John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 7, 2016, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Assessment of U.S. Economic Assistance.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 7, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the importance of keeping independent agencies accountable to Congress and to the American people. Congress created independent agencies to be places where expertise in complex areas of the Nation's economy informs policymaking within limits set by Congress. One such congressional creation is the Federal Communications Commission. Congress conferred independence on the FCC so it would be free from the normal control exercised by the President over the executive branch. In recent years, the FCC has behaved less like an independent commission accountable to Congress and more as a de facto arm of the executive branch, wholly subservient to the President. At the same time, the FCC has become more partisan than ever before and an institution that has seized greater regulatory power while simultaneously shutting down bipartisan dialogue and compromise. The recent rulemaking proceedings regarding title II common carrier authority, the massively expanded E-rate and Lifeline programs, backward-looking set-top box rules, and the agency's power grab over privacy regulations have all been characterized by a lack of bipartisan compromise or respect for the limits of the authority delegated by Congress. Much of the responsibility for this downward trajectory rests with the current FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler. For example, during Chairman Wheeler's confirmation process, I asked him if he would commit to coming to Congress for more direction before attempting another iteration of net neutrality rules. Mr. Wheeler unequivocally said that he would do so. However, not only did Mr. Wheeler not come to Congress for more direction, at the behest of President Obama, he jammed through the most radical implementation of net neutrality rules ever--a power grab of stunning proportions--and he did so on a purely partisan vote. The number of 3-to-2 party-line votes on Commission meeting items during Mr. Wheeler's tenure are a clear indication of an FCC Chairman who embraces partisanship over compromise. In just the first year of his chairmanship, Mr. Wheeler forced through more items on party-line votes than the previous four chairs combined. Chairman Wheeler speaks often of his belief in the importance of competition and market forces. Hearing that, one might think he might exercise his agency's powers with a light touch in order to promote the incredible innovation in which our communication sector is capable. Instead, Chairman Wheeler seems more focused on waging partisan battles and accumulating more power while at the same time avoiding accountability to Congress and the American people. I have come to the floor to talk about the most recent example of Chairman Wheeler utilizing questionable legal authority while simultaneously trying to dodge public accountability. This example relates to the FCC's rules about disclosure of nonpublic information. The FCC's own rules prohibit its employees from disclosing nonpublic information to anyone outside the Commission unless expressly authorized by the Commission or its rules. Nonpublic information includes details of upcoming rulemakings or other actions the Commissioners are still negotiating. These rules are intended to foster the Commission's ability to have honest and fulsome negotiations among the Commissioners and staff and to prevent any special interests from gaining a particular advantage over other stakeholders. Earlier this year, however, Commissioner Michael O'Rielly wrote a blog post expressing his concerns that Chairman Wheeler was instead using these rules to muzzle other Commissioners. Though Commissioner O'Rielly respected the Commission's rules against disclosing details without authorization to the press or other stakeholders, he pointed out that Chairman Wheeler was freely disclosing nonpublic information whenever he wanted. Commissioner O'Rielly was concerned that this allowed Chairman Wheeler to frame and influence the public's understanding of upcoming issues to his advantage by selectively disclosing information that no other Commissioner is allowed to discuss publicly. Indeed, the Chairman's staff would later tell my staff that Commissioner O'Rielly would not be permitted to correct a factual error stated by Chairman Wheeler if doing so meant discussing nonpublic information. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I sent a letter this past March asking Chairman Wheeler to explain whether he discloses nonpublic information to outside groups and how the Commission authorizes the disclosures. Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the letters with the exchange between myself and Chairman Wheeler that can be found at http://bit.ly/29r76uO. Chairman Wheeler maintained that as chairman he can unilaterally authorize disclosures of nonpublic information whenever he wants without any need for approval by the Commission, despite the clear prohibition against doing so in the Commission's own rules. The events surrounding the FCC's March 31 open meeting are a striking example of how the selective leaking of nonpublic information can be used to distort an ongoing debate and turn an emerging bipartisan consensus into a partisan power grab. The open meeting agenda included an order expanding Lifeline, which is a program that has spent billions of ratepayer dollars in an effort to improve access to communications technology for low-income Americans. While the goal of this program is important, unfortunately, it has been replete with rampant fraud for years, which the U.S. Government Accountability Office has recognized on more than one occasion. A compromise on Lifeline between a Democratic Commissioner and the two Republican Commissioners was emerging. This compromise would have included a spending cap to prevent the program from wasting ratepayer dollars. However, it turns out Chairman Wheeler was not on board with this compromise. On the morning of March 31, Chairman Wheeler delayed the open meeting by several hours, a highly unusual move. During the delay, Politico published a story about the emerging bipartisan compromise, citing ``sources familiar with the negotiations.'' Disclosure of any information about ongoing negotiations right before an open meeting is a direct violation of the FCC's sunshine rules, which protect Commissioners' deliberations. What happened next is exactly what you might expect. The Politico story spurred outside political pressure against the emerging bipartisan compromise, which subsequently fell apart. Ultimately, the Lifeline order moved forward on a 3-to-2 party-line vote, without a cap or other bipartisan reforms, right in line with Chairman Wheeler's preference. Yet another 3-to-2 party-line vote--forced by the Chairman--thwarting a commonsense and bipartisan compromise. Just last week, 12 States, including my home State of South Dakota, sued the FCC in the Federal appellate court here in Washington, DC, challenging the regulatory overreach of the FCC's Lifeline order that came out at that very March 31 open meeting. In April, I sent another letter asking Chairman Wheeler to explain the source of his claim of authority to disclose whatever nonpublic information he wants whenever he wants, which was the assertion he made. I also asked a direct question: Did you, Chairman Wheeler, authorize the disclosure of nonpublic information to Politico on the morning of March 31 in advance of the open meeting? Chairman Wheeler responded that his position as chief executive of the Commission empowers him to do anything that streamlines the FCC's work. According to his interpretation, if the Chairman decides on his own that releasing nonpublic information will make the FCC operate more efficiently, he can do it, even though the FCC's rules explicitly prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic information. I appreciate the role the Chairman plays in the day-to-day management of the Commission, but this appears to be a specious attempt to exempt the Chairman from a very clear rule. Indeed, there is no record the Commission ever intended for its Chairman to be exempt when the agency adopted the rule 20 years ago, and the rule very clearly gives the Commission, not its Chairman, the authority to disclose nonpublic information. In responding to my April letter, Chairman Wheeler also ignored the question of whether he personally authorized the leak to Politico on the morning of the open meeting. My staff followed up with Mr. Wheeler's staff several times on this matter, and they emphatically stated that Chairman Wheeler refuses to answer this question. Everyone who cares about government accountability should pause to think about this. Even though Chairman Wheeler claims he has the legal authority to leak whatever nonpublic information he wants whenever he wants, he nevertheless has refused to answer this simple question about whether he indeed authorized the leak on the morning of March 31. Since Mr. Wheeler could have just said no, if he did not actually authorize the leak of nonpublic information, that leaves only two possible conclusions; one, that Chairman Wheeler did authorize the leak but is not confident in his roundabout interpretation of the rules and fears admitting to violating them or, two, Chairman Wheeler simply does not respect the legitimate role of congressional oversight and believes he is unaccountable to the American people. I would also note that while Chairman Wheeler refused to answer whether he authorized the disclosure, he sought to obfuscate and cast blame by stating it was the Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai who leaked the public information in advance of the open meeting. This shell game is unworthy of a chairman of an independent commission. Indeed, Mr. Wheeler's attempt to cast blame on another Commissioner only adds emphasis to the overall point I am making; that is, that Chairman Wheeler seeks to use the rule prohibiting the disclosure of nonpublic information as both a shield and a sword. On the one hand, he claims the rule prohibiting the disclosure of nonpublic information does not apply to him, but on the other hand he seeks to shut down criticism and debate from another Commissioner by stating the Commissioner may have violated the rule prohibiting disclosure of nonpublic information. The FCC's nonpublic information rules were intended to facilitate and protect internal communication deliberations. Chairman Wheeler is instead using them to stifle or manipulate the other Commissioners. Fortunately, the FCC Office of the Inspector General is now investigating what happened on March 31. The IG is looking into who disclosed the nonpublic information about ongoing negotiations among the Commissioners, including any role Chairman Wheeler had in the leak to Politico. I look forward to the IG's findings and expect we will learn the answers to the questions I have posed to Chairman Wheeler, particularly the one question he has refused to answer so far. Taken alone, the Lifeline leak may seem to be just a minor transgression that can be chalked up to business as usual in Washington, DC, but in the case of current FCC leadership, it is just one example out of many that demonstrates a disregard for the limits Congress has placed on the agency's authority. The regulatory power grabs over title II's common carrier authority and the FCC's recent privacy rule are further evidence that Chairman Wheeler shares the Obama administration's propensity for legal overreach and the intentional circumvention of Congress. In this environment, congressional oversight is more important than ever as a critical check on bureaucratic power. Regardless of who sits at the helm of a commission, such oversight must be pursued, and I am committed to make sure it does. Former Secretary Clinton's Use of an Unsecured Email Server Madam President, this week FBI Director James Comey announced the results of Hillary Clinton's email use during her time as Secretary of State. What we discovered was this: As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence. Here is what Director Comey had to say: Although we do not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. That is a quote from FBI Director Comey. Let me repeat that quote. The FBI concluded that President Obama's Secretary of State--our Nation's chief diplomat and the person who is fourth in line to the Presidency--displayed gross carelessness when handling information related to our national security. If Hillary Clinton can't be trusted to safeguard national security information as Secretary of State, she cannot be trusted to protect national security information as the Democratic nominee for President, and she certainly can't be trusted as our Commander in Chief. There are some who would like to take the FBI Director's speech as vindication for Secretary Clinton, since the FBI Director ultimately did not recommend prosecution, but the FBI Director's statement is no vindication. It is an indictment. The Secretary betrayed the trust the American people had placed in her. She repeatedly lied to the American people about the purpose of the server, what was on the server, and the threat it posed to our national security. Secretary Clinton repeatedly claimed there was no classified information on her server, but the FBI investigation found otherwise. According to Director Comey, Secretary Clinton sent or received at least 110 emails in 52 separate email chains containing classified information--52 separate classified conversations. And of those 52 classified email conversations, 8 contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, and 36 contained secret information. Secretary Clinton knew she was placing national security information at risk. The FBI Director said--when discussing the top secret emails transmitted over the Secretary's unclassified email system--``There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place'' for top-secret communications. As a reasonable person, the Secretary unquestionably knew that the proper place for classified information was on a classified server, but she decided to use her personal server anyway. Secretary Clinton has tried to argue that using a private server in violation of State Department rules did not jeopardize our national security. Even President Obama, in what was a highly suspect public comment on an ongoing FBI investigation, said her private server wasn't a national security threat. But according to the FBI Director, that certainly wasn't the case. Director Comey explicitly stated that it was entirely possible that ``hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.'' And he wasn't just referring to ordinary hackers. The Director noted that Secretary Clinton ``used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries'' and that that fact was one that led the FBI to the conclusion that her email account might have been compromised. In other words, it is entirely possible that our Nation's enemies gained access to Secretary Clinton's emails thanks to her decision to use her personal account. Despite Secretary Clinton's claim that the servers were protected, Director Comey went to great lengths to describe how the servers had substantially less protection than government servers and even had less protection than common commercial servers like Gmail. Yesterday, Senator Gardner introduced legislation, which I cosponsored, that would remove the security clearance of Secretary Clinton and any of her staff members involved in the mishandling of classified information and block Secretary Clinton from accessing classified information in her capacity as a Presidential candidate. I have to say, unfortunately, that I think that is the right call. Secretary Clinton has demonstrated that she has no respect for the security of classified information, and she, like anybody else, should face the consequences. As the FBI Director noted, most people who had done what the Secretary did would face consequences for their actions. Other individuals found by the FBI to have engaged in such reckless handling of classified information would, at a very minimum, have their security clearance revoked and would likely face termination. The rules shouldn't be different for Secretary Clinton because she held a powerful position. In fact, those in a position of such great trust should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Do we really want to set the precedent that wielding political power places an individual above the law? Boy, I sure don't think we want to go there, but that is exactly what is happening as a result of this decision. I look forward to hearing what Director Comey has to say in his testimony today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I hope we will hear him discuss the reasoning behind the decision not to recommend prosecution when the Secretary so clearly displayed, in the Director's own words, extreme carelessness in handling classified information. I also hope the FBI will release the transcript of Secretary Clinton's FBI interview and other documents requested by Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A Secretary of State mishandling classified information is a grave matter. The American people deserve to know all the facts, and they deserve the truth. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week terrorists wearing suicide vests entered the Istanbul airport and opened fire on travelers before detonating their vests. Forty-five people were killed and more than 200 were injured. While no group has yet claimed responsibility, Turkish officials believe that ISIS was behind the attack. The list of ISIS-related terrorist attacks in the United States and against our allies is steadily growing: Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Orlando, and Istanbul. Then, of course, there is the constant barrage of attacks in the Middle East, such as last week's deadly attack in Baghdad that resulted in the death of 250 people. So far the attacks in the United States have been inspired by--rather than carried out by--ISIS, but that could change at any moment. In the wake of the Istanbul attacks, CIA Director John Brennan stated he would be ``surprised'' if ISIS isn't planning a similar attack in the United States. Given the terrorist violence in recent months, it is no surprise that a recent FOX News poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans, 84 percent, think that ``most Americans today are feeling more nervous than confident about stopping terrorist attacks.'' Unfortunately, they have reason to be nervous because under President Obama we are not doing what we need to be doing to stop ISIS. For proof of that, we have President Obama's own CIA chief, who has made it clear that the measures the administration has taken to stop ISIS have failed to reduce the group's ability to carry out attacks. Testifying before Congress 3 weeks ago, Director Brennan stated: ``Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.'' Let me repeat that: `` . . . our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach,'' said CIA Director Brennan. That is a pretty serious indictment of the Obama administration's ISIS strategy or the lack thereof. If our efforts have not reduced ISIS's terrorism capability and global reach, then our efforts are failing and we need a new plan, but that is something that President Obama seems unlikely to produce. Despite a halfhearted campaign against ISIS, the President has never laid out a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist group. As a result, ISIS's terrorism capability and global reach are thriving. Keeping Americans safe from ISIS requires a comprehensive approach. It requires not just containing but decisively defeating ISIS abroad. It requires controlling our borders and strengthening our immigration system. It requires us to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools and funding they need to monitor threats abroad and here at home. It requires us to secure the homeland by addressing security weaknesses that would give terrorists an opening to attack. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to adequately address these priorities, and at this late date, the President is unlikely to change his approach. The Republican-led Senate cannot force the President to take the threat posed by ISIS seriously, but we are committed to doing everything we can to increase our Nation's security. A key part of defeating ISIS abroad is making sure the men and women of our military have the equipment, the training, and the resources they need to win battles. This month, the Senate will take up the annual appropriations bill to fund our troops. This year's bill focuses on eliminating wasteful spending and redirecting those funds to modernize our military and increase troop pay. It rejects President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay and bring suspected terrorists to our shores, and it funds our efforts to defeat ISIS abroad. The bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee. I am hoping the outcome will be the same on the Senate floor. Last year, the Democrats chose to play politics with this appropriations bill and voted to block essential funding for our troops no fewer than three times, even though they had no real objections to the actual substance of the bill. Playing politics with funding for our troops is never acceptable, but it is particularly unacceptable at a time when our Nation is facing so many threats to our security. I hope this time around Senate Democrats will work with us to quickly pass this legislation. In addition to funding our military, another key aspect to protecting our Nation from terrorist threats is controlling our borders. We have to know who is coming into our country so that we can keep out terrorists and anyone else who wants to harm us. If criminals and suspected terrorists do make it across our borders, we need to apprehend them immediately. One thing we can do right now to improve our ability to keep criminals and suspected terrorists off our streets is to eliminate so- called sanctuary cities. Right now, more than 300 cities across the United States have policies in place that discourage local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration officials. That means that when a Homeland Security official asks local authorities to detain a dangerous felon or suspected terrorist until Federal authorities can come collect the individual, these jurisdictions may refuse to help. Sanctuary city policies have resulted in the release of thousands of criminals who could otherwise have been picked up by the Department of Homeland Security and deported. Senator Toomey has offered a bill to discourage these policies by withholding certain Federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to help Federal officials keep dangerous individuals off the streets. I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that this afternoon the Senate Democrats chose to block this important legislation. By opposing this bill, Democrats are complicit in making it easier for felons and suspected terrorists to threaten our communities. Giving our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track terrorists is one of the most important ways we can prevent future attacks. In June, the Senate took up an amendment to give the FBI authority to obtain records of suspected terrorists' electronic transactions, such as what Web sites they visited and how long they spent on those sites. The FBI has stated that obtaining this authority is one of its top legislative priorities. The agency already has authority to obtain similar telephone and financial records, but what the FBI Director described as ``essentially a typo in the law'' has so far prevented the FBI from easily obtaining the same records for Web sites. Fixing this intelligence gap would significantly improve the FBI's ability to track suspected terrorists and to prevent attacks. Unfortunately, again, the majority of Senate Democrats inexplicably voted against this amendment, which I hope will be reconsidered in the Senate in the near future. On top of that, Democrats are threatening to block this year's Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, which provides funding that the FBI and other key law enforcement agencies need to operate. When the President's CIA Director testified before Congress in June, he told Members: ``I have never seen a time when our country faced such a wide variety of threats to our national security.'' Given these threats, and especially given the recent ISIS-inspired attack on our own soil, it is both puzzling and deeply troubling that Democrats would block the FBI's No. 1 priority and then play politics with the funding that will help the agency track suspected terrorists in our country. As I mentioned above, the final essential element to protecting Americans from terrorist attacks is addressing our vulnerabilities here at home. The recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul and Brussels highlighted vulnerabilities at airports we need to address to prevent similar attacks in the United States. This afternoon, the House and Senate announced they had reached agreement on a final version of aviation legislation. In addition to aviation safety measures and new consumer protections--such as guaranteed refunds of baggage fees for lost or seriously delayed luggage--this legislation provides one of the largest, most comprehensive airport security packages in years. This legislation improves vetting of airport employees to address the insider terrorist threat, the risk that an airport employee would give a terrorist access to secure areas of an airport. It includes provisions to get more Americans enrolled in Precheck to reduce the size of crowds waiting in unsecured areas of our airports, and it contains measures to add more K-9 and other security personnel at airports so we are better able to deter attacks. In addition, the bill requires the TSA to look at ways to improve security checkpoints to make the passenger screening process more efficient and effective. I look forward to sending this legislation to the President by July 15. As the President's own CIA Director made clear, President Obama's halfhearted approach to countering ISIS has failed to reduce the threat this terrorist organization poses. While I would like to think the President will develop a greater seriousness about ISIS in the last 6 months of his Presidency, I am not holding out a lot of hope. But whatever the President does or fails to do, Republicans in the Senate will continue to do everything we can to protect our country and to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks. I hope that Democrats in Congress will join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Michael Schulte, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Michael is a graduate of BOLD High School in Olivia, MN. Currently, Michael is attending South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, majoring in political science and global studies. Michael is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Michael Schulte for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a few short moments Senate Democrats will have a decision to make. Will they side with American families and expectant mothers dealing with the Zika virus or will they side with their far left political allies? According to media reports, unfortunately, that outcome is increasingly clear. Senate Democrats will once again side with their political allies rather than working with Republicans on a solution to keep women safe from the Zika virus. Mr. President, Democrats have apparently decided to engage in their favorite game of late--refusing to take yes for an answer. It happened last week with terrorism. Democrats urged us to pass legislation to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but when Senator Cornyn offered an amendment to do just that, Democrats opposed it almost unanimously. This week it is Zika funding. Six weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans from the relevant committees in the Senate got together and agreed on a bill to provide $1.1 billion to fight Zika. That bill then came to the floor, and every Democrat voted for it on the floor of the Senate--every single Democrat. Last week, House and Senate negotiators reconciled the House and Senate bills and agreed on Zika funding in the amount of $1.1 billion-- in other words, the exact same amount that Senate Democrats unanimously supported 6 weeks ago. But now Democrats don't want to support it. Their reason is that the small grant program in this bill, most of which is intended for Puerto Rico, will not provide for more Federal funding for Planned Parenthood. This bill provides expanded funding for community health centers, public health departments, and hospitals. It actually funds more avenues for access to women's health care than what the President requested. The bill funds research into a Zika vaccine. It funds research into Zika treatments. It streamlines mosquito control efforts, since the best way to protect men, women, and babies from contracting the Zika virus is to make sure they do not get bitten by a mosquito in the first place. The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--the lead government agency for fighting diseases--has said that the Republican bill will take care of immediate Zika funding needs. Yet Democrats are holding up this bill because it will not fund a handful of Planned Parenthood clinics in Puerto Rico. Seriously, Mr. President? Seriously? That is what this is about? Democrats like to position themselves as having the moral high ground. Again and again Democrats suggested that they were fiercely committed to fighting Zika while Republicans were dragging their feet on a public health crisis. Well, here is what I see today. I see Republicans ready to pass a Zika bill and send it to the President this minute, right now. And I see Democrats who are more interested in pacifying a Democrat special interest group than they are in actually doing anything about Zika. Purely and simply, that is what this is--a Democratic special interest group that snapped its fingers, and the Democrats have all come running. Forget all that urgency about getting Zika funding passed. Forget the scientists who are waiting for vaccine funding. And forget about mosquito control efforts. Apparently, none of that matters anymore. Republicans are ready to pass Zika funding, the same amount--I will repeat: the same amount--of funding Democrats already voted for unanimously in the Senate. We are ready to pass it right now, this minute, and send it to the President. We are just waiting for Democrats to agree. Mr. President, I hope they will not keep the American people waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. And I will follow, correct?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Regan Scott, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Regan is a graduate of Sioux Falls Christian in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Regan is attending Northwestern College in Orange City, SD, majoring in business administration. Regan is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Regan Scott for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to discuss the numerous foreign policy failures of the Obama administration. While there has been no shortage of examples over the past 7 years, I wish to revisit one particular subject from the litany of this administration's errors--the very serious national security threat that President Obama once called a JV team. Last November, President Obama participated in an interview with the host of ``Good Morning America,'' George Stephanopoulos, who asked him the following question: ``But ISIS is gaining strength, aren't they?'' The President's reply: Well, no. I don't think they're gaining strength. What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. Just 1 day later--1 day later--ISIS gunmen and suicide bombers attacked Paris and killed 130 people. Less than a month after that, 2 ISIS-inspired terrorists killed 14 people in the first homegrown ISIS attack on American soil. Now there is Orlando, the worst terrorist attack on America's homeland security since 9/11--so much for ``we have contained them.'' Unfortunately, despite these attacks, President Obama continues to paint an unrealistically rosy picture of our success against ISIS. Emerging from a meeting last week, the President declared that ``we are making significant progress'' in the fight against ISIS. He went on to say, ``ISIL's ranks are shrinking. . . . Their morale is sinking.'' Two days later, however, the President's CIA Director painted a very different picture. Testifying before Congress, CIA Director John Brennan stated: ``Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.'' Let me repeat that: ``Our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach.'' That is something the President neglected to mention 2 days earlier. That is not the only thing he forgot to bring up. The President discussed the anti-ISIS coalition's efforts to target ISIS's funding. But he neglected to mention that those efforts still left ISIS with a robust revenue stream. The CIA Director noted that ``ISIL . . . continues to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue per month, primarily from taxation and from crude oil sales.'' The President hailed accomplishments on the ground in Iraq and Syria, but he didn't mention that those successes are doing essentially nothing to reduce ISIS's ability to attack abroad. This is again a quote from Director Brennan: The group's foreign branches and global networks can help preserve its capacity for terrorism regardless of events in Iraq and Syria. In fact, as the pressure mounts on ISIL, we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda. That, again, is from Director Brennan. The President noted that ISIS is losing ground in Libya, but he forgot to mention ISIS's Libyan branch is perhaps its most dangerous and poses a real threat to Africa and to Europe. Director Brennan testified again: ISIL is gradually cultivating its global network of branches into a more interconnected organization. The branch in Libya is probably the most developed and the most dangerous. We assess that it is trying to increase its influence in Africa and to plot attacks in the region and in Europe. If there is one thing that Director Brennan's testimony made clear, it is that we are not doing enough to confront the threat posed by ISIS. Unfortunately, that is not something President Obama seems to understand. As his remarks last week made clear, the President is more interested in explaining why he doesn't like the term ``radical Islam'' than he is in offering a concrete plan to actually defeat ISIS. It is difficult to understand why the President so resolutely avoids this term. The fact is, ISIS and its adherents are driven by their radical interpretation of Islam. How can we hope to confront this terrorist ideology if we can't actually call it by its name? On the same note, what was the administration hoping to accomplish when it redacted references to ISIS in its initial release of the 911 transcripts from the Orlando attack? Was it hoping to somehow distract from the fact that this was a terrorist attack? Do they want to play down the fact that ISIS is now inspiring attacks in the United States? Unfortunately, our Commander in Chief's disturbing reluctance to identify our enemy by its name is emblematic of the fundamental lack of seriousness that has characterized the President's foreign policy. The attack in Orlando was a terrorist attack, yet the President's response was a formulaic call for gun control. All the gun control laws in the world are not going to stop a terrorist bent on wreaking havoc in our country. France's strict gun control laws didn't prevent terrorists from slaughtering 130 people last November. To stop ISIS-inspired attacks, we need to stop ISIS. And to do that, we need a serious, comprehensive plan from the President. What I wish we had heard last week from the President are concrete proposals to counter the threat of homegrown terrorism. He could have talked about ways to make sure our intelligence agencies have the resources they need to track and counter ISIS efforts to communicate with its recruits in the West. He could have discussed ways to address the threat of lone wolf terrorists. He could have talked about ways we can improve our ability to monitor terrorists' communications to disrupt their plans. He could have called on Senate Democrats to support Senator Cornyn's amendment to give the Attorney General the authority to act on probable cause against would-be terrorists while protecting due process to protect Second Amendment rights, but he didn't. Instead, he issued a brief call for gun control and spent a large chunk of his speech defending his refusal to use the term ``radical Islam.'' When President Obama was elected, we were told he would restore America's standing in the world. In fact, he received a Nobel Peace prize in the first year of his first term based solely on people's belief that he would promote peace and bring stability to world affairs. I thought of that when I saw this statement from CIA Director Brennan toward the end of his testimony last week. The Director said: ``I have never seen a time when our country faced such a wide variety of threats to our national security.'' Again, that statement was stated by CIA Director Brennan during his testimony just last week. President Obama is certainly not responsible for all the unrest in the world today, but the unfortunate truth is, his foreign policy failures have contributed to a lot of it. His politically motivated decision to withdraw our troops from Iraq and announce the timetable to our enemies created the vacuum that ISIS quickly moved in to fill. His decision not to act when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed the redline the President himself had drawn sent a message to tyrants and dictators the world over that America could be ignored at will. The President's nuclear deal with Iran has left that country better equipped to acquire advanced nuclear weapons down the road. President Obama is nearing the end of his term, but there is still time for him to commit to working with Republicans to take the steps that are necessary to not just contain but to actually defeat ISIS. There is still time for him to focus on controlling our borders so terrorists don't slip across without our knowledge. There is still time for him to take measures to strengthen our counterterrorism capabilities, and there is still time for him to focus on supporting Federal and local law enforcement in their efforts to stop terrorism. I hope in the coming days, the President will see his way to offering some serious solutions to the danger ISIS poses to our Nation. It is high time that happen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Ryan Donnelly, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Ryan is a graduate of South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, having earned a degree in agricultural business. This fall, Ryan will attend the University of South Dakota to pursue a master's degree in business administration. Ryan is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ryan Donnelly for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Sterling Nielsen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Sterling is a graduate of St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN, having earned a degree in economics. Currently, Sterling is attending the University of South Dakota School of Law. Sterling is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sterling Nielsen for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Ben Rogers, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Ben is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Ben is attending Creighton University where he is majoring in economics and political science. Ben is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ben Rogers for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Lane Haskell, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Lane is a graduate of St. Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, Lane is attending the University of Notre Dame where he is majoring in Spanish and political science. Lane is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Lane Haskell for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Grayson Kielhold, an intern in my Washington, DC, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Grayson is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Grayson is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where he is majoring in marketing. Grayson is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Grayson Kielhold for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to remember the victims of the terrorist attack in Orlando, FL. Forty-nine people were killed and even more were wounded when a self-proclaimed ISIS sympathizer attacked Pulse nightclub in the early hours of Sunday morning. I can't imagine the trauma experienced by those who were present in the club or the suffering of the families now mourning a beloved son or daughter. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, with the families of the deceased, and with all those currently sitting at the hospital beds of the injured. My thoughts and prayers are also with the people of Orlando, whose sense of security has been shattered by this deadly attack. Every deadly ideology of the last century has been characterized by a fundamental disregard for the sacredness of human life. The form of radical Islam espoused by ISIS and its adherents is no different. Like every radical ideology before it, it regards individual human beings as expendable commodities in its pursuit of a Utopia. More than that, it sees certain individuals as not only expendable but dangerous, and it seeks to exterminate them accordingly. The blood-soaked villages of ISIS-controlled Iraq and Syria bear terrible witness to the slaughter of Christians, Yazidis, moderate Muslims, and anyone else ISIS felt was standing in its way. As a nation, we have to stand against the threat of terrorism. We have to ensure that our military is equipped to destroy terrorist organizations abroad and that our law enforcement personnel are equipped to confront terrorist threats here at home. We need to control our borders and modernize our immigration system so that we know who is coming and who is going from our Nation. We need to invest in our intelligence agencies and hold them accountable as they work to keep our homeland safe. We have to support our allies who are taking the fight to the terrorists. And most of all, we have to show the utter bankruptcy of an ideology that regards human beings as expendable. America has a proud history of standing up for the dignity and freedom of the human person against tyrants of all stripes. We stood against the deadly ideologies of the 20th century, and we will stand against the deadly ideologies of the 21st century. On Sunday morning we saw the darkest side of humanity, but, as so often happens, when we see the worst in human beings, we also see the best--the DJ who helped a patron escape from the club; the man who stuffed his bandana into a bullet hole on a stranger's back to stop the bleeding; the man who pulled a wounded stranger to safety behind a car and then kept him conscious on the way to the hospital; the long lines of Orlando residents who came forward to donate blood; and, of course, the police officers who walked into that club and who wake up every day ready to lay down their lives for the rest of us. Against that spirit, terrorism will never prevail. Our whole Nation grieves with the citizens of Orlando. May God bless and comfort the families of all those who died, and may He heal all those whose hearts are broken. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as we enter the final stretch of the Obama administration, many have began analyzing the President's tenure and debating what legacy he will leave. People are asking: Are we better off? Are we safer? Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the answer to both of those questions is no. As we look around the world right now, we see more and more unrest and insecurity, and the foreign policy failures of the President and his administration are partly responsible. Again and again, when it has come time for the President to lead, he has chosen instead to sit on the sidelines. His failure to act has emboldened our enemies and alienated our allies. Take the situation in Syria. I am not blaming the start of the Syrian civil war on President Obama, but when a redline was drawn and crossed and the President ignored it, we lost our credibility and our ability to influence President Assad. As we retreated from a position of strength, turmoil and unrest erupted in Syria. The President's reluctance to act must have looked familiar to foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin. It doesn't make the front pages of the papers anymore, but we must remember that Russia invaded the sovereign country of Ukraine and annexed Crimea while the President did nothing. After that, it is no surprise that Russia felt free to involve itself in Syria or that it continues to occupy and influence parts of eastern Ukraine as if it were a colony and not a free nation. Recently, we have also seen Russian jets buzzing U.S. Navy ships. I can think of few other Presidents who would have stood for Russia's behavior, but this passiveness now defines President Obama's approach to foreign policy. The now-infamous Russian reset promoted by President Obama and Secretary Clinton will go down in history as a strategic failure of this administration. In the Pacific, which was intended to be a key focus of the President's foreign policy, China has gone largely unchallenged, especially in the South China Sea. The noticeable absence of the United States over the last 7 years has led to China building an island and standing up an airfield in some of the most disputed waters in the world--an island, Mr. President. Can you imagine if a country tried to build an island near the United States and then to militarize it? It is no surprise that our allies in Southeast Asia are growing increasingly nervous with the rising military power making such aggressive claims on their doorsteps. Then there is the situation in Iraq. During his campaign, the President promised to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, which he then proceeded to do on a publicly announced timetable. Military planners and congressional Republicans warned that telegraphing our plans to insurgents will encourage them to bide their time and wait for our troops to leave before preying upon an underprepared Iraqi military. But it was evident that President Obama and Secretary Clinton didn't want to see our obligation to the Iraqis through; they were more interested in keeping an ill-advised campaign promise no matter what the cost to security in Iraq. The President proceeded with his plans to withdraw our troops without pressing former Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki on the importance of making sure his country was stable and secure before we withdrew. Everyone knows what happened next: The lack of American troops left a gaping hole in Iraq security and ISIS rolled in to fill the gap. Once called the JV team by President Obama, ISIS quickly established itself as arguably the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world. From its safe haven in Iraq, ISIS has spread terror across the Middle East and into Europe, destroying peaceful communities and cultural relics alike in its pursuit of a caliphate. My heart especially breaks for the Christians and other religious minorities in the region in this time of darkness. Their experience under ISIS has been one of relentless persecution and suffering-- genocide, Mr. President. ISIS's spread has only made the situation in Syria more dire, as well as extended terror beyond the Middle East to Europe. It may have also influenced a mass shooting here in the United States. Even the President's supposed leadership triumphs have demonstrated his unwillingness to stand up to our Nation's enemies. As the days pass, buyer's remorse from Democrats for the Iran deal continues to grow. The President negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran that will not only fail to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but it will actually make it easier for Iran to acquire advanced nuclear weapons down the road. This deal will jeopardize the security of the United States and our allies for many years to come. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has admitted to creating ``an echo chamber'' of falsehoods to sell the deal. We have also learned that a firm that helped push the deal also funded positive media coverage. Not only was this a bad deal that will make it easier for Iran to acquire advanced nuclear weapons down the road, the administration was disingenuous in how it sold the deal. It pulled a fast one over Congress, the American people, and our partners around the world, all in the name of burnishing the President's legacy, not because it was the will of the people. This is another instance of the President's missteps that sends troubling signals to our allies--in this case, Israel, our closest and most reliable ally in the region. I make these points because it is against this backdrop of growing international instability and lessening U.S. influence that the Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation authorizes the funding necessary to equip our troops with the resources they need to carry out their missions. As we look beyond the failures of the Obama administration to the challenges that lie ahead, it is even more important that when it comes to our military, we get things right. It is not America's strength that tempts our adversaries, it is our weakness. That is why we need to ensure that our military is well-equipped and trained to meet the challenges of rising powers through high-tech capabilities, while also being agile and versatile to combat increased unconventional threats from nonstate actors. We sleep at night in peace and safety because our military stands on watch around the globe. As threats multiply around the world, we must ensure that the military has every resource it needs to confront the dangers facing our Nation. We need to support essential forward-looking weapons systems, such as the B-21 long-range strategic bomber and high- tech drones to deter and defeat future threats. We must ensure that detainees stay at Guantanamo, instead of returning to the fight. We must ensure that our troops and their families at home have the support they need and deserve. This bill will accomplish all that. As we continue to debate the National Defense Authorization Act, I am sure there are some contentious issues that will come up, but while there may be some disagreement, we must pass this essential legislation without delay. Playing politics with funding for our troops, as the President did by vetoing the National Defense Authorization Act last summer, is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to join me to advance this essential legislation to provide for our troops to ensure the safety and defense of America and to help restore America's position of strength. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, and Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 7, 2016, at 1 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 2763, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act--Reuniting Victims with Their Lost Heritage.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Deadly Synthetic Drugs: The Need to Stay Ahead of the Poison Peddlers.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2016, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.