lives or is this just a political exercise? sadly, i think we are guilty of engaging in a political exercise when we are voting on things that actually would not have solved the problem. but we know that this is not the last time that terrorists will try to attack american citizens

here at home. it's going to happen again, sadly, unless we wake up and provide the f.b.i. and our counterterrorism officials the intelligence they need so they can stop these sort of lone wolf terrorists in place. this is the preeminent threat from isis today. it's not what's happening in syria, it's not what's happening in iraq, although that is a serious threat to stability in the middle east. it is the fact that unlike 9/11, they don't need to get in an airplane and come here because what they can do is radicalize american citizens in place using their poisonous propaganda on the internet and through social media. but i simply don't understand why some of our colleagues voted not to give the f.b.i. this authority which is so important for them to collect the dots so they can connect the dots. that's the only way we're going to stop these people is by making sure that consistent with who we are as the american

people and consistent with the constitution we let the law enforcement officials collect the dots so they can connect the dots. so, mr. president, this afternoon i will be casting my vote in favor of the constitutional right to due process of law before anyone's constitutional rights are denied, and i do that for the second amendment, i would do it for the first amendment, i'd do it for the fourth amendment, i'd do it for every provision of our constitution that represents a right not given to us by government but our natural rights conferred on us by our creator. at this time, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the time from 1:15 until 2:00 p.m., including any quorum calls, be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. carper: reserving the right to object. i'm not going to object.

mr. president, i was just walking through, seeing what was going to go on later this afternoon. i heard my colleague, my friend from texas talking. very thoughtful and knowledgeable in the law. former supreme court justice, as i recall, from the state of texas and a very able senator. somebody who tries to -- yes, tries to reach across the aisle and to get things done. i want to commend susan collins for her work, that of heidi heitkamp and others who are trying to get us closer to a no-fly, no-buy approach, that's important. but i would have us keep in mind we still have the prerogative -- i'm the son of a guy who was a big hunter, trader, buyer, seller of guns, my dad, now deceased, but he was also a big believer in using common sense with respect to guns as well. and i think most americans find troubling certainly the idea that somebody could be denied the right to fly in an airplane and then turn around and go buy a gun. i think most americans say that's crazy. hopefully we'll at least take a

small step in that direction. but the other thing that i find especially telling, this came from a bible study group that met here earlier this afternoon with the chaplain. we talked a little bit about the idea that somebody could go to a gun show and be a convicted felon, they could be someone -- i'm only -- mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask for regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. carper: one minute and i'm done. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it's hard for me to say no to senator carper because he is such a nice guy. and so reasonable. but this isn't a time to be making speeches. it's a time to object or not. and so if he has a concluding remark, i -- mr. carper: i will be very brief. my hope is sthend of the day we pass what susan and heidi have worked on, but i hope we will also come back and consider some other issues where we can actually save more lives. that's my commitment, and i'm sure it's one that you share along with the president. thank you. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would just say that if we were united in our desire to actually get to a solution, i believe we could. something that would make a difference. but unfortunately this debate has been hijacked by some who believe that frankly that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right under the constitution, and they are willing to presume that the government is right just because out of mere suspicion your name appears on a secret classified list. i don't -- i want to defeat the terrorists. i want to protect the american people, but i don't want to sacrifice who we are as a country and our conviction that constitutional rights are important including the basic rights in the bill of rights, including the right to defend yourself and your family under the second amendment. so there is a principle involved here, and in our desire to get to a solution, which i applaud, and the senator is a reasonable person who i have worked with in the past and i hope to work with in the future, we should not in

our haste try to deal with this -- to try to deal with this issue violate the very fundamental principles of our constitution, and that's really what's at stake here. i'd 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 new york assume assume i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. i see my colleague who has worked so hard on this waiting so i will be very brief. ever since the senseless tragedy

in orlando, senate democrats have been trying to deal with the business of gun safety in generally. my friend, the junior senator from connecticut had to hold the floor for hours to get -- to keep suspected terrorists from getting guns. votes failed shamefully. but my friend, the republican senator from maine, has been working diligently to put together a compromise proposal that wouldn't achieve everything we need to do but would make some progress. and i commend her for her efforts. i think she's -- she sincerely wants to get something done as do -- as does just about every member of my caucus. so what have republican leaders decided to do? they're going to give the collins amendment a fake vote called a motion to table that

won't do a single thing to make the proposal law. we have a bill that will keep guns out of the hands of some suspected terrorists and republican leaders cynically choose to give it a path to nowhere. let me repeat that. the motion to table is a path to nowhere. even if proponents of the collins amendment, like the senator from maine, many democrats, the senator from new mexico, the senator from virginia and myself, even if proponents of collins win on the vote, that is, the motion to table is defeated, even if we win on the vote, the amendment is still pending. so today we are saying if the motion to table fails, we want a vote next week on the collins amendment up or down, plain and simple. and i would say this.

this motion, the motion to table is really a motion to kill because that's what i suspect too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do to the collins proposal and for that matter any reasonable measure on gun safety. they're afraid that if they give it a real vote, it might actually have a chance of passing. that is how strong a grip the n.r.a. has on this place. even the most modest of gun safety proposals can't get a real up-or-down vote in the senate because god forbid they might pass. and i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it's cynical. if you're really opposed to collins, stand up and vote no. but the republican leadership knows that the american people, democrats, independents, republicans, north, east, south and west are overwhelmingly for

preventing terrorists would-be terrorists from getting guns. so they can't just say no, we're opposed. they come up with these legislative gyro scoppic turns and twists to try and hide what they're doing because they can't hide it from us or from the american people, plain and simple. so i say this to the republican leadership. if the motion to table fails, they should bring the collins amendment to a real vote. the distinguished majority leader has said many times that he believes in an open amendment process, that his cause sus should -- his caucus shoot no be afraid of tough vote. i still don't know why this is a tough vote to keep guns from suspected terrorists but nonetheless he should keep his word and give the proposal drafted by a member of his own caucus a real up-or-down vote. 90% of the american people

support background checks. anyone with an ounce of common sense wants to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrori terrorists. yet the senate and house republican caucus are fighting against the will of the people at every turn. and even if the vote to table succeeds, we should have a real debate and a real vote on the collins amendment. if it fails, certainly. then it's still with us. if it succeeds, let's have another vote and a real discussion on collins when we come back next week. for the sake of tens of thousands of victims of gun violence every year, we have to make real strides when it comes to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. let's start by giving the collins amendment a real up-or-down vote. let us show the n.r.a. that they cannot rule what is said and voted on and approved here in this chamber, the other chamber,

or in america. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i rise to call up amendment numbered 4858. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this amendment is unusual when we are debating issues like terrorist watch lists and the appropriate restrictions that are needed, desperately needed to ensure that people who are suspected or known terrorists are not able to purchase firearms. how is it unusual? it's bipartisan, mr. president. surely on an issue of this

importance, we should be able to come together and work for common sense solutions. this bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by senators heitkamp, ayotte, heinrich, flake, kaine, graham, king, kirk, nelson, manchin, and baldwin. i want to sincerely thank each of the cosponsors for their many contributions to our amendment and for their support in crafting what is a common sense proposal. our amendment has three basic provisions. first, it would block the purchase of firearms by individuals who are on the no-fly list and on the -- or on

the selectee list. essentially, mr. president, the premise of our amendment is that if you have been designated as too dangerous to fly on an airplane or you have been designated as someone who needs extensive secondary screening, extra screening before you're allowed to board a plane, you should not be able to buy a gun. second, our amendment would provide an immediate alert to the f.b.i. and to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at any time during the past five years purchases a firearm. the orlando shooting provides

perhaps the clearest example of why this provision is so important. the gunman was on the selectee list for approximately ten months, but then he was off the list when he purchased the two guns used to kill 50 people and injure scores more. if our amendment were enacted, the f.b.i. would have been notified immediately when he purchased the first firearm in the weeks leading up to the shooting. and then the f.b.i. would have been notified a second time that the former terrorism suspect who had watched videos of anwar al-alaki was seeking to purchase additional firearms in a short period of time. surely that would have caused the f.b.i. to reopen its investigation of omar mateen and

perhaps, mr. president, if our proposal had been in effect, perhaps that massacre would have been prevented. third, our amendment provides robust due process procedures to protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. any american denied a purchase under this amendment would have the opportunity to have their case heard before a federal district judge. the government would have the burden of proof in order to deny the sale and would have to present its case within a short but reasonable period of time. if the government failed to make its case, if this turned out to be some terrible error, it would have to pay attorney's fees for

the person who had been denied the purchase and of course the purchase of the firearm could go forward. and our amendment makes sure that the applicant can have cleared counsel present to make sure that the government cannot take away a fundamental right without a legal advocate to protect their due process rights. now, cr -- now, critics of our amendment have mistakenly claimed that this bill would have denied americans the right to keep and bear arms based merely on suspicion or a hunch. that is simply not true. we are not using the terrorist screening database, which has 1.1 million people on it. that is not what we are using. we are using the carefully

defined no-fly and selectee list, because those are the most carefully constructed subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. these two lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against the homeland, against u.s. interests overseas. and there are, in fact, only 109,000 individuals on this list, of which only 27,000 are americans. mr. president, i -- the presiding officer: the time for the majority has expired. the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: if i could just rise to compliment my colleague

and others for their leadership on this issue. i just want to point out something about the institution and what we're about to do. monday night we had competing proposals from both parties to deal with this challenging issue of no guns for terrorists. not surprisingly, the majority party wouldn't support the minority party, the minority party wouldn't support the majority party and none of the bills got enough support to go forward. now there is a bipartisan version on the floor. now there is a version where both parties have worked together to do something commonsensical to stop this carnage of gun violence in the country. and i'm just curious as to why one side wants to fight against a bipartisan proposal to put motion on the table. that's what this is. i hope we're going to be able to get over that motion and proceed. but it is important to point out that when a bipartisan proposal is on the floor where the sides are reaching together to do something good for our citizens, one side is trying to kill the bipartisan proposal and one side is supporting it. with that, i yield the floor, mr. president.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise today in support of the bipartisan compromise amendment drafted by the gentlelady from maine, senator collins. and i say it's a good first step, and i say it's even more than that; that it is a significant step forward in gun control and violence control. now, i can assure you, from those of us who want to control violence, this in no way will impinge against second amendment rights. but we do want to curb violence in our country, which is at an epidemic level. and i want to compliment senator collins, and i want to compliment the people who jumped in to help work with her to fashion a compromise the gentlelady is known for her ability to put together a coalition to come up with the best ideas to find common ground. but we're doing something more

here than finding common ground. we're trying to find higher ground. we're trying to get against the muck and mire that goes on in this institution, where we use parliamentary techniques to stifle debate, inhibit a clear vote, and even today with such serious considerations about to take place, we're creating a fog of parliamentary procedure where nobody knows, are you voting "yes" or "no" on collins? are you voting "yes" or "no" on johnson? what we're going to do is vote son the motion to proceed -- is vote on the motion to proceed so we don't go backwards. the american people are fed up. i'm fed up. but i admire what the gentlelady from maine did, because her amendment -- her amendment puts us in the right direction. why should a person be able to buy a gun to kill people when they're on the no-fly list? if you are -- if you are not

allowed to fly because there's fear that you will blow up an airplane, shouldn't there be fear that if you're on a list that they worry you're going to blow up an airplane, that you're going to buy a gun and blow people out of wherever they are? ahhh ... my gosh! when are we going to actually man up in this institution? sure, i am a champion of women's rights. but, like, hello ... don't we have the backbone to actually have straightforward debate. there is an amendment before us that's substantive, that has content. there is edifferent views, and i want to say that i support the gentlelady for what she's doing. the f.b.i. under her amendment would be notified by a person who is -- who's been on the terror list anytime in the past five years. the collins amendment had been

law, we would have alerted the f.b.i. that the orlando shooter wanted to buy a gun and the second amendment would have been protected but, most of all, those people in the nightclub would have been protected. so i'm for protecting the constitution, but i'm protected- i'm for protecting the point of the constitution. it is also to defend the american people against all enemies foreign and domestic. now we meet the enemy that's us. we won't act. we've got to act. the effort offered by the gentlelady from maine is compromise without capitulation on principle. it's what the people want. it has intellectual rigor. it meets the constitutional tevment an--test. and i hope somewhere we start giving votes up and down and not hiding behind the fog of parliamentary procedure. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: before my comments, i would like to yield

two minutes to the junior senator from arizona who has been so instrumental in advancing this proposal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i thank the senator for yielding. i just with a nts to rise to thank the -- i just want to rise to thank the senator from maine for all the work she's put into this and for all in this coalition who've come forward and put something forward that can be passed. let's actually do something designed to work. that's what this bipartisan proposal is all about. it has been well-described what it does, how it protects the due provisions that are there. i grew up in rural arizona. that's where my heart still is. i'm a gun owner. and i always will be. i take my second amendment rights very seriously. this amendment, the bipartisan amendment, is consistent with those rights. it also will have an impact.

if somebody is dangerous enough that we prohibit them from flying on a plane, they should not be able to purchase a firearm. that's the bottom line. that's what the bipartisan amendment will actually solve. so i would encourage my colleagues to support it. if we don't, we will be back here. believe me, this issue will not go away. it'll just be after we have another massacre and we'll say, why didn't we do it before? why didn't we give the f.b.i. notice that somebody had purchased a firearm, or why didn't we block the purchase that have firearm for somebody on those lists? so i appreciate the work that's been done on this. iappreciate the hard work that's -- i appreciate the hard work that's gone into this bipartisan amendment. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, this is a national security measure.

it is a national security measure. it is about protecting our country. the preamble of the united states constitution, which establishes the reason that this country was founded, the reason the constitution was passed, says that the most solemn obligation we have is to ensure domestic tranquillity and provide for the common defense. that's keeping people safe. and that's what this amendment is about. sure, it touches on guns. but what it's really about is keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. it's straightforward. it's simple. it's ease sis to understand. there should be -- it's ease sis to understand. there should be no controversy about this. it has a provision built in that might have prevented the tragedy that occurred in orlando. many of my colleagues talk about us being at war and being at conflict. warwe are in conflict. people want to do us harm.

why we would want to facilitate them harming themselves within our own country makes no sense. this is about national security. it is the most solemn obligation we have, and this amendment should be -- should go through this body and the other body in the next few days or we are failing our responsibility to the american people. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i want to thank my colleagues, especially heidi heitkamp and jeff flake and everyone who has worked so hard to actually come out of our partisan corners and do something for a change. it is very easy for us all to sit back and take comfortable votes. this is not going to be a comfortable vote, but it should be. it's the most nonpartisan, straightforward, commonsense amendment that i have seen in many years around here. it says, basically, if you're so

dangerous that we can't let you on an airplane, well, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy a gun no questions asked. i've spent more time with firearms than most of the folks in this chamber. i have no reservations about this amendment. it protects the second amendment. it includes due process. it will keep terrorists from being able to buy firearms in this country. maybe it's too common sense nor this body. -- for this body. i want to thank everybody who was willing to get to this uncomfortable place to do the right thing. and i would yield the rest of my time to the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: thank you -- i thank you on for the first time in a very long time. we have a group of senators that have come together say that there is a way to balance the important right that's presented in the second amendment and to

protect the security of the people in our country. the vast majority of gun owners in this country would gladly give up those extra 14 days in order to secure safety and security for the american people. when you look at the overall balance -- and the second amendment to many, many people in my state is a critical and important individual right. that right has been recognized by the supreme court. we need to appreciate that that is a right just as sacred as a fourth amendment right, a fifth amendment right, a first amendment right. what we have done here is achieve a balance by saying simply, if you are too dangerous to get on an airplane, maybe we ought to take a second look. but think about the process that we've established. in a mere 14 days, direct access to a court, direct access and opportunity to secure your right, asking people just to

delay for an extra 14 days. and as our colleague from south carolina said, he said, once the gun is in your hand, there's nothing you can do about it -- in the hand of a terrorist. there's nothing you can do about t you can't get it back. but you can always secure a second amendment right through an appropriate due process mechanism. and so today we've struck that balance. we've worked very hard to try and come up with a proposal that can achieve bipartisan support. and i would ask everyone in this body to take a second look, think about the balance, but also talk to the vast majority of gun owners in your state who would say, we agree with this proposal; we agree with n no fl, no buy. let's protect the american people. let's protect the second amendment of let's do what we're supposed to do here, which is to achieve balance which actually protects the american people but

also protects our constitutional liberties. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president, how much time do we have? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland, one minute. ms. mikulski: would the gentlelady from maine like to have one minute to conclude? ms. collins: thank you. ms. mikulski: i yield such time to the gentlelady. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, this amendment is a commonsense approach to helping to make america safer. and i think it is highly significant that we have just received a letter that is signed by a group of generals and admirals who've been on the front lines in fighting

terrorism, people like general petraeus, who are endorsing the bipartisan amendment that we have put forth. mr. president, let us not miss s opportunity to make a difference, to get something done. let us listen to the heart broken families in orlando, in san bernardino, in other terrorist attacks. this is common sense. it does not infringe upon the second amendment rights of americans. all it does is say that if you're too dangerous to board an airplane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun. i urge my colleagues to support our amendment. thank you, mr. president. my thanks to the senator from

maryland. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to table the motion to commit with instructions and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. there are two minutes of debate equally divided. ms. mikulski: i yield back. purchase the question is on the motion to table. the clerk will call the roll. vote :

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 46, the nays are 52. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order in the senate? i move to table the johnson amendment 4859 to the motion to commit with instructions and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. is there -- the yeas and nays are ordered. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: there are two minutes equally divided for debate. the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, i would just like to ask all of my colleagues a simple question: how many more constitutional rights are we willing to give up in response to islamic terror? you know, coming from a business background, i certainly found out the way to reach agreement is trying to find areas of

agreement. here's something we can all agree on: nobody in this chamber, no american wants to see weapons transferred into the hands of terrorists or would-be terrorists. we can agree on that. we are so close -- we are so close. and i applaud susan collins and the other colleagues for trying to work to a bipartisan agreement to accomplish that goal. but my amendment simply adds due process on the front end. otherwise it's pretty much eye dent doolittle what the other senators on a -- identical to what the other senators on a bipartisan basis were trying a chief. let's trine to try to work together. let's try to find those areas of agreement to accomplish the goal of keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and would-be terrorists without giving up our constitutional rights. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. johnson: i ask to not table my amendment so we can continue this discussion and find ashes of agreement. thank you -- and find areas of agreement. thank you. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i

want you to know that our side does support the second amendment of but, you know what? we support all of the amendments of the constitution, not just one. and one of those is the right to speech and implicit in that is maybe to get a real vote on real substance. i yield to the gentlelady from north dakota to far more articulate the substance. but let's not only support the constitution but the oath we took to defend all people against enemies, foreign and domestic. and that's what we want to do. ms. heitcamp: mr. president, we've been asked to vote on an amendment that's 20 pages. 20 pages that we just now were handed. we asked d.o.j. to help us analyze this so we can best determine if that's a good vote. d.o.j. says according to them, this would not stop them from denying one person a gun. we are here to say, no fly, no buy. this doesn't do it. i suggest, as we work through the collins amendment, that we continue to have those discussions. but that we have a vehicle on

the floor where we can have further discussions with any senator who wants to continue to have a conversation. the presiding officer: time has expired. question is on the motion to table. the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote: hope.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator who wishes to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yietion are 67, the nays are 31. the motion is tabled. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the conference report accompanying h.r. 2577. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the following message. the clerk: the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the house to the

amendment of the senate. to the bill, h.r. 2577, making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, having met have agreed that the senate receive from its disagreement to the amendment of the house to the amendment of the senate and agree to the same and the house agree to the same signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both houses. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that reading of the names be dispensed with. oh, sorry. i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference report to accompany h.r. 2577, an act making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban

development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i now ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask the mandatory quorum call be waived with respect to the cloture motion. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: and i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: the collins vote that took place -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reid: i ask the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the collins vote which just took place a few minutes ago was a vote that was, for lack of a better description, just a show vote. collins supporters won. that was their victory. it's the first time since the

historic vote of senator feinstein -- i think it was 1993 dealing with assault weapons -- that the n.r.a. has been in a situation where they can't declare victory. they lost this one. but i would hope now the republican leader would bring the collins compromise to a vote here on the floor, a real vote. today's vote was, well, kind of like heads, i win, tails, you lose, because the support of the collins, that was it with them because it guaranteed that even if collins supporters won the vote, the bill wouldn't advance. but we did. we won the vote. collins won that vote. it's really too bad that the republican leader worked so hard to defeat the bipartisan compromise put forward by the brave senior senator from maine, but despite the efforts of the majority, now the republican leadership has a responsibility to bring the collins bill to

this floor for a real vote, not a fake vote. a vote that provides the bill a real chance to advance. i sure hope that we have that opportunity. it's the right thing for the country. the country agrees that something has to be done. and even though it wasn't a big victory, it was a victory, and i hope the n.r.a. will step back and do what they have said they would do 15 years ago, and that is work to close loopholes, especially the gun show loophole. it's disappointing that they have taken a new tact. they are against anything for gun safety. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. it looks like this week is coming to an end in terms of the efforts of the -- the legislative efforts or the lack thereof in the house and in the

senate. i want everyone to know what this week was. it seemed like the week of disruption. we had a filibuster in the united states senate, and we had a sit-in, an unprecedented sit-in in the house of representatives. and what was that all about? it wasn't only over the substance which goes to the struggle to find the best way for gun control which really we want to be violence control. and what did we filibuster about? yes, we wanted to take up the no-fly, no-buy, that if you're on the terrorist list, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun and to extend background checks to internet sales and gun shows, but it was also about the right to vote. the filibuster was to get a vote. we didn't say how people would

vote. we knew that that would be the subject to debate, amendment, further amendment and then a vote. votes are called yes or no. but what the filibuster here was about was about getting the opportunity to offer the amendments to even be able to vote at all. now, let's go over to the house of representatives. what did they sit in about? this was not just a spontaneous spout or pout. one of the most distinguished americans, the congressman from georgia, john lewis, led a sit-in, and he led a sit-in once again about getting a vote. now, this is a man who marched across the pettis bridge from selma, alabama, faced being

beaten, faced dogs. there is the permanent legacy and wounds of that civil rights struggle, but he wanted to march for the right to vote and was willing to bear any burden. then why did this man at a certain age and stage literally sit down and on his hands and knees again, and what was that for? that was for the right to vote. now, that wasn't taking on some authoritarian governor. that was simply with the house of representatives, give us a vote. people say well, why did they do that? those votes lost in the senate, but there was a -- there were actually two compromises here of collins and at the last minute johnson. so i want people to know what's

going on here. there is the substantive debate with how we can curb violence in our country and violence perpetrated by where we are just awash in guns in our country. that is subject to debate and discussion. i welcome all ideas. i welcome all ideas. i recognize the support, the second amendment of the constitution like i said earlier in the discussion. i support not only the second amendment, i support all the amendments, and i really take seriously my oath to defend the constitution and to defend the american people against all enemies foreign and domestic. we took that oath. we took that oath. so i'm saying here could we get rid of the obstructionism to get to votes and to get to real votes, not only votes that are

some kind of parliamentary procedure linguistic thing like we vote on the motion to proceed, we vote to table the motion. those are really parliamentary -- legitimate parliamentary processes, but they are the fog. they are the fog of parliamentary procedure. so the american people have a right, i think the congress and members of it have a right, should have a right to offer solutions to national problems. i think that should come in the form of legislation and the amendment process following the rules. follow the rules, put out the bill, but when it comes time to vote, we should be able to -- we should be able to have a vote and we should be able to vote clearly yes or no. that's all we're asking for

here. we're going to go through yet one more week, and i would hope that next week that we actually face our responsibilities and try to come up with real solutions to a very real national problem, which is how to curb violence in our country, to come up with a variety of ideas, and from those ideas offer them through legislation and amendment and have very clear votes. now, people would like us, first of all, to act like senators and congresspeople. they would also like us to act with civility. and we've seen it time and time again here. but they would like also for us to speak in plain english and have rules that they can -- that we should follow and that they can understand. so as this week comes to an end, this has been an unprecedented week in our country of a lot of

turmoil and tumult. there has been a lot within our mutual institutions. i hope now that calmer heads prevail. when we come back, let's really get back to the legislative process that's been established by senate rule and tradition. let's have civil debate. let's approach it with intellectual rigor. let's approach it with the sincerity i felt is known on both sides of the aisle. but please, let us seek solutions to our national problems and not seek solutions to solve our party problems. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio brown thank you. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i would be remiss if i didn't say that i'm pleased to see in the presiding officer's chair a fellow eagle scout from wyoming who is as good to the scouts -- was as good to the

scouts as a middle aged man -- close enough -- as the scouts were to you as a young man. it's an honor to speak on the floor with senator enzi being in the presiding officer's chair. this has been a great week for my state no the state of ohio. yesterday i was on this floor joining my colleague from cincinnati and spoke about the cleveland cavaliers' historic nba championship victory. cleveland had not had a winning sports team, winning meaning championship team since i was 12 years old when jim brown ran for the cleveland browns. in those days i expected the cleveland indians to win every year. the cavaliers didn't exist in 1964 so this was a particularly exciting year for -- exciting week for the cleveland cavaliers and for my city of cleveland. my wife joined literally a million of people on the streets of cleveland downtown to celebrate yesterday. this is in a county of 1.2 million so either everybody that lived in the county was there or

people from all over northeast ohio came to join them. this afternoon transportation -- the second thing great for my state this week, this afternoon transportation secretary anthony foxx is in the capitol, one of our other major cities in columbus, the largest city in the state in the london neighborhood in the sort of east, northeast side of town to announce our city is winner of the smart city's challenge. secretary foxx created this competition to define what it means to be a smart city in the 21st century. it was a challenge for our cities to integrate new technologies from self-driving vehicles to electric vehicles to smart sensors into this transportation network. just as importantly, secretary foxx comal lengthed -- challenged applicants to think beyond adopting new technology for its own sake. applicants were encouraged to offer a vision for how that new technology can make a difference for all americans connecting low

income neighborhoods to jobs to -- an opportunity to reduce congestion, to make streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists and children to get certainly to work but to get to the doctor, get to the grocery store, all things in a modern big city transportation system could be. 78 cities from across the nation submitted applications. in march the department selected from those 78 just 7 finalists to compete for today's award. the competition was tough. the cities, like portland, portland, oregon and denver and kansas city and pittsburgh and san francisco and austin all were finalists joining the city of columbus. columbus' win was all the more impressive as a result. our city would not have won without first of all mayor andy ginther's leadership. the mayor didn't do this alone although he played such a prominent roam. the central ohio community united to develop innovative

solutions to our city's challenges that made all the difference in the world. $40 million in grant funding from d.o.t. will be matched by an additional $10 million from vawk & irchg and $90 million of matching funds will come from the community of columbus. this investment will allow the city to deploy some very impressive technology. columbus will expand the use of electric vehicles, will be testing a range of sensors and connected vehicles and smartphone applications. at easton, a major commercial hub, a small fleet of driverless vehicles will link the easton transportation -- transit center with nearby employers. this will expand horizons for bus riders from lower income neighborhoods like lenden who will be more easily travel to jobs that are not near the tran sis center. i'm particularly excited columbus will focus on the way the transportation systems affect the city's health. in some neighborhoods the infant

mortality rate is four times the national average. my state shamefully is 47th in the nation in infant mortality, 50th in the nation in black infant mortality. it's shameful. it's for a lot of reasons. one of them we have a state government that's never really invested in public when health the way they should. we can't think about problems like this in a vacuum. it isn't just a health care problem. it's a public works problem and includes transportation. the columbus plan will have pediatric visits so we can align our system to reduce infant mortality by 40% and cutting in half the racial health disparity. the mayor as president prior to his job as mayor this year led the charge city wide on reducing infant mortality. the greater columbus infant mortality task force celebrate one program, has made impressive progress in building a coalition and setting agrelsive goals to

tackle this issue. these new transit options will build on this work. it's -- becoming a smart city should be about expanding, how we think about infrastructure and public works, harnessing technology to ensure a transportation system that benefits everyone, making it a truly public work. today's award wouldn't have happened without a very long list of regional partners. i can't name them all but the ohio state university, the columbus partnership, columbus 20/20, bah test tell, nation wild, honda, electric power. many, many more came together to build the application. they'll be working side by side with the city to roll out this vision. i want to thank secretary foxx, administer flowers with whom i spent part of an afternoon just a couple of weeks ago in columbus. she was announcing something else we were doing along with cmax corridor along the east, northeast cleveland avenue part of columbus. our nation's transportation

system is undergoing radical transformation. a decade from now my children who live in columbus, my grandchildren who live in columbus will travel in different ways than we do today. the secretary's vision for this program is bold. i'm so excited for cities, for columbus specifically but i also know cities will see -- other cities will see what the smart city of columbus has done with this grant, with this new technology and transportation and will work with columbus and mimic columbus and turn it into a success for our whole nation. and, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent for the following remarks to be in a different part of the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote. last year we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act, one of the most important pieces of legislation we passed in the 20th century. it opened the door to millions literally, millions of americans to exercise their constitutional right. but this year will mark the

first presidential election in a half century without the full protections guaranteed by the voting rights act. three years ago this week, the supreme court gutted a key part of the law taking the teeth out of provisions that protect voters from suppression laws with its decision in shelby county v. holder. since that misguided decision, states across the country have passed new voting restrictions that would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of americans. ohio is ground zero, unfortunately, to thoafortses to restrict voting rights. these laws passed by an ultraconservative state legislature in columbus include cutting early voting and eliminating the gold week created by a more moderate republican legislature of a decade earlier when voters -- the golden week when voters can register and vote on the same day. in other words, early voting starts a week before registration deadline closes --

registration closes. so during that we, a new vote shall -- so during that week, a new voter can register and vote. this year a court reinstated that ruling. judge watson, a george bush appointee, found the laws limiting recallly voting and registration would disproportionately impact african-americans. a decade ago a more moderate republican legislature passed the golden week, created the golden week and passed pretty open voter registration laws. this very far-right legislature chipped away and rolled back and weakened these laws and george bush a pointed to the court more of a moderate, open-minded republican that we saw ten years ago in the legislature, reinstated much of what these legislators had done in the early 2000's. then judge mashly struck down --

marbley ruled that would also disenfranchise african-american voters. in 2008 african-american voters voted earlier in person. in many communities it is what african-american leaders and activists try to do, encourage church members and people in the community to go in and vote early in person. totally legal, it means that so often some people plan to vote on election day or then get sick or have to stay longer at work and lose that vote. that's why recallly vote something so important when people choose to. we remember the scenes from coulcould--from cuyoga county. at kenyan college students waited longer than that, nine, ten, levin hours to -- leven

hours to vote. for persons who center to drop their children off at school, early voting ensures their vote will be heard. many college students can stand in line a little longer. but a parent who stops at the polling booth at 5:30 after work, needs to vote quickly and pick up their child has to stand in line for an hour and a half, they're maybe not likely going to vote in the end. 2012, 600,000 people voted early. that's 600,000 voters' voices that might not have heard if we didn't have early voting. too many other states have passed harsher laws that we know will keep voters from color from the polls. 17 states have passed new voting restrictions since the decision. it's almost like they're waiting for their supreme court, their

very conservative anti-voting rights supreme court to make their move and then they quickly in their state legislatures moved to restrict voting rights. in texas, a new photo i.d. law is under court review. a federal judge called it an unconstitutional poll tax that could disenfranchise up to 600,000 mostly black and latino voters. in north carolina, the legislature, the governor have gone even further with a whole package of restrictions including i.d. laws, reductions in early vote, the elimination of same-day registration and voting. we're the only advanced democracy in the world where there are actually efforts to restrict access to the ballot box. we know who gets hurt the most. it is african-americans, it's seniors, it's young voters, it's latinos. these restrictions were not only made possible -- these restrictions were made possible primarily because the shelby county decision undermined and gutted the voting rights act. there is a solution. congress could pass the bipartisan voting rights advancement act today. we've done these with

overwhelming votes in the passed. not that -- in the past. not that long ago congress almost unanimously reauthorized the voting rights act not that many years ago. then the court struck it down as if the court is wiser than an almost unanimous congress. we could restore the full protections guaranteed by the voting rights act. in 1981 when signing an extension to the voting rights act, president reagan called it the crown jewel of american liberties. few rights more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote. we must continue to do everything in our power to defend it. with elections in every level of government, only five months away, it is more important than ever that we push to restore the most sacred of rights, the right to have a voice in our democracy. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold his quorum call? mr. brown: mr. president, i

withdraw the quoarl quorum call. i'm sorry. i didn't see the senator from michigan. i apologize. mr. peters: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan, and ultimately girl scout. mr. peters: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of the american innovation and competitiveness act, a bill that i introduced yesterday with my colleague, senators gardner, commerce committee chairman thune, and ranking member nelson. this bipartisan legislation is the product of a year-long effort that began with a series of round table discussions on ways to improve the american innovation system. we met with a wide range of stakeholders, representatives from science, education, business, and economic development communities and listened to their input. we leveraged their expertise to develop this important

legislation that promotes science and research, strengthens innovation and advanced manufacturing, grows our skilled workforce, and enhances american competitiveness around the world. specifically, we are maximizing our federal investment in basic research by reducing regulatory burdens on academic researchers so they can spend more of their time on science and less on paperwork. we're strengthening our oversight of federal research and development investments while ensuring that the integrity of the national science foundation's widely acclaimed independent merit review process is fully maintained. we are also working to promote stem education by providing resources to improve the participation of women and minorities in stem fields. fixing the underrepresentation of these groups is absolutely critical to american

competitiveness in the 21st century. our country is simply not producing enough qualified new graduates in stem fields to meet workforce needs. in fact, some studies indicate that the united states must graduate 1 million more stem professionals than are currently projected to fill the -- the growing number of jobs over the next decade. wiment and other minorities represent the largest untapped talent pool to meet the needs of the stem workforce today. i am proud that the american innovation and competitiveness act provides significant new support for grants and programs to increase the participation of women and other minorities in the underrepresented groups in stem fields, both in academia and in the workforce. we also must ensure that the united states continues to lead the world in innovation. our federal investment in research and development has led to discoveries that have had profound impacts on our health,

safety, and quality of life. from 3-d printing to g.p.s., we've found that federally funded r&d can result in commercially viable technologies and products. many colleges operate technology transfer offices to expedite the transfer of these groundbreaking discoveries to the marketplace. however, we've seen in recent years that our nation is facing significant challenges when it comes to moving innovative ideas across the valley of death, which separates promising research from commercialization. the american innovation and competitiveness act will help bridge this valley by authorizing grants for commercialization of federally funded research, broadening the scope of existing commercialization grants, and improving entrepreneurship training for research so that young researchers can be best positioned to get their

unknowvations to the marketplace. this legislation also encourages the federal government to utilize prize authority and crowd-sourcing to spur innovations and public participation in science. these creative approaches will help engage more americans in the development of the next big thing. i am proud that the american innovation and competitiveness act also fosters the expansion of the national science foundation's innovation core program also known as icore. the primary goal is to foster entrepreneurship that will lead to the commercialization of technology that has been supported by n.s.f. research funding. the university of michigan is home to one of seven icore nodes in the nation and for years has been a shining example of the strength of this program and it's ability to translate research into new, innovative start-up companies that are improving the lives with their

products and creating good-paying jobs. our bill will expand the icore program to other federal agencies, greatly expanding its research. and helping to facilitate the commercialization to a much broader base of federally funded research. and finally, i'm proud of what this legislation will do to support small and medium-sized manufacturers in michigan as well as across the country. the american innovation and competitiveness act provides for more federal support for regional manufacturing centers such as michigan's manufacturing technology center, or mmtc, which has provided support to michigan businesses since 1991. by increasing the federal cost share for the manufacturing extension partnership, this bill will allow mmtc to provide training and assistance to more small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses. with this legislation, congress

can do its part to support and invest in the united states science enterprise. by enacting the american innovation an competitiveness a, we can increase american productivity, enhance our safety and security as a nation, and secure our competitiveness going forward. we must solidify our position as the country to beat when it comes to innovation and create more good-paying jobs here at home. it has been an honor for me to work with my friend and colleague, senator gardner, on this effort and i also want to thank chairman thune and ranking member nelson again nor their leadership and support throughout this process. i look forward to the commerce committee considering this critical legislation next week, and i hope the full senate takes up action soon thereafter. mr. chairman, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senior senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, today marks the 99th day since president obama nominated judge her issue garland to the supreme court. 99 days. yet republican colleagues continue to refuse to do their constitutional duty and act on the nomination. just this week we received more proof of judge garland's qualifications and another sign that senate republicans should act now. the american bar association, as we all know a highly respected nonpartisan and nonideological group made up of qualified experts in the legal field announced that it unanimously gave judge garland its highest rating of well qualified.

and we know that they have tough standards. after pouring through the available records and speaking to colleagues and peers who know judge garland best, here are some of the examples of what they said about him in the a.b.a. report. quote -- "garland's integrity is off the scales. he is a straight shooter who is brilliant, exceptional, and phenomenal." quote -- "garland is the best that there is. he is the finest job i have ever met. there's no one who is his peer." quote -- "he is very sharp and works hard to find consensus among the panel. he decides the case but does not decide more than is necessary to resolve the case." quote -- "he always is the best prepared because he wants to get it right. he's always the best prepared

because he wants to get it right." that's pretty good. i say all those quotes are amazing. in interviews with hundreds of individuals in the legal profession and community who knew judge garland, not one person uttered a negative word about him boy, i wish we could have that, mr. president. not one person uttered a negative word about him. mr. president, the senate has a constitutional duty as we all know to provide advice and consent on judge garland's nomination. yet senate republicans have doubled down on the obstructio obstructionism and said we should not do anything before january 20, 2017, when the next president is sworn in. this is completely irresponsible. we have a court right now just

today who came to a tied decision because they didn't have a full complement on the court on a very important issue that could have been resolved. just over a week ago judge garland gave the graduation speech at j. o. wilson elementary school in northeast washington. the school where he tutored students for the past 18 years. he told students in the graduation speech, dreams don't come true by magic. go ahead and dream, go ahead and work hard to make those dreams come true. judge garland has worked hard for over 19 years. 19 years. and we have seen his dedication to public service without his life and his career. people in michigan and all across the country work hard and do their jobs every day to put

food on the table and support their families and build a brighter future for their children. and they know they couldn't refuse to do a really important part of their job for 99 days in a row and get away with it. tonight members of congress on both sides of the aisle will play in the annual congressional baseball game. we hope it won't be raining. baseball game that runs for nine innings, requires nine players on the field at a time for a complete team. i hope my republican colleagues who are playing in the game realize that we need nine is applicable both on the field and on the court. mr. president, i call on republican colleagues to do their job and hold hearings and a vote for judge merrick garland. you have the choice of voting

yes or voting no, but we have the responsibility to have the vote. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise to join my colleague from the other side of the aisle, senator brown who came to the floor earlier to congratulate andy ginther of columbus, ohio and the people of columbus ohio and central ohio for a big victory. we won the federal department of transportation smart city grant competition. this is something we've been working on for months. it's a big deal to us in central ohio. it gives us the opportunity to get not only $40 million in terms of a grant from the department of transportation to be a model city but also in combination with another grant from vulcan corps of $10 million and -- corporation of $10 million and $90 million raised in the private sector to have a total of about $140 million to

reshape transportation in central ohio, to create more economic growth for the citizens of central ohio but also to be this model, not just for ohio but for the rest of the country in how we can use smart transportation to help create economic growth and opportunity. i want to thank u.s. secretary of transportation foxx for getting this decision exactly right. as i have said to secretary foxx about this competition over the past several months, i believe this is the right investment for our tax dollars. i believe columbus is the right city. i believe that we have done all the right things to be the proper recipient for this. i was honored to help set up meetings between secretary foxx and mayor andy ginther. secretary foxx is always a respectful and thoughtful listener and ultimately again he made the right decision. was a competition, mr. president. we had 77 other cities submit applications and among the finalists were some very impressive cities, very

innovative cities, austin, kansas city, denver, pittsburgh, portland, san francisco. but it's easy to see why the right choice was to invest in columbus. it's the fastest growing city in the midwest in terms of jobs, in terms of population. it's one of the top seven centers in the country for foreign trade now. that places by the way a lot of pressure on our transportation system with the growth and increase in trade. there is a need for us to be sure our infrastructure keeps up with that success. this smart city grant will help us ensure that that happens. i want to thank and commend the more than 100 organizations from central ohio who were part of this who expressed interest in working with columbus on improving this infrastructure. organizations like the batell research institute, the ohio state university and their research on transportation, clean fuels ohio, the i.b.m. analytics data center, the ohio state university had other departments involved in this as well in terms of engineering and so on.

dozens of others. i also want to thank the leadership of the columbus partnership alec fisher and the partnership did a terrific job bringing the business community on this. they also put up $90 million of investment, the private sector into this so it's clearly one where the federal dollars are being leveraged and more than matched. i convened a meeting in columbus several weeks ago at the ohio state university center for automotive research for many of these organizations that are part of this grant application, and we talked about the need not just to work together on this grant but to ensure that columbus and central ohio was on the map in materials of being -- terms of being a center for transportation excellence. we had some of the companies there like honda and some of the suppliers but we also had a lot of the research folks there and a lot of people who are just interested in making sure that the community becomes more prosperous by helping to move people. it's almost like physical mobility through transportation is part of economic mobility in columbus.

we see it that way. and i think it's absolutely true. i was pleased to lead a letter from the entire ohio delegation along with sherrod brown and all of my colleagues in the house, democrat and republican alike in support of this effort. it was bipartisan. it was from the entire state. we were unanimous that columbus is a sound investment. again that the federal government ought to make. i want to quickly thank mayor andy ginther for getting this done. it was a team effort and a good example of how the private and public sector can move forward and give central ohio a chance to show the country how we can move forward literally in terms of our transportation movement. but the credit ultimately goes to the city of columbus. they will put that $140 million to good use improving our infrastructure, spurring economic development and jobs. it's a proposal to form a partnership with the central ohio transit short, the mid ohio regional planning commission, the ohio department of transportation, ohio state transportation research center i

talked about earlier and other partners in a five-part strategy, a very specific strategy. access to jobs, logistic, connecting visitors and tourists, connecting citizens and sustainability. let me briefly talk about some of the parts of the strategy. as i mentioned we're creating a lot of jobs in columbus. with these new jobs we got to be sure workers can commute easily and safely. so we're going to study jobs in which to move people, not just from suburb to suburb but also to ensure that people living in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty are improving access to jobs through this transportation improvement. we have a neighborhood in columbus called linden, one that will be particularly impacted by this. the linden neighborhood has its challenges. i have visited many neighborhoods in columbus that have challenges. franklin would be souther one -- franklin would be one. the south side would be another.

we talk about how to bring jobs to those communities. the one thing i do hear about is the difficulty with transportation, how literally to find a job and then get to that job. people don't have cars. people have difficulty finding the bus routes that work for these jobs. some of the jobs unfortunately are not close to these neighborhoods. so this is an opportunity through this new innovative transportation plan to connect people to the jobs that are there. by making it easier for residents to travel to and from jobs and school we can improve the future of these communities and families. credit is another issue that this proposal will help with. a lot of people have lack of access to credit who live in these neighborhoods. you think about it whether it is getting on the metro bus or using some other kind of transportation, a credit is really important. so this project will include looking for innovative ways to bring people off the sidelines and enable them to get around easier by providing credit for transportation. columbus also plans to use the

grant funds to improve broadband internet access and employ self-drive cars. we've got one of the only cargo-dedicated airports in the world. we've got the most truckstops in the union. 50% of u.s. consumers can be reached within a day's drive of columbus. it is a big transportation hub. i have met with a number of companies like avnet who anticipate more and more trucks on the road to and from the rickenbacker inland port, our air freight center for columbus. because of this continuing growth. so the city of columbus plans to build a smartphone app for trucks with routing delivery for freight. this is good for everyone. it is good for our transportation companies and the trucks but also in terms of safety and efficiency, good for commuters, good for all drivers. another reason to the city's

success is in the way we have so many visitors coming to columbus and because they spend about $5.7 billion every year in columbus, total economic impact of $8.7 billion to support jobs for 71,000 ohio yarntion we need to be sure we continue to find ways to have the smart transportation project work with this increasing number of visitors. we plan to work with organizations like experience columbus to build a smartphone app to provide realtime information for visitors for parking, transit options. by helping visitors get around easier, we can help improve their experience of the city but also make columbus more a-trackive to more visitors and increase economic activity and jobs. these are some of the things that are going to happen as part of the smart cities grant. we also intend to focus on sustainability, to increase the use of cleaner ways of transporting goods and people. we will be expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure, converting more of the city's bus system to compressed natural

gas or electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions even as we're increasing transportation capabilities. so thinvestment will have a -- so this investment will have a positive impact on jobs and the environment. it is a win-win. i congratulate secretary fox on making a good investment decision, one that will help columbus make history and create opportunities for ohioans and congratulations again most importantly for all of central ohio, those who put together this incredible application and i look forward to working with them closely in ensuring that the money is well-spent and this project does become a model for the rest of ohio and the rest of the country. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time.

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

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, today the supreme court, in the case of united states v. texas, rendered an interim victory, i think, for law and procedure and lawfulness in america, a victory for the constitutional process by which congress passes laws and the president is obliged to faithfully execute those laws. he takes an oath to do that, to be -- he is the chief law enforcement officer in america.

congress is the body that passes laws and makes laws. and we have a series of immigration laws, most of which have been on the book for many, many years. they reflect a decided view of the government and people of the united states of america. those laws are obliged to be enforced in an effective and consistent way, and this decision today held that, on an interim basis, a stay should be issued -- in other words, an order issued by the lower court to block the president of the united states from carrying out a series of legal actions that he wants to carry out must be stopped. because he lacks the authority to do that. it's a huge, significant constitutional matter. if yo you remember, colleagues,t

wasn't too long that we had a national debate and a vote about reforming immigration laws in the united states. i believe that was not good reform, and we debated it and it failed in the congress. it did not get the support of both houses, although it did get support in the senate. that proposal failed. the american people spoke clearly on it. they contacted us in large numbers. people began to understand that the bill was not effective to do what it promised to do, and that was to end the illegality. it was going to be effective in granting amnesty to virtually everybody unlawfully in the country today, but it would not have been able to carry out an effective and lawful system for the future. that's what i believe intentionally. i was a federal prosecutor for 15 years. we tried to read the law and

make sure that it was effective and it was not effective. it was not effective. well, so the president just decided that i'm going to use my pen and i'm going to issue orders to all the executive departments and agencies that are obliged to enforce the laws of the united states, and i'm going to tell them to do what the congress rejected. i'm going to execute an amnesty by the signing of my pen that legalizes everyone in the country here today. it's an unbelievable overreach, a matter of tremendous import. and it's an affront to the legislative process. it's an affront to the majority of the american people who want a lawful system of immigration, ones that serves their interest, serves the interest of america, the national interest, not some special interest who wants cheaper labor. not some political interest who's looking for votes.

but what's in the policy -- what's the policy that best serves the american people, that's what this issue is all about. but supreme court, by a 4-4 vote concluded that the state should remain. and that is he blocked the president at least on that portion of the executive orders he's issued that was before the court. he's done some other things that were not before the court and are, i think would be at risk too if properly challenged but they haven't made it to the court yet. i think this was an important vote. if you remember, the judge heard the case. he issued a stay, blocked the president from going forward with his own lawful -- his own law plan for immigration, the one that congress had rejected. then the court of appeals in texas, the fifth circuit which

includes more than texas, they ruled that the judge was correct. and now by a 4-4 vote, the ruling of the fifth circuit is upheld. on november of 2014, the administration, as i've said before, went on strike. it just announced we are not going to follow the requirements and the laws of the united states with regard to immigration. i am going to direct my offices to carry out a policy that i think should be the national policy. sorry the congress didn't pass it, and the historic law remains in place but i'm going to direct my officers not to do it. and that's what he did. in effect, it was a ceasing of the enforcement of immigration law in so many key ways. under the guise of what he

called exercising prosecutorial discretion, it explicitly -- his orders did, directed the law enforcement officers not to enforce plain law, forcing them to violate -- the officers to violate their oath of office to support and defend the constitution of the united states. and his own oath, which is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. and effectively eliminated entire sections in the united states code. but not only did the obama administration direct his officers and agents, all of which are in the executive branch under his supervision as the president of the united states, the chief executive, he ordered those agencies -- the department of homeland security -- not to follow the plain law. he further decreed that those who came here illegally and had children in the united states would be allowed to stay in the united states and granted work permits.

work permits and access to certain federal benefits. people who entered the country unlawfully. so no wonder the immigration and customers enforcement officials have had so much difficulties with that. an objective federal study that's done every year or periodically evaluates the morale of the federal officers in the united states. they have found on, i think again this year, that the morale of the homeland security agency is the lowest of any federal agency. why is this? because they have been ordered not to do their duty. they put their lives on the line. border patrol agents do, in dangerous circumstances, and they arrest people and bring them in. and what happens? they're not deported. they're released on bail or some sort of promise to appear, and they go into the country as they

planned to do all along. this is extremely discouraging for our officers and agents, and it's wrong and it should not happen. and it is a cause of the increasing number of illegal immigrants we have in the nation today. in fact, colleagues, a few years ago the immigration and customs enforcement officers association, a part of homeland security, filed a lawsuit against secretary janet napolitano and john morton, one of their supervisors, and said you are ordering to violate our oath to enforce the law. i've never seen a lawsuit like this. 18,000 or so agents and officers suing their supervisors for ordering them not to do their duty.

this is wrong. it demoralizes morale. and when you have that kind of situation, what message does it send to the world? it sends a message to the world that if you can get into the united states, you're going to be successful and you can stay here. you don't have to come according to the law. and we've seen an increase in lawlessness in recent years. and in fact it looks like this year, among a number of categories, we've already reached the same level of arrests that we did in all of last fiscal year. so we're having a rather significant increase again this year. well, what happened? over half the state attorneys general in the united states filed a lawsuit in the federal court. judge andrew hainon in the

district court for the southern district of texas heard the case. it went on for a considerable amount of time. the department of justice defended president obama's actions. the top lawyers in the u. department of justice go to texas and they defend this case, and they're opposed by more than half the attorneys general of the united states. judge hanen heard the case and issued an injunction. he said, mr. president, you are changing the regulations of the united states that have been issued pursuant to the immigration and nationality act. you're changing those. and before you can change regulations, you have to be able to go through a process, and you have to have notice, an opportunity for people to be heard and objections to be made. and before the regulations can be altered. that was basically the decision that he rendered. the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

next to the supreme court upheld the injunction, and today's decision confirms that the obama administration's lawless plans may not proceed. but the fight is far from over. the case will now be sent back to judge hahn nor for -- judge hanen for additional litigation on the merits and the ultimate outcome remains uncertain. but i would say that it takes -- to issue a stay and to block a federal agency for going forward with a rule or regulation, the federal judge in the federal court must find that the opposition litigants have a substantial likelihood or prevailing on the merits. so i think this decision indicates that judge -- hannon

and even the supreme court believe it's likely that judge hannon would be upheld in his decision. but what is clear, as highlighted by the egregious, unethical conduct of the lawyers of the united states department of justice, where i served for almost 15 years, and we worked our hearts out to always be faithful and operate with integrity before the federal judges. and always, since we were representatives of the united states of america, to make sure that every representation we made to the court was accurate, as a high standard. and most assistant united states attorneys and department of justice lawyers should know that and hear that at the highest levels. other lawyers frequently don't. private attorneys don't but federal attorneys representing

the people of the united states of america have that high duty. well, what happened? judge hannon found really that they were determined to go forward with these unlovely actions, even though he had -- with these unlawful actions even though he ordered them to stop and it appears to have caused some substantial violation of integrity of the immigration law and their department, and they're going to have a further hearing soon, i believe, on whether there will be additional penalties. he's already imposed some penalties on the department of justice lawyers for their improper conduct, which he severely condemned them for. so, the message that this administration is sending to the world is that if you can get here, you can stay here. according to official statistics from the u.s. customs and border

protection, the number of so-called family units that are apprehended at the southern border has already exceeded the number that were apprehended in all of fiscal year 2015, already this year. approximately 12% more so-called family units were apprehended through may than were apprehended through all last year. and total apprehensions of all aliens appears to be on the rise which is an indication of increased illegality into this country. last month the head of the border patrol council testified before the subcommittee on immigration that i chair that for every alien apprehended at the border by the united states border patrol, we could assume at least one evaded detection. he represents the border patrol office. he says they're catching half of the people that enter and they

apprehended more than 300,000 illegally here in the country last year. he further testified -- get this, colleagues. this is important. critically important. and it shows the extreme nature of the obama administration's policies with regard to immigration. this officer testified that of the half that are apprehended, at least 80% of those are released into the country and not deported. they are told, okay, come back to court. sometimes they have a bail, sometimes they don't. on one hearing, a federal agency official testified that they take young people to their destination city when they're apprehended. what does that mean? it means that if somebody enters the country and they're 17 years of age and they don't know what to do with them, instead of

deporting them and sending them back at that time, they say where did you intend to go. well, my designation was chicago. the federal government takes them to chicago. turns them over to a cousin, an uncle, or an aunt, whatever. there is no effort to ascertain whether or not the person they are turned over to is legally in the country or not either. so this is the kind of thing that is causing such disturbance within the law enforcement field. and it's so discouraging to them. so to the extent to which the administration has directed its officers not to enforce plain law is one of the most brazen acts of legal disobedience in the history of america, i think. could the next president refuse to enforce tax laws? could the next president say i don't like they tax. i believe this tax is too high? or i don't believe we should tax

these entities, so he tells his subordinate unit, the head of the i.r.s., just like he tells the head of the homeland security, don't enforce this law. i know congress passed it. i don't think it's a fair tax. don't collect it. tell everybody in the country if you don't pay that tax, you can be certain your i.r.s. is not going to spend its time and effort to collect it. so you're home free. so that's the kind of logic we are dealing with. these lawless actions fly in the face of what the american people have asked for, and yet despite having the most radical immigration policies in our nation's history, former secretary of state hillary clinton has promised to go even further. i have just been astounded at some of the things that she has declared. if president, she promises to deport only those who commit violent felonies or happen to be

terrorists. anybody else i guess can come in illegally into the country, sell drugs, get caught for fraud, get caught for fraudulent i.d.'s, get caught for credit card fraud and those kind of things, as long as it's not a violent crime, they don't ever get sent home. they get to stay here. how is this in harmony with the will of the american people to have a lawful system of immigration, one that protects their public safety, protects them from criminal activities, protects them from terrorism and those kind of things? breathtaking to me. moreover, if secretary clinton is provided with the ability as president to appoint a new justice to the supreme court, the outcome of this florida case might change.

who knows? but it's certainly clear that she has been vigorously critical of the decision and says it is correct essentially. she said this in her statement today. quote -- "today's decision by the supreme court is purely procedural, casts no doubt on the fact that dapa and daca, these amnesty programs are entirely within the president's legal authority. she says it's entirely within the president's authority. well, again, let me remind you what the president did. he not only said to four million adults in the issue before the supreme court that you will not be deported. he declared that you are able to work. he's given them work authorization. when the laws of the united states don't allow people

illegally here to take jobs. not only that, he gave them the right to social security and he gave them social security numbers, and they will pay into social security and be able to get social security and medicare and other programs. basically he gave illegal persons established by the laws of the united states legal status to participate as american citizens on virtually every matter of importance. it's pretty exceptional. and former secretary clinton said i will induce comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for those within my first 100 days. in other words, she would give legal status citizenship to everybody that came to the

country illegally. it's just a very damaging thing and has remarkable consequences and impacts on the legal system and it also incentivizes more people to come to america. the american people have every right to demand that our very generous legal immigration flow be followed according to the law and that it reflect their wishes. the american people are good and decent people. they are not asking for anything extreme. what's extreme is this idea that we systematically refuse to guarantee the laws of the united states be executed. the actions and policies advanced by president obama and apparently even more radical policies by secretary clinton is a radical thing. it's not traditional in any way.

it's directly contrary to our constitutional principles and the clear will of the american people. it must be stopped. mr. president, we have a generous immigration system. we admit 1.1 million at least -- i think it will be now maybe closer to 1.2 million every year, more than any nation in the world. it's a remarkable thing that we do. in addition to that, at any given time, there are 700,000 people in the united states foreign born that take jobs in the united states, and these are supposed to be temporary jobs for the most part. a lot of them are basically permanent jobs, can be re-upped and reextended, and that is going on in the country at a given time. we don't have enough jobs for the american people now. we don't have enough jobs for the american people now.

we have a surplus of labor in this country. that's why -- if you believe in free markets, colleagues, that's why since 1999 until last year median household income in america is down $4,000 per family. a big part of that is excessive labor flow into the united states. it's not disputable, colleagues. look at the great professor on this, professor borhaus at harvard. born in cuba himself, came here as a young person. dr. borhaus shows that excessive labor flow pulls down wages. why would it not? it's just common sense -- commonsense free market principles. but he's documented it through labor reports, a census data, and there's no doubt about that. we are hammering american working people.

their lives are being diminished while some make more money because they have a lower wage. i'm not saying we're going to end immigration. nobody's talking about that. what we have is an extremely high immigration level legally, and on top of that we have this massive illegality. so the first thing the american people have asked us to do is end the illegality pleas. they have been pleading for that for 30 years. and all we have here is some complaint about any bill that actually takes a step toward that end gets blocked. we can't even get votes on amendments. so i just want to say i think the american people are correct. any nation state that sees itself as sovereign, sees itself as having a loyalty to its own people should protect those

people from unfair policies, should defend their legitimate interests. and we are not doing it. we are pulling down wages right now. there are people that don't have jobs today. we have the lowest percentage of americans with a job, those in the working years today, that we have had in 40 years. last month, we created 38,000 jobs. a paltry number, a shockingly low number. sent some shockwaves through the business community. we need to have close to 200,000 a month to stay level. we're bringing in almost 100,000 immigrants a month. from 2000, colleagues, to 2014. 14 years, the native-born

population of the united states increased throughout that period by millions. how many jobs were created and did native-born americans get during that period? none. the actual number of workers from 2000-2014 went down. all jobs that were created during that period of time went to foreign born. and is it any surprise that wages have fallen? is it any surprise that we have got going from around low $50,000 a year median income in america for a family to $4,000 less? it's simple. and somebody needs to talk about this and defend the legitimate concerns of families in this center and working americans. so i want to say a couple of things.

the outcome of this court ruling is not going to cause any major change in what's happening today. in fact, we have been living under the policies that the court ordered for some time now. it's not going to change that. we're not going to have any mass roundup, as people have suggested is going to happen. that's ridiculous. the president has ordered basically an end to deportations, except for those who commit crimes, serious crimes. secretary clinton has said the crime has to be a violent crime or terrorism connected before you get deported. so i -- so we're heading in that direction. it's going to not -- we're not going to have a dramatic impact on the changes in america, but they won't get worse. this dramatic providing of work permits, social security

benefits, social security numbers, medicare benefits. the people who entered our country unlawfully presumably could have been entered 12 months ago, have no family here, no connection. they would receive these benefits, too. this is not a sound policy for america. we're going to have to work our way through many of the difficulties in the future, but the simple demand that we have to congress from a majority of the people i believe is in the illegality, do that first -- end the illegality, do that first and then we'll talk about what we will do next with people who have been here a long time. a lot of people just came. do they get to come -- you just used a fraudulent identification or you broke across the border or you were caught and released on bail and you went to los angeles or chicago or somewhere. do you get to demand that you be given legal status in america? do you get to demand that you be

made a citizen, where other people around the world waited their time and may never get into the united states because they don't qualify. that's the question that we are facing. and i truly believe that we are -- we believe in immigration as an american country. we are always going to have immigration. but the level of it and the nature of it should be such that we admit people who are most likely to be successful, most likely to flourish in america, most likely to benefit america, and not people who are going to have a hard time, who don't speak english and don't have skills that we need in this country today. and i believe it's wrong to bring in more workers at predictably low skills who compete directly against americans who are trying to get a job and pull down their wages or make it harder for them to get a job. i really think that's gone

beyond what the responsibility of the government is. our responsibility is to follow the law as it's written and the president's responsibility under his oath and his duties as the chief executive and the chief law enforcement officer in america is to see that our laws are enforced. do you want us to come back again with some other changes in the law? bring it up. let's talk about it. he himself does not get to do that on his own. i'm pleased that the supreme court has stopped him at least with regard to this specific program, so-called dapa program. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks and would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: