Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is my understanding that I can have 40 minutes at this point, and if I don't have that time, I ask unanimous consent for that time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we find ourselves in a very unusual situation. We are in a Presidential election year. The campaign for our next Commander in Chief is in full swing. Voting has begun. Some candidates for President have dropped out of the race after disappointing finishes in the primaries. Republicans hold the gavel in the U.S. Senate, and a term-limited Democrat in the twilight of his Presidency occupies the White House. It is within this context that our Nation has lost one of the greatest legal minds ever to serve the Court. Justice Scalia's death marks the first time a sitting Supreme Court Justice passed away in a Presidential election year in 100 years, and it is the first time a sitting Supreme Court Justice passed away in a Presidential election year during a divided government since 1888. As my colleagues and I grapple with how the Senate Judiciary Committee should approach this set of circumstances, we seek guidance and wisdom from a number of sources. These include history, practice, and common sense, and, yes, we look to what former committee chairmen have had to say on the subject. In reviewing this history, I am reminded of remarks a former chairman delivered during an election year. That former chairman tackled this knotty problem, and he described what should happen if a Supreme Court vacancy arises during a Presidential election year. In fact, this chairman's guidance is particularly instructive because he delivered his remarks in a Presidential election year during a time of divided government. The Presidential election year was 1992. We had no Supreme Court vacancy. No Justice had passed away unexpectedly. No Justice had announced his or her intention to retire. Rather, it was the fear of an unexpected resignation that drove this former chairman to the Senate floor 1 day before the end of the Court's term. Near the beginning of his lengthy remarks, this chairman--who was and remains my friend--noted another speech he delivered several years prior on the advice and consent clause. That speech, from July 1987, was titled ``The Right and Duty of the Senate to Protect the Integrity of the Supreme Court.'' This chairman delivered those remarks in 1987 as the Senate embarked on one of its saddest episodes: the unfair and ugly treatment of an exceptional jurist, Judge Robert Bork. I don't reference that episode to open old wounds, only to provide context because it was in that speech during the debate that this former chairman defended the Senate's constitutional role in the appointment process. It was there in that speech during that debate in 1987 that this former chairman reached back to an early debate from an especially warm summer in Philadelphia 200 years prior. He reached back to the Constitutional Convention because it was then and there that individuals such as Rutledge of South Carolina, Wilson of Pennsylvania, Gohram of Massachusetts, and, of course, the father of the Constitution, Madison of Virginia, debated how our young Nation's judges were going to be appointed. It was his examination of the debate in 1787 that led this former chairman to declare 200 years later, nearly to the day: Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states that the president ``shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.'' I will argue that the framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility. I will argue that the Senate historically has taken such a view. That discussion on the advice and consent clause transpired in 1987, but, as I said, it was during a Presidential election year in 1992 that my friend, this former chairman, took to this very floor. Why did he begin his remarks in 1992 by reference to an earlier speech on the advice and consent clause? I will say it wasn't only because Senators sometimes like to quote the wise words they once spoke. My friend referenced his own remarks on the advice and consent clause because he wanted to remind his colleagues in this Senate of this Senate's constitutional authority to provide or withhold consent as circumstances might require. And he wanted to remind his colleagues of the Senate's constitutional authority before he addressed the real reason he rose to speak in 1992: the prospect of a Supreme Court vacancy in a Presidential election year. After discussing confirmation debates that had not occurred in Presidential election years, my friend turned to some of those who had: Some of our nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in presidential election years. The bruising confirmation fight over Roger Taney's nomination in 1836; the Senate's refusal to confirm four nominations by President Tyler in 1844; the single vote rejections of nominees Badger and Black by lameduck Presidents Fillmore and Buchanan, in the mid-19th century; and the narrow approval of Justices Lamar and Fuller in 1888 are just some examples of these fights in the 19th century. This former chairman continued: Overall, while only one in four Supreme Court nominations has been the subject of significant opposition, the figure rises to one out of two when such nominations are acted on in a presidential election year. This former chairman then outlined some additional history of Supreme Court nominations in Presidential election years. He emphasized that in four vacancies that arose during a Presidential election year, the President exercised restraint and withheld from making a nomination until after the election. One of those Presidents was Abraham Lincoln. Ironically, like President Obama, our 16th President was a lawyer and called Illinois home. But unlike our current President, Abraham Lincoln didn't feel compelled to submit a nomination before the people had spoken in November of 1864. Eventually, my friend got to the heart of the matter during election year 1992: Should a justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, and to the Senate itself. My friend went on to say: It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed. And what is the Senate to do if a President ignores history, ignores good sense, ignores the people, and submits a nominee under these circumstances? Here again my good friend, the former chairman, had an answer: It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. Well, what of the likely criticisms that will be lobbed at the Judiciary Committee and at the entire Senate if they were to choose this path of not holding a hearing? My friend, the former chairman, continued: I am sure, Mr. President, having uttered these words, some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate, to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Continuing to quote: Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way . . . action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. But won't that impact the Court? Can it function with eight members for some time? Won't it create ``crisis''? Not remotely. My friend considered this issue as well and appropriately dismissed it: Others may fret that this approach will leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost[s] of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks. ``In the next several weeks'' refers to sometime between June and November of 1992. I want to read this part again: Others may fret that this approach will leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But . . . the cost[s] of such a result . . . are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President. That is very well said. This former chairman is eloquent, where I happen to be very plainspoken. I would put it this way: It is the principle that matters, not the person. My friend concluded this section of his remarks this way: In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain. I think probably everybody kind of knows these are the Biden rules. The Biden rules recognize that ``the framers intended the Senate to take the broadest view of its constitutional responsibility.'' The Biden rules recognize the wisdom of those Presidents--including another lawyer and former State lawmaker from Illinois--who exercised restraint by not submitting a Supreme Court nomination before the people had spoken. The Biden rules recognize that the Court can operate smoothly with eight members for some time, and ``the cost of such a result, the need to re-argue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four, are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation would have to pay for what assuredly would be a bitter fight.'' The Biden rules recognize that under these circumstances, ``[the President] should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.'' The President he is referring to there is President George H.W. Bush. The Biden rules recognize that under these circumstances, ``[it does not] matter how good a person is nominated by the President.'' The Biden rules recognize that ``once the political season is under way . . . action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.'' The Biden rules recognize that ``Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.'' The Biden rules recognize that under these circumstances, ``the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.'' Vice President Biden is a friend, as I said three or four times during my remarks, and I say it with the utmost sincerity. I served with him in this body and on the Judiciary Committee for nearly 30 years. He is honorable, he is sincere, and he is loyal to the President he now serves. Because I know these things about him, I can say with confidence that he will enthusiastically support the President and any nominee he submits to the Senate, but I also know this about Vice President Biden: He may serve as Vice President, but he remains a U.S. Senator. That is why when he rose to speak in this Senate Chamber for the last time, he shared this with his colleagues: I may be resigning from the Senate today, but I will always be a Senate man. Except for the title of ``father,'' there is no title, including ``Vice President,'' that I am more proud to wear than that of United States Senator. If the President of the United States insists on submitting a nominee under these circumstances, Senator Biden, my friend from Delaware, the man who sat at a desk across the aisle and at the back of this Chamber for more than 35 years, knows what the Senate should do, and I believe in his heart of hearts he understands why this Senate must do what he said it must do in 1992. I yield the floor and give back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to the nomination of Dr. Mary Wakefield to the position of HHS Deputy Secretary. The reason for my objection is the following: Last summer, separate inquiries from Chairman Johnson and myself and from Senators Ernst and Blunt were sent to HHS regarding fetal tissue harvesting practices of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, an HHS grant recipient. Response to the letters did not fully answer the questions raised and, furthermore, raised additional concerns. Follow-up inquiries to HHS also failed to address some of the questions. Today I sent a followup letter to Secretary Burwell in order to determine whether any audits of the fetal tissue programs have ever been undertaken.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor David Hurd on his passing. David was 86 years old, but his family and friends would tell you he packed much more into his years than even his long life would suggest. He was a prominent businessman, chief executive officer of the Principal Financial Group from 1989 to 1994, and a member of the Iowa Business Hall of Fame. He is credited with helping to build Principal into the global powerhouse company it is today. David also was a well-regarded civic leader. He wasn't a native Iowan, but Des Moines became his home in 1954 when he came to work for what was then Banker's Life, now Principal Financial. Having lived in Des Moines for so many years, he became an advocate and an activist for making Des Moines an attractive place to live and work. Des Moines is a thriving city today, and David did a lot to contribute to its success. It was fitting that his longtime home was a high-rise building downtown, right in the middle of everything, where he could enjoy the benefits of city living and watch Des Moines change in so many positive ways. David also held many hobbies and interests in diverse areas: running, patronizing the arts, playing Scrabble, rowing, protecting the environment, and more. He made friends across these many fields who were united in their regard for his zest for life, sense of humor, and intellectual curiosity. The phrase ``renaissance man'' is sometimes overused, but in David Hurd's case, it is 100-percent accurate. Des Moines and the State of Iowa are richer for having had this renaissance man in our midst.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon Senator Whitehouse and I will be offering a unanimous consent request. It is in regard to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. It has an amendment at the desk. I introduced this measure last April with Senator Whitehouse, and it has three main goals. First, this measure would extend a federal law, known as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, for 5 more years. The centerpiece of this 1974 law, which Congress last extended in 2002, is its core protections for youth. There are four core protections. The first calls for States to avoid detaining youth for low-level status offenses. The second requires that juveniles be kept out of adult facilities, except in rare instances. The third ensures that juveniles will be kept separated from adult inmates whenever they are housed in adult facilities. The fourth calls for reducing disproportionate minority contact in State juvenile justice systems. States adhering to these four requirements receive yearly formula grants to support their juvenile justice systems. Second, this legislation would make important updates to existing law in order to ensure that juvenile justice programs will yield the best possible estimates. The authorization for these programs expired in 2007, but they continue to receive appropriations. Nearly 14 years have elapsed since the last reauthorization, and the programs are long overdue for an update. Third, this bill would promote greater accountability in government spending. The Judiciary Committee that I chair heard from multiple whistleblowers that reforms are urgently needed to restore the integrity of formula grant programs that are the centerpiece of our current juvenile justice law. The Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administers this formula grant program. This grant program would be continued for 5 more years under this bill, but the Justice Department would have to do much more oversight if this bill is enacted. This bill also calls for evidence-based programs to be accorded priority in funding. The goal is to ensure that scarce Federal resources for juvenile justice will be devoted mostly to the programs that research shows have the greatest merits and will yield the best results for these young people. For years and years, I have been reading inspector general reports that disclose shortcomings within the Justice Department, under both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Money is not being spent according to congressional intent, and it has not yielded the results we should be getting. That's why we want evidence-based programs to be accorded priority in funding. A coalition of over 100 nonprofit organizations, led by the Campaign for Youth Justice and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, worked closely with us on this bill's development. Others that have endorsed this measure include Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Boys Town, Rights4Girls, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National District Attorneys Association. Senator Whitehouse and I are very grateful for their support. I also take this opportunity to thank our 15 cosponsors, who include not only numerous Judiciary Committee members but people off the committee, such as Senators Blunt, Rubio, Ernst, and other non- committee members. This bill is a truly bipartisan effort, and many Senators contributed provisions to strengthen this bill since we introduced it last April. There are a few provisions of the bill that I especially want to highlight. First, as already mentioned, this bill calls for continued congressional support of existing grant programs that serve at-risk youth. It also incorporates new language, championed by the organization called Rights4Girls, which emphasizes Congress's support for efforts to reduce delinquency among girls. Experts tell us that many girls in the juvenile justice system today have experienced violence, trauma, and poverty. Second, at the urging of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, this bill gives States 3 years to phase out the detention of children who have committed so-called status offenses. Status offenses are those that are low-level offenses, such as running away from home, underage tobacco use, curfew violations, or truancy, which wouldn't be crimes if committed by an adult and which would never result in an adult being jailed. Most status offenders are boys, with one exception. Girls account for about 60 percent of the runaway cases. Many of these girls and boys come from broken homes, and many have experienced trauma or mental health issues in childhood. Research shows that detention tends to make mentally ill status offenders worse. Because some detention facilities are crowded, violent, or chaotic, they can be very dangerous places for the low-risk offender. It is very expensive to lock up status offenders who don't pose a public safety risk. Finally, experts say that the status offenders learn negative behavior from high-risk offenders in detention, which greatly increases their risks of reoffending. Researchers call this peer deviancy training. Third, the bill incorporates new provisions designed to rehabilitate and protect juveniles while they are in custody. It encourages screenings of boys and girls who may be exploited by human traffickers, as well as those with trauma, mental health, or substance abuse issues. It includes language, authored by Senators Cornyn and Schumer, which would end the shackling of pregnant girls in detention. It calls for greater data collection, including reports on the use of isolation on juveniles in State or local detention facilities, and it includes language calling for States to ensure that juveniles will continue their education while in detention. The measure we are seeking to pass today also includes a minor amendment at the request of Senator Murkowski to ensure that the bill's definition of the phrase ``Indian tribes'' is the same as existing law. We also have added several new provisions to meet the better needs of tribal youth, who are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. They include a requirement that the GAO report back to Congress on ways to improve prevention and treatment services, as well as provisions encouraging States to notify Indian tribes when tribal youth come into contact with their juvenile justice systems. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work so closely in such a bipartisan manner with Senator Whitehouse, who I hope will speak shortly on these key reform provisions. I am pleased that we have revisited the authorization statute for some vitally important juvenile justice programs--a statute which is long overdue for an update to reflect the latest scientific research on what works with at-risk adolescents. At this point, would the Presiding Officer recognize Senator Whitehouse under the rules.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is the opportunity we have been waiting for. I hope it is not objected to. If it is, we will have to take that into consideration and just hold the bill in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 325, which is S. 1169; further, that the Grassley substitute amendment be agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Arkansas. In the short time he has been in the Senate, he has been an outstanding leader on very important issues. He is a good Senator. I have watched him over the period of time he has been in the Senate, and I think this is the first time I felt he was wrong. But he has his rights. Juvenile judges are the ones who originally requested that Congress include a valid court order, or ``VCO,'' exception in the Federal juvenile justice statute, and they now are asking us to repeal it. We accorded great weight to the opinion of the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges because their members are the ones who invoke this exception. As further noted this week by Elizabeth Pyke of the National Criminal Justice Association: ``No one on the state government side is arguing to keep the VCO. . . . All agree that the VCO is the wrong tool to get a child's attention. Holding them in detention for a status offense is no longer considered the best practice for scaring a kid into going straight . . . So parsing the language to allow judges to continue to use the VCO for punishment doesn't really make sense. And, again, no one in the states has argued for that.'' Detaining status offenders is not good public policy. We don't support a further language change because locking up these adolescents will make them worse, expose them to violent offenders who have committed serious crimes, and increase the likelihood they will become serious offenders themselves. Remember that we are talking about juveniles who have committed infractions that would not be crimes if committed by adults. Curfew violations. Truancy. Underage tobacco use. Status offenders often come from broken homes or homes with family conflicts. Many have had traumatic childhoods or suffer from mental health issues. Strikingly, girls are 16 percent of the detained population but comprise 40 percent of status offenders. In the case of girls, the root cause for commission of a status offense may be severe forms of child abuse, including child sex trafficking. In truancy cases, placing a status offender in detention only ensures that the juvenile will miss even more school without ever resolving the issue motivating the truancy. Even a brief time in detention may make it harder for the child to keep up with school work. Yet truancy is one of the status offenses that frequently results in a status offender's detention in Arkansas. We need to resolve the issues that lead these children to skip school so that they can succeed. Judges have more effective and less costly tools at their disposal to ensure these juveniles' accountability. For example, they can suspend their driver's license; impose fines; send the juvenile to live with another family; order the juvenile into counseling. Judges also may ask parents to undergo counseling or take parenting classes. Finally, as already noted, locking up status offenders costs the taxpayers a lot of money, even though these juveniles typically don't pose a public safety risk. In Arkansas, housing a child in detention costs hundreds of dollars per day. Community-based programs cost a lot less, but they ensure the judge receives periodic status updates and enable the judge to increase sanctions if the child remains unstable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some of the letters we have received in support of the bill's passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, as was just reported, we will vote on the nomination of Len Strand from Iowa. I am very pleased to be here to support him, just as I was here a few days ago to support Judge Ebinger from Iowa, who was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Monday, and I hope this person will likewise be unanimously approved. I said this on the floor earlier this week, but for the benefit of my colleagues who didn't get a chance to hear that wonderful speech I gave, in my opinion, the Iowa nominees, Judge Ebinger and now Judge Strand, are the two best judicial candidates this President has nominated. Earlier this week I discussed the extensive selection process these nominees underwent. I will not go into those details again, but I will say that I am very pleased the process produced such a nominee as Judge Strand. Judge Strand has deep Iowa roots. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Iowa in 1987 and his law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1990. Upon graduation, he joined one of the most prestigious law firms in Iowa as an associate, where he specialized in employment law and commercial litigation. During his time at the law firm, he received several awards, including ``Super Lawyer'' for Iowa and the Great Plains region for 6 years straight. During his time at the firm, he was very involved in his community. He has been a member of a wide range of organizations important to Iowa, all the way from the symphony orchestra, to the medical center, to the YMCA. In 2012 Judge Strand was appointed as a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. In this capacity, he has handled hundreds of cases, which has prepared him well to be a Federal district judge, article III. The ABA considers him--as you know the classifications--``unanimously well qualified'' for this position. As I did Monday for Judge Ebinger, I urge all my colleagues to support his nomination today, and we will be voting on it shortly.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back all time on this side, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge Ebinger from Iowa. I am very pleased to be here to support her and to urge all my colleagues to also support her nomination. I am very proud of the work my colleague Senator Ernst and I have done to fill the vacancies in Iowa's district courts by putting forward two exceptionally talented and qualified nominees, Judges Ebinger and Strand. I said this in committee but, for the benefit of all Members of the Senate, the Iowa nominees are two of the best judicial candidates the President has nominated during his Presidency. To fill the vacancies in Iowa, I set up a Judicial Selection Commission and invited all interested Iowa lawyers to apply. The applicants were vetted by highly qualified members of the Iowa legal community. After spending hundreds of hours reviewing the applications, the Commission interviewed all 39 applicants. Eleven candidates of the thirty-nine were then selected for a lengthy second round of interviews. At the end of the process, the Commission sent their recommendations to me. In consultation with my fellow Iowa Senator, I was proud to recommend Judges Strand and Ebinger to the White House. Judges Strand and Ebinger have the highest credentials and character and will serve the State of Iowa with honor and with distinction. I would like to say a little bit more about Judge Ebinger because she is the one of the two we are voting on today. Judge Ebinger received her undergraduate degree in 1997 from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and her law degree from Yale Law School in 2004. She then served as a special assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa in Cedar Rapids. There, she prosecuted criminal cases involving narcotics, immigration, firearms offenses, and violent crimes. She then clerked for Judge Michael Melloy on the Eighth Circuit for 2 years, also in Cedar Rapids, IA. Following her clerkship, she moved to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Iowa as an assistant U.S. attorney. During this time, her practice shifted primarily to white-collar crime. She also handled intake for all child support enforcement cases and sex offender registry violations. Judge Ebinger received a number of awards for her work with the U.S. Attorney's Office. In 2012, she was appointed to serve as a district judge in Iowa State court and was retained as a district judge in the 2014 election. As a State court judge, she presided over a court of general jurisdiction, handling civil law and equity, criminal, and family court proceedings. She has presided over 40 cases that have gone to verdict or trial. Judge Ebinger is a highly qualified, well-respected judge already, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document titled ``Just the FACTS'' at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, the problem of gun violence is real, but too many of the proposed responses to this problem would not only represent unwise policy but would also violate a fundamental constitutional right--the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. What does this mean to you and to me as Americans? It means that the right to bear arms falls into the same category as our other most closely held individual rights: the right of free speech, the right of freedom of religion, and the right of due process of law. Basically, what I am saying is that one cannot separate out any one of the Bill of Rights or any of the other constitutional rights that come under the 14th Amendment, as an example. You can't separate the right to bear arms from those because, and this is not emphasized enough, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is an individual, fundamental constitutional right. Maybe a lot of us believed that over decades, but it has been only within the last 5 to 8 years and in a couple of decisions that the Supreme Court has made that entirely clear, that it is an individual, fundamental constitutional right. With that firm foundation, I want to straighten out some of the rampant misinformation that is used to advocate for stricter gun control. Correcting these myths is essential so that the issue can be properly deliberated and properly addressed. Unfortunately, many of these myths were reiterated over the past 2 weeks during prime time, nationwide Presidential media appearances. First, let's debunk the quote ``gun show loophole.'' Were you to click on your TV, pick up a newspaper, or read certain mailers, you would be left with the impression that if you buy a firearm at a gun show, you are not subject to a background check. In fact, all gun show purchases made from commercial gun dealers require a background check. These commercial gun dealers--or, as they are called, Federal firearms licensees--typically make up the majority of the gun vendors at gun shows. Let's be very clear. If someone goes to a gun show and at that gun show purchases a firearm from a commercial gun dealer, that individual or those individuals are subject to a background check, period. So then who are these people we hear the President and others speak about who are not subject to a background check? If you are an individual and you want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming you don't know or have reasonable cause to believe that such person is prohibited from owning a gun. It is quite common sense that the government does not dictate where this sale takes place. It is peer-to- peer. You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbors, and you can make that sale in your home, driveway, or parking lot. You can also make that sale to another individual at a gun show. That is what is referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction--simply two adults engaged in a personal transaction. Just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there generally is no background check required when that private, peer-to-peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. Very clearly, this is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word; this is simply an American lawfully selling their property to another without the Federal Government involved. In this same vein, to hear the President discuss it, you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons to obtain their newest illegal weapon. In fact, local, State, and Federal law enforcement are often present at gun shows, both in uniform and covertly in plain clothes. These law enforcement officers monitor and intervene in suspected, unlawful firearm sales such as straw purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and the attempted sale of illegal firearms. As the Washington Times reported last Wednesday, law enforcement arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year. I recently attended a gun show in Iowa, and there was a robust law enforcement presence. So I want to go on to another point beyond the supposed gun show loophole that I just showed isn't much of a loophole. The second point is that we have been repeatedly told by President Obama, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that firearms purchased on the Internet don't require a background check. I have seen media reports to that same effect. Once again, this is a blatant inaccuracy and that is an inaccuracy that needs to be corrected. So that is why I am here. An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly over the Internet. A gun purchaser can pay for a firearm over the Internet, but, if purchased from a firearms retailer, the firearm must then be sent to a brick-and-mortar location. When the purchaser picks up the gun, a background check is performed. Assuming the purchaser passes the background check, he or she may obtain physical possession of that firearm. In addition, an individual cannot lawfully purchase a firearm on the Internet from an individual who lives in another State. Any interstate sale of a firearm--even between two individuals online--must go through a gun store which, after charging a fee and running a background check on the purchaser, provides the purchaser with the firearm that they bought from another individual on the Internet. These are two clear instances where Internet purchasers require a background check. The one exception where a firearm can be lawfully purchased using the Internet without a background check is when two individuals living in the same State establish the terms of a purchase over the Internet and then meet in person to transfer the firearm. If the firearm is a rifle or a shotgun, a resident may use the U.S. Postal Service to mail the firearm intrastate to another individual, but he may not do so if the item being purchased is a handgun. A handgun can only be mailed intrastate via a contract carrier and, as you can see, once you blow away the smoke and pull down the mirrors, the statement that there are no background checks on Internet purchases rings hollow. A third point is that with great fanfare President Obama has stated unequivocally that firearms enforcement has been a priority with his administration. This is simply not true. That can be backed up with statistics. The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice resources elsewhere rather than cracking down on illegal gun sales. Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this President. In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed to thwart firearms offenses. Unfortunately, as has so often been the case with the Obama administration, the rhetoric just does not match the action. As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater enforcement of the existing law, which simply has not happened under this administration. A fourth point, to set the record straight on the President's statements, is that despite condemnation from both sides of the aisle and even from publications that regularly support increased gun control--such as the LA Times, for example--we have once again heard the President call for tying America's fundamental Second Amendment rights to the terrorist no-fly list. As we all know in this body, the no-fly list is actually multiple lists generated in secret and controlled by the executive branch bureaucrats. The no-fly list is intended to thwart suspected terrorists from flying. Flying is not a constitutional right like the Second Amendment is. So the people who are put on these lists are not given the chance to challenge their inclusion on those lists. However, it is blatantly unconstitutional to deny a fundamental constitutional right without any type of due process such as notice and the opportunity to be heard. The fact that the President continues to call for use of the no-fly list as it relates to a fundamental right calls into question his repeated assurances that he fully supports the Second Amendment. Given unprecedented Executive actions regarding sanctuary cities and a refusal to enforce immigration laws as enacted by this body, we should not be surprised at those statements. But let me state unequivocally that using a secret document--which by its nature and purpose will often be overinclusive or contain errors as a basis for denying Americans their Second Amendment right--is clearly unconstitutional. The fifth point against the President's position is that on multiple occasions the Obama administration has condemned semiautomatic weapons. So let's get it straight right here and now. As any gun owner knows, a semiautomatic firearm is simply a gun that shoots one round with each pull of the trigger. This encompasses the type of shotgun most often used for duck hunting and the type of rifle often used for target shooting. A semiautomatic firearm does not equate to the fabled assault weapon and, of course, it is not a machine gun. We should be concerned when this administration makes proposals on guns that fail to reflect knowledge of even elementary elements of their operation. I have additional myths that need to be dispelled that I will submit--and I have had permission from the Presiding Officer to submit that--but I want to be mindful of other people's times, and I now wish to respond directly to one of President Obama's challenges. So let's talk for a moment about bipartisan efforts regarding gun control. Senator Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in leadership, and I are working on drafting a bill on which we hope we can reach agreement and introduce shortly, which prohibits all aliens-- with the exception of permanent legal permanent residents and those who fall under a sporting exception--from acquiring firearms. In addition, our bill reinstitutes residency requirements for those noncitizens attempting to purchase a firearm. The bipartisan legislation we hope we can agree to introduce would close real and actual loopholes, such as those that currently permit refugees or asylees or those from visa-waiver countries to acquire firearms. I look forward to the opportunity to work on this issue in a bipartisan manner. But if we are going to deliberate and debate the issue, we must clear up the misconceptions and avoid erroneous rhetoric that seems to be dominating the news out there with all the false positions and false interpretations of the law, which I have discussed in a few minutes with my colleagues. So I am going to end where I started. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and any legislative or Executive action under any President must start and finish with the recognition of the fact that the Second Amendment is as important as other amendments to the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to inform my colleagues that I have placed a hold on S. 2415, the EB-5 Integrity Act of 2015. I have been working for years to reform the EB-5 immigrant investor program, which is run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and have introduced legislation with Senator Leahy to overhaul the program. Our bill, S. 1501, is a comprehensive approach to dealing with the fraud, abuse, and national security vulnerabilities. Our bill also restores the program back to its original intent to ensure that rural and high unemployment areas have access to this source of capital. S. 2415 is a bill that is modeled almost identically after S. 1501; yet it is weaker and leaves behind many provisions that would in fact bring integrity back into the program. Late last year, I objected to bringing S. 2415 up by unanimous consent and have placed a hold on the bill because I hoped we could consider more effective measures to root out fraud and abuse and create real jobs and do it in a comprehensive manner that ensures the program is able to work for every part of the country for years to come. As I stated previously on this floor, the failure to include needed reforms last year means the program continues to pose risks to the homeland. I am not so sure reforms are possible anymore. It may be time to do away with it completely. Nevertheless, if we pass legislation to extend the EB-5 program beyond this fiscal year, I hope to work with my colleagues to achieve true reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to H.R. 4038, also known as the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. This bill would prohibit the admission into the United States of refugees from Iraq or Syria or any other refugee who has been present in those countries in the last 5 years unless that person receives a thorough background investigation. The bill would require the Director of the FBI to certify to the Secretary of Homeland Security and also to the Director of National Intelligence that each of those persons has received a background investigation that is sufficient to determine whether he or she is a threat to the security of the United States. Then, as a second provision, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the unanimous concurrence of the Director of the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence, would have to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security threat; and finally, it requires the Homeland Security inspector general to conduct a risk-based review of all certifications for the admission of Iraqi and Syrian refugees made by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Director of National Intelligence each year and provide an annual report to the Congress. This bill passed the House overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner in November. I intend to vote on the motion to proceed tomorrow. This is a conversation we need to have in the Senate. This is not an issue we can take lightly, despite the plea from President Obama in his State of the Union Address. We cannot allow America's welcome mat to become a doormat for radicalized Islamic extremists who are hardwired to kill innocent people and destroy our way of life. Unless and until the United States can figure out a foolproof screening process to prevent terrorists from masquerading as refugees to infiltrate our neighborhoods and our communities, President Obama needs to listen to the concerns voiced by more than half of the Nation's Governors, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on both sides of Capitol Hill, and the American people from across the entire country. After the September 11 attacks, we paused our refugee admission program to reassess its security vetting procedures, so there is precedent for suspending the refugee program, and this bill does not suspend the refugee program--only in regard to the single instance that I know; that is, we have been threatened that people were going to be snuck into the country under the umbrella of refugee, and of course that is from Iraq and Syria. We need to move cautiously in accepting refugees from Iraq and Syria given the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, CA, and even elsewhere around the world. We need to fully understand the risks and the schemes that these terrorists are using before we open our doors to 10,000 more Syrians. Other countries face the same challenge. Just last week, the French Interior Minister warned his colleagues about the intent of the Islamic State to use authentic-looking Syrian and Iraqi passports to smuggle its operatives into Europe. There is no doubt that the group has obtained thousands of blank passports and intends to facilitate travel by counterfeiting those documents, but more importantly, we must consider a pause in accepting these refugees until we can be sure our background checks and investigations are the best they can be. However, today there is little doubt, even from our leading intelligence officials that we may not be able to stop a Paris- like attack because we cannot tell who among the thousands of Syrian refugees that the administration wishes to resettle here are terrorists. The Director of the FBI, James Comey, said: ``My concern is that there are certain gaps . . . in the data available to us'' in screening Syrian refugees. This data, such as fingerprints, background or biographic information, is crucial for adequate screening of potential refugees entering the United States. Director Comey also said: ``There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that.'' The United States has been successful in fighting off many large- scale terrorist attacks on our soil, but of course it only takes one mistake. Just last month, the FBI arrested two individuals who reside in the United States and entered the country as refugees, one of whom was arrested for attempting to knowingly and willfully provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. A Federal agent testified last week that one of the men charged planned to set off bombs at two Houston malls. I asked for the immigration and criminal histories of these individuals to investigate further and satisfy myself, and I am still waiting for their response. The concerns are real. The threats are real. We cannot jeopardize our national security simply by rolling out our welcome mat to these terrorists. President Obama's lack of strategy in Syria has exacerbated this human catastrophe. Similarly, this administration has no inclination or strategy to create conditions where refugees can one day return home safely to their own homes. By housing these refugees, the United States is only aiding in a short-term treatment of this whole massive refugee problem and the problems of warfare in the Middle East while at the same time risking the safety of the American people. We must instead focus on defeating ISIS and alleviating the current humanitarian misery, all while creating a future for Syrian refugees in their homeland. The No. 1 responsibility of the U.S. Federal Government is to protect the homeland and to secure the country against all threats. Moving this bill on our vote tomorrow is one step we can take to advance this principle and to show our concern that the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is the defense of the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.