Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. In my home State of New York, more than 8 million people have health problems. That is almost half my State. They are living with diabetes. They have had treatment for cancer. They have a childhood disease. Before the Affordable Care Act became law, if you had a health problem and you needed to see a doctor, health insurance companies were allowed to make you pay much more. The health insurance companies were allowed to turn you away. They were allowed to tell you ``Sorry, you are not profitable for us because you are sick,'' and they did it many times. Let's not forget that included women who were pregnant. But they can't tell them that anymore because of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act made that simple statement illegal. Now insurance companies must cover you if you are sick. They must cover you if you have had a health problem in the past. And millions of Americans are better off now because of that fact. So what does this have to do with the Supreme Court? President Trump has made it clear that one of his biggest goals as President is to destroy the Affordable Care Act. He has already tried hard to get Congress to repeal the law, and luckily for us, he failed. He failed because people don't want their health insurance taken away from them. It is really that simple. Millions of Americans raised their voices and told Congress that if the Affordable Care Act were repealed, they would lose their insurance, and that would be devastating for them and their families. And Congress listened to them. But now there is a new challenge to the law in Federal court, and the Trump administration is refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act. When this case makes it to the Supreme Court in a few more years, then the next Supreme Court Justice could be the deciding vote on whether the Affordable Care Act is overturned. That means the next Supreme Court Justice could have the power to decide that insurance companies don't have to cover patients anymore if they have a health problem. He could have the power to decide that insurance companies don't have to cover you or your child anymore if your child is sick. Healthcare costs in my State have already skyrocketed because of the fact that the Trump administration has attacked this law over and over again. But repealing the law would be absolutely devastating to so many families. More than 8 million New Yorkers could lose their health insurance or pay more for their coverage. So would millions more all across the country. I am very concerned that is exactly what Judge Kavanaugh would do if he were given this opportunity. Just look at his record. When Judge Kavanaugh had a case before him that was attacking another part of the Affordable Care Act, he dissented in the case, and he said that even though the Affordable Care Act requires employers to cover birth control medicines for their workers, they shouldn't have to do it if they don't want to. He even took it so far as to say that if the President doesn't like a law--if the President doesn't like a law--then the President could ignore the law and ignore the courts. Listen to this one opinion. This will interest the Presiding Officer, I am sure. Tell me if you think this is sound judicial judgment. He wrote: ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.'' Anyone with the most basic understanding of how the constitutional system of government works in this country knows that this is not what our Founding Fathers intended. If this judge is confirmed, then there is a dangerously high likelihood that he will strike down the Affordable Care Act. We must not go back to the days when an insurance company could charge a person more just because they have health problems. We cannot go back to the days when an insurance company could say no to a patient because they could say: You are just not going to make us enough money. We must listen to our constituents--listen to the millions of men, women, and children all across this country who need access to basic healthcare, and they cannot afford to lose their insurance. We must reject this nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the farm bill-- something that we have in common, something that both of our States know is very important for this country's economy. This legislation is one of the most important chances we have in this Chamber to address one of the most pressing issues in rural parts of our country right now. I want to speak about two of my most urgent priorities for this year's farm bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting them. The first is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which most of us call SNAP. There are more than 40 million Americans who rely on SNAP every day. More than 40 million people would go hungry if they didn't have access to SNAP. Many of these Americans are disabled. Many of them are elderly and retired. Nearly half of them are children. Millions of them--and I truly mean millions--are working. Congress should not take SNAP away from hard-working Americans just because they don't fill out monthly paperwork. Last week, the House passed its own version of the farm bill that would do just that. That is shameful. Here is the truth about SNAP. The vast majority of able-bodied adults on SNAP are already working. They are already working. They have jobs. Many of them work several jobs. They are doing everything they can to get ahead, just to have a small slice of the American dream. They still need SNAP. They need SNAP because their wages are too low. To be clear, they already have to follow the work requirements. There have been work requirements in place since 1971. But the farm bill would just add more redtape, more paperwork for struggling families just so they could eat dinner. This is the difference between the House farm bill and the Senate farm bill: The Senate farm bill got it right; the House farm bill has created this terrible requirement of paperwork just to get SNAP. One of our House colleagues said that it is to promote ``self-sufficiency,'' as if low-income workers on SNAP aren't already working every waking hour just to scrape by. The House plan is a blatant example of how out of touch Congress is about poverty in this country. It is shameful that some Members of the House from my own State would even support this cruel plan when so many New Yorkers rely on SNAP every single day. I am happy that the Senate farm bill has more heart than that. The bill that came out of committee shows respect for all hard- working families who need SNAP, and now we need to take it a step further to do even more to help hungry children. I am submitting an amendment to the Senate farm bill called the SNAP for Kids Act. It would increase the amount of SNAP funding that families with kids in school are allowed to receive. If we pass this amendment, we will help families stretch their food budgets just a few more days at the end of every month when they need it the most, before the next paycheck comes in, and we will help keep millions of children in this country from going hungry. That should be a priority here--protecting children--for all of us. I have two young children, and I know that many of our colleagues in this Chamber also have young children. Our children will never have to have access to SNAP to get basic nutrition. They will never know what it is like to wake up hungry because their parents didn't have enough food to feed them a nutritious dinner. I believe at my core that we need to care about other people's children as much as we care about our own, so I urge my colleagues to do what is right and support the SNAP for Kids Act. Let's reject the House of Representatives' cruel plan and commit ourselves to protecting SNAP instead of destroying it. The second issue I want to talk about today is dairy prices. My home State of New York is one of the biggest dairy-producing States in the country. We are blessed with thousands of dairy farms and even more hard-working men and women who wake up before the Sun rises every single day to produce the milk that keeps our families healthy. Unfortunately, over the last few years, our dairy farmers have taken a serious hit from persistently low dairy prices. Many of our dairy farms are operating below their cost of production. Over the last decade, dairy farms all over New York have actually had to shut down because of this crisis. Many are currently on the brink of failing. This is what one dairy farmer said: It's stressful. . . . Do I want to wake up and lose $30,000 a day? Imagine the pain our dairy farmers and their families suffer when they wake up before dawn, every day, without a break, and they still can't make ends meet and provide for their own children. Imagine the heartbreak and the depression of the last dairy farmer in a family--the one who has to sell the farm despite generations of hard work because he just can't make ends meet. This is a crisis right in our backyard. It is hurting our agricultural economy. It is hurting our rural communities, and, most of all, it is hurting our farmers and their families. One big reason is that our dairy insurance program didn't work. I have heard from dairy farmers all across New York who have been essentially ripped off by the dairy insurance program because the program failed to cover our farmers when they needed it the most--when milk prices have plummeted. Our dairy farmers need a lifeline, and I was very proud to add a provision to the Senate farm bill for $77 million of those premiums to be returned. This is great news for our dairy farmers, but there is still so much more we can do. I have asked the Secretary of Agriculture for emergency funding to address this issue now, but he refuses to help our dairy farmers. I am submitting an amendment that would require the Department of Agriculture to help our dairy farmers with emergency funding now. I am asking the Secretary of Agriculture for the exact same amount of funding he just gave cotton farmers across this country when they were struggling. The USDA should be fair and treat our dairy farmers with the same support. I want this emergency funding to go directly to those farmers who need it so they can keep producing milk--without going bankrupt-- long enough for the industry to come together to balance supply and for Congress to create a more fair milk pricing system. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment too. It affects all of us. I know you believe our farmers work hard every day. They need our support. I urge all of us to stand with them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the humanitarian crisis that is at our southern border right now. We are living through a moment in history when we are literally sending babies and toddlers into detention camps. Think about that. Think about what I just said. Our Federal Government is sending babies and toddlers to detention camps. This is immoral. It is wrong. The AP broke a story last night that left me speechless, and I want the details of this horror recorded and documented in the official Senate Record so Americans years from now will look back on us and will see how wrong we were. I will read this article from the Associated Press, called ``Youngest Migrants Held in `Tender Age' Shelters.'' It is by Garance Burke and Martha Mendoza. Trump administration officials have been sending babies and other young children forcibly separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border to at least three ``tender age'' shelters in South Texas, the Associated Press has learned. Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the Rio Grande Valley shelters described play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis. The government also plans to open a fourth shelter to house hundreds of young migrant children in Houston, where city leaders denounced the move Tuesday. Since the White House announced its zero tolerance policy in early May, more than 23,000 children have been taken from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, resulting in a new influx of young children requiring government care. The government has faced withering critiques over images of some of the children in cages inside U.S. Border Patrol processing stations. Decades after the nation's child welfare system ended the use of orphanages over concerns about the lasting trauma to children, the administration is starting up new institutions to hold Central American toddlers that the government separated from their parents. ``The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me even to wrap my mind around it,'' said Kay Bellor, vice president for programs at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which provides foster care and other child welfare services to migrant children. ``Toddlers are being detained.'' Bellor said shelters follow strict procedures surrounding who can gain access to the children in order to protect their safety, but that means information about their welfare can be limited. By law, child migrants traveling alone must be sent to facilities run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services within three days of being detained. The agency then is responsible for placing the children in shelters or foster homes until they are united with a relative or sponsor in the community as they await immigration court hearings. But U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' announcement last month that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border illegally has led to the breakup of migrant families and sent a new group of hundreds of young children into the government's care. The United Nations, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers and religious groups have sharply criticized the policy, calling it inhumane. Not so, said Steven Wagner, an official with the Department of Health and Human Services. ``We have specialized facilities that are devoted to providing care to children with special needs and tender age children as we define as under 13 would fall into that category,'' he said. ``They're not government facilities per se, and they have very well-trained clinicians, and those facilities meet state licensing standards for child welfare agencies, and they're staffed by people who know how to deal with the needs--particularly of the younger children.'' Until now, however, it's been unknown where they are. ``In general we do not identify the locations of permanent unaccompanied alien children program facilities,'' said agency spokesman Kenneth Wolfe. The three centers--in Combes, Raymondville, and Brownsville--have been rapidly repurposed to serve needs of children including some under 5. A fourth, planned for Houston, would house up to 240 children in a warehouse previously used for people displaced by Hurricane Harvey, Mayor Sylvester Turner said. Turner said he met with officials from Austin-based Southwest Key Programs, the contractor that operates some of the child shelters, to ask them to reconsider their plans. A spokeswoman for Southwest Key didn't immediately reply to an email seeking comment. ``And so there comes a point in time we draw a line, and for me, the line is with these children,'' Turner said during a news conference Tuesday. On a practical level, the zero tolerance policy has overwhelmed the federal agency charged with caring for the new influx of children who tend to be much younger than teens who typically have been traveling to the U.S. alone. Indeed some recent detainees are infants, taken from their mothers. Doctors and lawyers who have visited the shelter said the facilities were fine, clean and safe, but the kids--who have no idea where their parents are--were hysterical, crying, and acting out. ``The shelters aren't the problem, it's taking kids from their parents that's the problem,'' said South Texas pediatrician Marsha Griffin who has visited many. Alicia Lieberman, who runs the Early Trauma Treatment Network at the University of California, San Francisco, said decades of study show early separations can cause permanent emotional damage. ``Children are biologically programmed to grow best in the care of a parent figure. When that bond is broken through long and unexpected separations with no set timeline for reunion, children respond at the deepest psychological and emotional levels,'' she said. ``Their fear triggers a flood of stress hormones that disrupt neural circuits in the brain, create high levels of anxiety, make them more susceptible to physical and emotional illness, and damage their capacity to manage their emotions, trust people, and focus their attention on age-appropriate activities.'' Days after Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, the government issued a call for proposals from shelter and foster care providers to provide services for the new influx of children taken from their families after journeying from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico. As children are separated from their families, law enforcement agents reclassify them from members of family units to ``unaccompanied alien children.'' Federal officials said Tuesday that since May, they have separated 2,342 children from their families, rendering them unaccompanied minors in the government's care. While Mexico is still the most common country of origin for families arrested at the border, in the last eight months, Honduras has become the fastest-growing category as compared to fiscal year 2017. During a press briefing [on] Tuesday, reporters repeatedly asked for an age breakdown of the children who have been taken. Officials from both law enforcement and Health and Human Services said they didn't know how many children were under 5, under 2, or even so little they're non-verbal. ``The facilities that they have for the most part are not licensed for tender age children,'' said Michelle Brane, director of migrant rights at the Women's Refugee Commission, who met with a 4-year-old girl in diapers in a McAllen warehouse where Border Patrol temporarily holds migrant families. ``There is no model for how you house tons of little children in cots institutionally in our country. We don't do orphanages, our child welfare has recognized that is an inappropriate setting for little children.'' So now, the government has to try to hire more caregivers. The recent call for proposals by the federal government's Office of Refugee Resettlement said it was seeking applicants who can provide services for a diverse population ``of all ages and genders, as well as pregnant and parenting teens.'' Even the policy surrounding what age to take away a baby is inconsistent. Customs and Border Protection field chiefs over all nine southwest border districts can use their discretion over how young is too young, officials said. And while Health and Human Services defines ``tender age'' typically as 12 and under, Customs and Border Protection has at times defined it as 5 and under. For 30 years, Los Fresnos, Texas-based International Education Services ran emergency shelters and foster care programs for younger children and pregnant teens who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors. At least one resident sued for the right to have an abortion in a high-profile case last March. For reasons the agency did not explain, three months ago the government's refugee resettlement office said it was ending its funding to the program and transferring all children to other facilities. This came weeks before the administration began its ``zero tolerance'' policy, prompting a surge in ``tender age'' migrant children needing shelter. In recent days, members of Congress have been visiting the shelters and processing centers, or watching news reports about them, bearing witness to the growing chaos. In a letter sent to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday, a dozen Republican senators wrote that separating families isn't consistent with American values and ordinary human decency. On Tuesday, a Guatemalan mother who hasn't seen her 7-year- old son since he was taken from her a month ago sued the Trump administration. Beata Mariana de Jesus Mejia-Mejia was released from custody while her asylum case is pending and thinks her son, Darwin, might be in a shelter in Arizona. ``I only got to talk to him once and he sounded so sad. My son never used to sound like that, he was such a dynamic boy,'' Mejia-Mejia said as she wept. ``I call and call, and no one will tell me where he is.'' The Presiding Officer has young children. I have young children. I am certain he cannot imagine how horrific it would be for him to give up his child into the hands of those he does not know and then not know where they will take him or her. I am certain he can't imagine that pain and horror. This body should not allow it. We should stand against it. It is morally wrong. It is outrageous, and it must end. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the humanitarian crisis happening right now in our country at the border-- something I implore my colleagues to fight to stop. The Department of Homeland Security is tearing young children from the arms of their parents. They are traumatizing infants and children, and Congress needs urgently to act. I know we have disagreements about immigration policy in this Chamber, and I know we have disagreements about how we should fix our immigration system, which we have desperately needed to fix for decades. Surely, we must be able to agree that Federal agents should not be tearing young children from the arms of their parents. We must be able to agree that families with infants should not be forcibly separated. Where is the outrage? Where is the urgency? I hear my colleagues speak all the time about Federal Government overreach. If this isn't Federal Government overreach, what is? This is the moment that they have gone too far. One mother was breastfeeding her infant. A Federal agent took that baby out of her mother's arms, handcuffed her, and arrested her. Where is that baby now? How is that baby doing? Where is the baby's mother? From mid-April through the end of last month, almost 2,000 children were separated from adults at the border. Nearly 50 times a day on American soil, our government has separated a child from their parents, creating fear and terror in their lives. Just today, it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security is now holding 11,785 minors-- 11,785 minors. This is a disgrace. One worker at a detention center for children just resigned as a conscientious objector, and he described the children being held there as a ``traumatized population that has no clue what's going on.'' He said the staff was not prepared at all to look after 4- and 5-year-olds who were coming into these detention centers. He said the kids were screaming and crying for their moms and dads. Pediatricians who met these children were calling it ``government-sanctioned child abuse.'' One of our colleagues in the House was able to meet with mothers whose children were taken from them at the border. She said that in some cases, the mothers were ``literally sitting in a room next to where the children were being held and could hear their children screaming.'' Have we not studied our own history? This is the kind of thing we read about in history books and to which we shake our heads in disgust. We ask ourselves: How did we let this happen? We ask ourselves: Why didn't Congress stop this? Why didn't anyone do anything? Don't we remember what happened during World War II with the Japanese internment camps? Children were traumatized, and families were damaged--in some cases permanently. The memorial to remind us of this is a stone's throw from the U.S. Capitol. It is just for the purpose of reminding us to never do it again. We cannot let our country go down this dark road again. If Congress does not stop the out-of-control Department of Homeland Security--if Congress does not stop families from being torn apart-- even though it is happening right in front of our eyes, then this Congress will go down in history as a weak Congress that did nothing to stop one of the worst, horrific chapters of American history. This has to be the moment when we do our jobs--when we stand up, speak truth to power, and do the right thing. We don't know how many kids are going to be traumatized for the rest of their lives because of our actions. These young children will never forget that when they first came to America, they were separated from their mothers and their fathers. The President of the United States is not telling the truth to the American people about this policy. It is not true that this immoral and repulsive practice of separating children from their parents is a mandatory result of existing law. It is just not true. This is the stated practice and policy of zero tolerance by this administration. It is abhorrent and immoral. The administration could stop this all by itself today if it wanted to, but since it will not, Congress will need to act. If this Congress cannot or will not push back against this administration when it is actually harming children, when will it act? I urge my colleagues to come together right now to stop this stain on our Nation. We have a bill that was introduced by Senator Feinstein. We already have 49 cosponsors. We should vote on this bill. It would protect the welfare of children. It would make sure that children would not be separated from their parents. The only time they would be separated from their parents or the adults they are with is if they are being trafficked or abused. Otherwise, families should be allowed to stay together. We should do the right thing. This is a moral issue. This is a humanitarian issue. This is an issue of right versus wrong. As a mother and as a legislator, I can't imagine the terror these parents face in not knowing what is going to happen to their children. It is wrong for us to stand by silently. It is wrong for us to do nothing. This is what the darkness looks like. We have to stand up against it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in voting for a bipartisan amendment, No. 2294, the Military Justice Improvement Act. It will fix our broken military justice system. I believe our servicemembers deserve a military justice system that is worthy of their sacrifice. That means one that is both professional and fair. I think every one of my colleagues in this Chamber agrees that this is a priority, no matter where you are from and no matter your background. Some of my newer colleagues may be less familiar with this issue. So I am going to tell them what I am talking about. We all deeply revere our servicemembers, which means it is not easy to talk about problems within an institution that we treasure so greatly in this country. The fact is that the military has a problem with sexual assault. It is pervasive, it is destroying lives, and it has been going on for years. Listen to these most disturbing numbers. Since we first introduced this bill 5 years ago, the number of cases that commanders have moved forward has decreased despite an increased number of reports. In fiscal year 2013, 484 cases proceeded to trial, and in fiscal year 2017, only 406 cases proceeded to trial. It is estimated that there were close to 15,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2016. That doesn't even include spouses and civilians in that estimate. It is just an estimate of servicemembers. In a survey of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans--and supported by the Department of Defense's own data--7 out of 10 military sexual assault survivors said they had experienced retaliation or other negative behaviors because they had reported the crimes, and 14 percent of survivors declined even to participate in the justice process after their reporting. That is how little confidence they have in this current system. This is after years of our committee's working with the Defense Department to fix this problem. I think we have passed every small- ball, incremental reform anybody has been willing to agree on, and it hasn't made a difference. This is even after every Secretary of Defense since Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense has said there will be zero tolerance for sexual assault in the military. Almost nothing has changed. Listen to these stories. In one case, a woman was raped by a servicemember. She went to the hospital. She told a friend. An investigation then started. During the investigation, two more victims came forward to tell their stories. They said they had been raped by the very same servicemember. The military investigative team--the military police--recommended that the case proceed to a court-martial, but because of the way our military justice system works today, a military commander was in charge of the case, not a trained military prosecutor. That commander chose just to discharge the perpetrator--to send him right into the civilian world with no trial, with no court-martial, with no record. Not only were those servicemembers who were violently assaulted denied justice, but a serial predator was also released into the general public. That is not right. Listen to another case of a former marine who was working as an Air Force civilian. She was from a military family with Army and Navy veterans. She was proud to serve and loved to support the camaraderie, but she was abused by her own immediate commander, who had direct power over her in the chain of command. She tried to seek justice, but, once again, a military commander was in charge of the case, not a trained military prosecutor who understands these kinds of cases and understands criminal justice. Despite overwhelming evidence, including text messages, physical evidence, and eyewitnesses, the perpetrator was allowed to retire without bearing any financial penalty, without there being any charges, and with a full military pension. My office hears all the time from women and men who have been raped in the military, who have been abused, who have been stalked, who have been retaliated against. It is an epidemic, and it is not improving. Listen to the most recent headline from USA Today: ``Marine Corps general fired for calling sexual harassment claims `fake news.' '' The Navy Times reads: ``Officer accused of patronizing prostitutes worked in the sex assault prevention office while awaiting court- martial.'' The Stars and Stripes reads: ``Fort Benning drill sergeants suspended amid sexual assault allegations.'' USA Today reads: ``Bad Santa: Navy's top admiral kept spokesman after boozy party, sexual predator warning.'' Another from the same paper reads: ``Senior military officials sanctioned for more than 500 cases of serious misconduct.'' The AP reads: ``Pentagon misled lawmakers on military sexual assault cases.'' These are just the recent headlines. There is a pattern here. Our military justice system is broken, and the Pentagon is not being forthright about this problem. Yet Congress is still hesitating. Congress is still refusing to put trained military prosecutors in charge of these cases. This has to end. Congress has to step in. It has to do its job. Our job is to provide oversight and accountability over the administration and over the Department of Defense on this very issue. We have the responsibility to ensure that military justice is possible for survivors in the military. It shouldn't matter if the perpetrator has skills that the commander needs. It shouldn't matter if he happens to be buddies with the commander. What should matter is whether there is evidence that a serious crime has been committed. That should be the determining factor of whether these cases go forward to trial. We need to pass the Military Justice Improvement Act. This legislation is as bipartisan as it gets. It is supported by conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike and plenty in between. It has the support of some of the biggest veterans' organizations, women's organizations, and legal organizations. There is good reason for this in that the bipartisan bill we have put together would ensure that the survivors of these heinous crimes and the alleged perpetrators of these crimes will all be afforded due process--the due process they are entitled to under the U.S. Constitution. The bill in no way exceeds a commander's ability to take action for military-specific crimes, like when a soldier goes AWOL. What it would do is to take the prosecutions of sexual assault and other serious crimes--serious violent felonies--out of the chain of command and put them in the hands of trained military prosecutors, who actually understand how to deal with serious crimes. This would allow our survivors--men and women who sacrifice everything for this country--to have the basic right to civil liberty and justice. This bill would also professionalize the military. It would make sure that all people, every servicemember--men, women, Black, White, gay, straight--will not be subjected to biased judgments and will actually have the benefit of having trained prosecutors look at the evidence. Sadly, according to a report that came out recently, in all four of the services--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--Black servicemembers are more likely to be court-martialed than are White servicemembers. This is unacceptable. This bill would help to alleviate some of the unfairness in the current system by having trained prosecutors make those judgments based solely on evidence. Our commanders have a tough enough job in defending our country. So we should let these trained prosecutors do their jobs and make the right decisions based on the evidence alone. We can only make this change if we pass this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to look at this bill--to look at it anew--and to look at the fact that we have not improved our rate of cases that actually go to court-martial and our rate of convictions, even though more are reported. It is a huge problem. I promise you. Every year, we have this excuse: Let the reforms take more time to work. OK, well, it has been 5 years, and this has had a spotlight on it. If the commanders cannot put more cases forward for court-martial and if the cases can't result in more convictions, we are not doing it right. We are failing the men and women who will die for this country. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, 100 days ago, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to pass the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act, the bill that would fix the way we deal with sexual harassment and discrimination here in Congress. The current system is broken. It makes no sense that a staffer who is sexually harassed or discriminated against has to possibly wait months for mediation, for counseling, or for a cooling off before she or he is able to even file a claim. This bill would also make sure that when a Member of Congress has sexually harassed or discriminated against someone on their staff, the taxpayers are not left holding the bag. That is what the bill does. There is no reasonable excuse for anyone to stand in the way. Our constituents do not deserve to have their hard-earned dollars paying for these settlements. What they deserve is a vote on this reform now. But what have we seen since the House acted? Nothing but politics as usual, despite having significant bipartisan support on this issue. I thank my colleagues--Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Murray--for their strong leadership on this issue and all of their efforts to pass this bill in the Senate. They have been great partners in trying to move this forward. It is long since time that we should be acting on this issue. We need to pass this bill and send it to the President's desk so he can sign it into law, because what we have seen so clearly, after the several months and years that we have been talking about this, is that sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace is far more pervasive and egregious than we previously might have recognized. We have all witnessed harassment and discrimination. We all see what it actually does to society--whether it is happening in factories, in restaurants, in Hollywood, in the Halls of Congress, or right here in this building. But the difference is that while practically every other industry in the country seems to be taking this issue far more seriously and at least trying to make an effort to change their workplaces, Congress is dragging its feet. Once again, a problem is staring us right in the face, and we are looking the other way. Enough is enough. We should do better. We have waited 100 days, and we should not have to wait any longer. So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing now, to support this bill. Fix this system here in Congress that is failing our staffers on this issue of sexual harassment. This one is as easy as it gets. So let's have a vote and let's pass it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Carlos Muniz to be the general counsel at the Department of Education. One of the most important responsibilities that the Department of Education has is to uphold title IX and fight back against gender discrimination in all its forms. This is an enormous responsibility, but it is also an urgent one. Thousands of men and women have survived sexual assaults on college campuses, and they are demanding that the Education Department and their universities take these crimes seriously. But over the last year, we have heard over and over again that Secretary DeVos has let down these survivors. Instead of working to uphold and even strengthen title IX, she has used her position to weaken title IX. We should not be arming her with more staff who are determined to carry out that plan, but that is what Mr. Muniz will do if he is confirmed. Mr. Muniz's nomination sends a cynical message to survivors of campus sexual assault all over our country--that the Education Department is not taking survivors seriously and that they are not interested in protecting a law that is supposed to keep our students safe. If this nominee is confirmed, I have no doubt that he is going to accelerate Secretary DeVos's attack on title IX. This is an insult to the thousands of students who have suffered through sexual assaults on their college campuses. Mr. Muniz has spent his career on the wrong side of this issue, and he has made it clear through his actions that he does not respect the important role title IX actually plays in protecting our students and keeping our campuses safe. The general counsel of the Education Department should work to uphold and strengthen our anti-discrimination laws, but I fear this nominee is going to do the exact opposite. I urge all of my colleagues to do what is best for our students and join me in opposing this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the mass murder in Florida this month, and I rise to ask a simple question that millions of Americans in every part of this country are asking at their kitchen tables right now: Is Congress finally going to do anything meaningful about gun violence? When will enough be enough? What will it take for this body to move beyond the same talking points that we hear after every mass shooting and actually do something to prevent more deaths? Will Congress finally see what the vast majority of Americans see--gun owners and non-gun owners alike--that America's gun problem isn't going away unless Congress musters up the courage to take it head-on, or will Congress continue to give the lipservice of thoughts and prayers and then do absolutely nothing? We have to act because once again there was a massacre on American soil. Once again it was inside a school. Once again American children were gunned down. We keep living through a nightmare of gun violence that repeats itself in schools, movie theaters, churches, nightclubs, concerts, and every single day on the streets of cities in every State around this country--Sandy Hook, Aurora, Charleston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and most recently, Parkland, FL. We can help stop this. We have the power to help stop this. The question is whether Congress has the political will to do it, whether this institution will finally put families first, our children first, and stand up to the gun manufacturers and the NRA. I urge every Member of Congress to reflect on why they first ran for office. We are here as public servants to serve the people who sent us here, not to serve the gun industry's profits, not to serve the organizations and companies and lobbyists who demand political retribution when we do the morally right thing. Does Congress have the will to act? Does Congress have the basic courage this country needs? I am sorry to say, I don't know, but we can put it to the test. There has been a lot of talk--more than normal even--about our need to act in this Chamber. So I will say this to my colleagues: Let's make this time different. Let's listen to the children from Stoneman Douglas High School. Let's seize this moment. Let's take action. I implore my colleagues to listen to what the country is saying about gun violence today, listen to the families, listen to the survivors from Parkland and tune out all the other noise. I did. It is possible. Ten years ago, I had an A rating from the NRA, just like many of my colleagues today, but then I met the mother of Nyasia Pryear-Yard. Then I met her classmates. Nyasia was an honor student from Brooklyn. She was dancing with her friends, having fun, loving life. She was killed by a stray bullet in her community. Now I have an F rating from the NRA. I don't understand how, after meeting with all of these families, after meeting with all of these children whose lives have been destroyed and torn apart by gun violence--I don't understand how any public servant would not vow to do what is necessary to make sure it never happens again. It is what we do after a terrorist attack, rightfully so. It is what we do as a country. We come together. We say never again, and we do whatever it takes to protect our country. We have to have the very same sense of urgency now. Plain and simple, it is a lie to say we have to choose between protecting law-abiding gun owners' rights and protecting our children from being murdered by assault rifles. It is a false choice to say we cannot end gun violence without violating people's constitutional rights. It is time for Members of Congress to stand up for what is right for America and do what is right for our communities, and say no to the NRA. I commend one of our colleagues in the House of Representatives--a Republican from Florida and an Army veteran--who is seeing this crisis differently now too. He wrote: I know that my community, our schools, and public gathering places, are not made safer by any person having access to the best killing tool the Army could put in my hands. I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people, being used to kill children I swore to defend. That is what leadership looks like. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to see our gun violence problem differently. See it with your heart. See it for what it is. It is a matter of national security, of public health, of public safety that will never go away unless Congress does its job. So, once and for all, let's pass laws that actually are meaningful, that actually can do something, not just something simple so we can say we did something and move on. I strongly agree with my colleagues that we need to improve the mental health system. Let's make those investments, but it should not stop there. We have to address the fact that we have weapons of war on our streets today. We have to address the fact that it is so easy for people to buy a gun--people who should never have that privilege. Let's vote to ban semiautomatic assault rifles. Congress has already banned fully automatic weapons. Congress has already recognized that some weapons have no place in the civilian world, and a weapon of war that was designed for military use, that can fire up to 100 rounds in 1 minute or 100 rounds if you just add a bump stock, a weapon that can completely outgun a police officer has no place in the civilian world. Will my colleagues vote with me to ban semiautomatic assault rifles? Then, let's vote to ban the high-capacity magazines that go with them. They are made for wars; they are not made to be in our schools, not in our cities. High-capacity magazines let killers fire dozens of rounds without having to frequently stop and reload. They are designed to let someone fire bullets at as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Let's vote to ban high-capacity magazines, and let's vote to pass universal background checks. That is something that is so commonsense, so obvious. Too many people who should not get their hands on these weapons are easily able to get them, and there are so many loopholes that allow people to buy semiautomatic assault rifles online, where there are no background checks. They allow people to buy semiautomatic assault rifles at gun shows, where there are no background checks. It simply doesn't make sense that every person who buys a firearm doesn't go through a basic background check system. Do you know who agrees with that? Ninety-seven percent of the American people. I can't think of any other issue where there is such near-universal agreement across our entire population. So let's do what our constituents are demanding from us--not what the NRA is demanding from us--and vote to pass universal background checks. When we do it, let's make sure the effort is actually sincere. If we are only voting on universal background checks, when it is tied to the issue of concealed carry reciprocity, then that is not a sincere attempt to fix our broken background check system. If Congress is saying we will only pass universal background checks if we pass a new law that says a stranger from one State has to be allowed into my State or your State when he has a gun hidden under his jacket, that is an insult to 97 percent of the American people who want Congress to pass universal background checks now. Then, let's finally vote to overturn the outrageous law that has banned the Centers for Disease Control from even studying the issue of gun deaths. The CDC can study any other cause of death--heart disease, cancer, car crashes, plane crashes--unless it involves a gun. Don't you think it is strange that when we debate this issue, the two things related to gun violence that Congress has actually banned in recent years are research--research on gun violence--and a ban on the ATF from using computers to keep records? Let's vote to allow the CDC to conduct research on gun violence so we can finally have the information and the data we need to fight gun violence as effectively as possible. Let's also pass a law that finally makes gun trafficking a Federal crime. Over and over again, law enforcement officers keep finding illegally obtained guns being used in crimes. Numerous NYPD officers have been killed by guns that were illegally obtained by criminals, and there is literally no Federal law to stop someone from loading his truck with guns in Georgia, driving up I-95, and selling them in a parking lot in the Bronx directly to criminals and gang members. I have a bill that would make this illegal. It is called the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act. It is bipartisan, because both parties agree that gun trafficking is a source of gun violence in our cities. This bill is named after Nyasia, whom I mentioned earlier, and another teenager from Chicago who was also killed by a stray bullet. Both guns in those crimes were trafficked. So let's pass this bill and finally make gun trafficking a Federal crime. If we are not trying to solve this problem now, then we are failing as elected leaders. Congress must solve America's gun violence crisis now. It is urgent. Our country is demanding it. Americans deserve more from Congress than just banning bump stocks, just fixing NICS, which, while I strongly support both of them, will not do enough on their own. So let us not fail our country again. I would like to ask our colleagues to immediately vote to ban semiautomatic assault rifles and bump stocks, to pass a universal background check system and close all of the loopholes, to allow the CDC to research gun violence as a cause of death, to close the gun show loophole, and to finally make gun trafficking a Federal crime. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, we just marked the 25th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act, known to most as FMLA. When FMLA passed 25 years ago, it was an incredible step forward for millions of working families. They finally had the legal right to step away from their jobs to take care of their families without the risk of being fired. But we now know that the law just has not kept up with the times. FMLA doesn't apply to 40 percent of the workforce, and it doesn't guarantee any pay during the time the worker is away. In fact, 25 years after FMLA was signed into law, we are still the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't guarantee access to some form of paid leave. That means that workers all over the country are losing wages and retirement savings when they take time off. The economy is losing tens of millions of dollars. We have to change this because FMLA is not good enough anymore. We need an actual national paid leave program, and I am pleased to see that paid leave has now clearly become a bipartisan issue. Both parties agree that paid leave is something that our country desperately needs and urgently wants to have. Earlier today, a group of Republican colleagues announced a proposal they claim would solve this problem, but it is clear that their proposal will not help the vast majority of working Americans. In fact, it would not create a real paid leave program that covers all workers. Not only that, this plan will actually rob the Social Security trust fund. This would not strengthen Social Security; it would weaken Social Security. No worker should have to borrow against their own Social Security benefits, which are already too low, to get paid family leave when they need it to take care of a new baby, a sick family member, a dying parent, or themselves. And let's not forget that Social Security already pays women less than men. So this proposal would make that problem even worse. If you are watching this debate right now and you are wondering whether Congress is finally going to pass a paid leave law that actually helps working Americans, don't be fooled by this Republican proposal. If your son is diagnosed with cancer and you need time to bring him to his chemotherapy appointments, their plan will do nothing for you. If your elderly mother has dementia and you need time to be by her side, this plan will do nothing for you. If your husband has a heart attack and he needs you there while he recovers, this plan does nothing for you. Right now, millions of American workers are stuck choosing between earning a paycheck and leaving their jobs to take care of a loved one when some medical emergency happens, and if this bill passes, that would not change. Listen to what a woman named Shelby went through because she didn't have paid leave. Shelby is a mother and a grandmother, and she takes care of her parents. She is a security officer, committed to keeping her community safe. We all know that we can never predict when medical emergencies happen. All of a sudden, Shelby's youngest daughter and parent needed medical attention at the same time. Shelby had to leave work because her family needed her, but all she had was FMLA--unpaid leave--which counted as an employment disciplinary action where she worked. As Shelby put it, taking unpaid leave was an enormous financial burden for her. She couldn't keep up with her rent or utility costs, and it took her months to catch up on just paying her bills. She was able to keep her job, but she suffered far more than she should have, with an enormous amount of added stress on top of her family's medical issues, because she didn't have paid leave. This Republican proposal would not help her. We have to fix this. Even President Trump agrees. In his State of the Union Address last week, he said: My response is this: Actions speak louder than words. Our country needs a real paid leave plan. If President Trump and Congress really are serious about creating a national paid leave program, then I urge them to support my paid leave bill, which would actually work. It would cover all workers, not just new moms. It is called the FAMILY Act. The FAMILY Act would finally guarantee paid family and medical leave to every working American. The FAMILY Act is affordable. It is an accessible earned benefit that you and your employer would contribute into together. It would stay with you for your entire career, no matter where you worked. It is universal and comprehensive. It is for women and for men. It is for the young and the elderly. It is for workers in big companies or small companies or even if they are self-employed, it would only cost about the cost of a cup of coffee a week. This is the kind of paid leave program that our country needs, and anything less is just not enough. Five States around the country have already stood up for what is right and given their workers access to paid leave. These States, including my home State of New York, are doing a much better job than Congress of meeting the needs of their people on this issue. California, for example, has had their paid leave program for more than a decade. I know some of my colleagues are worried about whether paid leave is good for business, so I hope they will listen to these numbers. In a survey, 90 percent of business owners in California said that paid leave had a positive or, at worst, no negative effect on their profit or their productivity and on their retention. Ninety-nine percent of them said that it boosted morale. Paid leave is good for business and it is good for working families, so we have to pass it. I know there is bipartisan support to do it. Let's start rewarding work again and give people the opportunity to earn a better life for their families, and let's finally give Americans access to paid leave. I urge my colleagues to join me in this fight and pass the FAMILY Act. I now wish to yield the floor to my colleague from Illinois, who is also going to speak about why this is good for America.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an urgent crisis that Congress must solve now for nearly 800,000 Dreamers in this country. I am proud to represent New York State in the U.S. Senate. One of the things I am most proud of is that my State is home to tens of thousands of Dreamers--tens of thousands of young people who have never known any other country as home but this one. When President Trump announced that he wanted to end the DACA Program, it was one of the most inhumane actions of his entire Presidency. Let me be clear about what ending DACA will do. Ending DACA will force thousands of Dreamers to lose their jobs. It will force them to go into hiding. It will force them to have to make the unimaginable choice between staying here undocumented or being forced out of the United States. I ask my colleagues, are you really OK with letting that happen when you personally have the power to prevent it from happening right now? Attacking Dreamers like this goes against our most basic values as Americans, our most basic sense of right versus wrong. I know this Chamber is divided about how to fix our broken immigration system, but just for a second, forget about ideology and think about what it actually means for these young people who have spent their entire lives here. They are waiting and wondering if Congress actually has the guts to stand up to President Trump and do what is right. If the President will not lead, then Congress must lead, and we need to lead now. We have to protect our Dreamers, and we need to pass the Dream Act. Most of all, we should never allow our Dreamers to be used as political pawns. We should simply do what both parties have said is the right thing to do, which is to pass the Dream Act. This is a matter of basic human rights and human dignity. It is about people's lives, and I am not going to compromise on that. Mr. President, are you willing to compromise on that? We need to fix this problem, and we don't have a lot of time to do it. Every week that Congress refuses to take action, more Dreamers lose their DACA status. Very soon, we are going to have to pass a long-term spending bill just to keep the government running, but the Republican leadership has not yet committed to including a provision in the bill to protect our Dreamers. I want to say this very clearly: If my Republican colleagues refuse to do the right thing and protect our Dreamers in the upcoming long- term spending bill, I will vote no. I will ask my colleagues to join me in this fight. I will ask all of them to see that this issue is not a political question. It is a basic question of whether or not we are a country that protects children. I am never going to compromise when it comes to our Dreamers, not when their lives are literally hanging in the balance. Time is desperately running out. I urge my colleagues to do what is right. We must protect the Dreamers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the tax plan we will be voting on tomorrow, likely in the middle of the night, and definitely without much needed debate, oversight, and transparency, as it should have. I think everyone in this Chamber agrees we need to fix our tax system so it doesn't create so much difficulty for the working families in our States. If this bill actually did that, it would be real reform, and it would be bipartisan. However, this plan does not seek anything close to the type of relief regular working people need. Instead, what it does is this: It pays back wealthy donors and lobbyists through corporate welfare, and it does this at the expense of the middle class. In other words, this is a blatant attempt to take millions of families' hard- earned money and hand it over to rich corporations on the Fortune 500 list. If the Senate actually goes ahead and passes this bill, corporations and the wealthiest 1 percent of income earners will get massive and permanent tax cuts, and it will blow a $1.5 trillion hole into our deficit. Make no mistake, 3 months from now, Republican leadership will use that new, massive deficit as the reason to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why are Republicans in Congress so determined to provide massive corporate welfare? Listen to this actual quote from one Republican Member of Congress, which will tell you everything you need to know about whom this tax plan is really for. He said: My donors are basically saying, ``Get it done or don't ever call me again.'' This is Washington's culture of soft corruption at its absolute worst. Now, somehow after years of talking about it, a massive tax bill has finally made its way to the Senate floor and, after all that talk, it doesn't even help the middle class. It does the exact opposite. Here is one very simple example that sums it all up. This bill eliminates the deduction for local and State taxes, known as the SALT deduction, which so many Americans need to help them stay afloat. The SALT deduction prevents hard-working families from being double taxed on their income. It has long been our policy that when workers pay their State and local taxes, the IRS doesn't tax them twice on the same income, but the Republican tax plan now repeals this. In effect, this plan would make it so you are taxed on everything you make and then you will be taxed again. Why? Because corporations need a big tax break and to pay for the tax breaks for the richest Americans. In many cases, the SALT deduction makes it possible for families to afford to buy a home, which is usually a family's largest asset, and it keeps the value of this investment growing. Eliminating the SALT deduction would hurt New Yorkers, and it would hurt millions of Americans. There is literally no other way to spin it. When the details of this tax plan were released, we started hearing a lot of dredged up old talk about the supposed virtues of trickle-down economics--the myth that if only corporations had more money, it would help American families. Well, we have heard this one before, and let's not be fooled again. Let's take a look at the state of things right now. The biggest companies in America are flush with cash, the stock market has never been higher, but cities, towns, and rural areas all over my State have been hit hard over and over again by companies that have packed up and left for cheaper labor and fatter profits abroad. So then why would we reward them by giving them yet another tax cut they don't need and will not go to their workers? President Trump's top economic adviser recently asked a roomful of CEOs to raise their hands if this extra cash from the tax cut would get them to reinvest in their communities. No more than a handful of CEOs in the room raised their hand. I know a lot of people like to pretend otherwise, but is that really a surprise to anyone here? In fact, several CEOs have said on the record that instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies will reward shareholders and not workers by increasing dividends or buying back their own shares. This plan could not be more misguided because we should be rewarding work, not shareholder value. Let me put it another way. Just yesterday, the Dow broke another record with a new alltime high, and I am sure many CEOs will get a massive bonus for that, but what I want to know is this: When the Dow broke that record, how many workers on factory floors in Pennsylvania or in New York saw their pay increase? How many workers in grocery stores saw their pay increase? How many families in your State were given big pay raises that reflected those historic profits? I think we all know the answer to that question. In our economy today, even as corporations are earning more money than ever before, there is essentially no benefit for families. The wealth does not trickle down, and this tax plan would make that problem even worse. This tax plan helps the wrong people. It helps the people and corporations that don't need any extra help right now. It ignores the people who do. We need to start rewarding work in this country again, not doling out lavish tax cuts for giant companies. I can't say this clearly enough to New Yorkers and to hard-working Americans all over this country: If you are not rich, if you are just a regular hard- working family, then there is a very good chance you are going to take a big hit if this bill passes. I urge every one of my colleagues to do what is right for families and oppose this plan. Tax reform should never be a partisan exercise, and we should all agree that our goal should be to help middle-class workers and their families. So let's pass a bill that actually does that. Huge corporations do not need our help. They are going to be just fine. Instead, let's finally start rewarding work in this country again. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the mass shooting in Texas yesterday--the latest mass shooting in what seems like never-ending gun violence in our country. My heart breaks for the victims and their families and for the community of Sutherland Springs in Texas. We are still gathering all the facts about this specific crime. We are still learning about what happened, how this murderer was able to purchase a gun, whatever his twisted rationale was for walking into a house of worship in a small town and slaughtering more than 20 people, including young children, with an assault weapon. Our incredible law enforcement officials are working hard to answer all of that, but the most important fact of all is something we already know very well. This was yet another case where someone on American soil who had absolutely no business getting his hands on a weapon of war was able to get one and use it to commit heinous mass murder. Of the five worst mass shootings in our history, three of them have occurred in just the past 17 months. Think about that. In a small town in America, nearly 7 percent of the town's population was slaughtered just because they went to church that day. The weapon he used was based on a military weapon designed for a war zone, but this was not a war zone. It was a church. People were singing and praying and savoring life. I reject the notion that it is too soon to act. If not now, then when? We should ban assault weapons and bump stocks today. People who don't want to have an honest conversation say we need to wait. Well, for how long? Because we wait, and we wait, and we will see evil rear its ugly head over and over again, and we are told to wait again. We have enough information today for Congress to do its job and try to keep our constituents safe from gun violence. We had enough information before yesterday to act, but what Congress does not have is the political will to act. My friends, this must change. Thoughts and prayers are not going to stop the next mass shooting. Merely talking about doing something about the mentally ill obtaining guns isn't going to stop the next deranged person with hate in their soul from committing yet another mass murder. The Second Amendment does not mean that Americans should have to risk getting shot because they walked down the wrong street in a city or decided to go to a music festival in Las Vegas or a night club in Orlando or an elementary school in Newtown or a movie theater in Aurora or a church on Sunday in Texas. After each of these horrific acts of violence, what happened here in Congress? Nothing. More than a month after Las Vegas, we still can't even tackle the most obvious fixes like banning bump stocks. Plain and simple, Americans are being slaughtered and Congress is refusing to protect them. I hear my colleagues who rightly say we can't pass laws to stop every instance of a deranged gunman who wants to kill innocent men, women, and children, just like our other criminal laws will not necessarily stop every instance of crime, but there is no excuse for not even trying. Everyone in this Chamber knows that a shooting in a church is something that should never happen in this country. Mr. President, I think you would agree with that. I think everyone who serves in this Chamber would agree with that. So then why aren't we doing anything to stop this violence? Why aren't we making it harder for a crazed, evil person to get their hands on a weapon of war? It makes me wonder what our colleagues are waiting for. Are they waiting for the NRA to come in and give them cover and tell them it is OK to act? Are they waiting for the NRA to give them permission to stand up and do something? If the NRA said today assault rifles or bump stocks should be banned, it would be done tomorrow. That is the sad truth of this place, but we know the NRA will not say that because they want to keep selling these weapons of war to anyone who is willing to buy them, no matter how unsafe it makes it for the rest of us. Congress has caved in over and over again to the enormous pressure by the NRA and the gun industry--which just wants to protect their profits--and has ignored the vast majority of Americans. Gun owners and nongun owners alike support commonsense measures to keep their fellow Americans safe. These mass slaughters continue, and Congress has done nothing-- absolutely nothing. To me, this is a monumental failure of leadership, and it is no wonder that gun violence and mass shootings happen here at a higher rate than any other developed country in the world. This has to change. It is not enough to solve the individual crime after the fact. We have to take meaningful, real action to prevent the next one. This is what has to happen. To those who doubt that Congress can actually get something done, we already know that, depending on the motivation, depending on whom Congress is actually listening to, Congress is fully capable of moving quickly to enact change. Instead of acting like its hands are tied and refusing to do anything--which is what is happening right now--far more often than not, Congress listens to the special interests instead of the people who actually elect them to keep them safe. Look at the shameful state of our gun laws now and tell me if you think these laws came about because families in our States demanded them or was it because the NRA demanded them? Congress has turned a collective back on strengthening and expanding our national background check system. We should be fixing the holes in the system--whatever is necessary--not just shrugging our shoulders and saying there is nothing that can be done. Who do you think demanded that we don't fix the background check system? Was it families in your State or was it the NRA? Congress refuses to ban high-capacity magazines, which are literally made for war, and let killers fire dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. Who do you think demanded that, families or the NRA? Congress still refuses to ban assault weapons, which are designed for war--designed to kill as many people as possible as rapidly as possible but are given different names so they can be sold in the civilian world. Who do you think demanded that, our families or the NRA? Congress is on the verge of passing legislation to make it easier right now for killers to buy suppressers, known by many of us as silencers, to attach to their weapons and make it harder for the police to do their jobs and catch violent criminals. Who do you think demanded that? Certainly not the police and not our families--the NRA. Congress is dragging its feet on banning bump stocks, the inexpensive piece of equipment the killer in Las Vegas used to turn its already- powerful firearm into an automatic weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. Who do you think demanded that, families or the NRA? Just this February, Congress overturned a rule that had prevented people who were so incapacitated that they could no longer handle their own finances from getting their hands on a gun. Who do you think demanded that, families or the NRA? Congress even went so far as to pass a law that blocked the Centers for Disease Control from studying the issue of gun deaths the way they are allowed to study any other cause of death in this country. Why? Because it is an attempt to hide the overwhelming data showing that keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people would decrease gun crime. Who do you think demanded that? Who do you think demanded that Congress suppress the facts and the alarming data about gun violence? Do you think it was families or the NRA? This really has to change. Congress needs to start protecting the people we were elected to represent. Their voices matter, and it really does matter whom you are listening to. Their voices matter, and they must be heard. We must listen and enact change that would actually help to keep our States safer from gun violence. We are the ones who need to act. We can't ignore our responsibility to keep our country safe from this kind of violence. To all the people who are watching us right now, I would say this: After all these massacres, pay attention to what your elected leaders are saying. Pay attention to what they are actually doing. Watch how they react. Look closely at how they use their time here. Listen to what they say or don't say. After these mass shootings, did they tell you we were going to bow our heads for a moment of silence and leave it there or did they tell you we were going to fight with every bit of energy to actually fix these broken gun laws and protect our American citizens? Democracy only works when regular people stand up and demand action. I urge everyone listening today to demand that action and to hold elected leaders accountable and to ask them to pass meaningful gun reform now. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the disaster supplemental that the Trump administration is expected to send to Congress as early as tomorrow. While Congress has passed two supplemental aid bills since this year's hurricanes, I want to make it very clear that what we have already passed is not even close to what we will need to help Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands fully recover and rebuild. Hurricane Maria destroyed their power grids and has significantly damaged their water infrastructure so as to make clean drinking water dangerously scarce. Three of Puerto Rico's biggest industries-- manufacturing, finance, and tourism, which drive their already struggling economy--remain severely damaged because the hurricane wiped out so many factories, buildings, and hotels. Many Puerto Ricans who had jobs the day before Maria struck no longer have anywhere to go to work. In other words, in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, this is not just a natural disaster; it is also an economic disaster that these local governments cannot dig out of on their own. Our fellow citizens desperately need our help. Listen to what one New Yorker told me about how dangerous things are right now, especially for the sick and elderly. My constituent was trying to help someone in Puerto Rico who was autistic and bedridden and under the care of his 93-year-old father. He needed surgery. He was taken to at least three separate medical facilities, and he spent countless hours in an ambulance with his elderly father. He was transported from one location to the next, but the medical facilities were finding it extremely difficult to communicate with each other. After all of that, his doctor could not find any facility on the island that would accept him into its care. He was finally able to get his treatment, but how many more people are still waiting for help? Another of my constituents is struggling to help her father, who is in a rural area of Puerto Rico. She has only been able to speak to him briefly and exchange limited text messages. Her father suffers from heart issues and glaucoma, and he may need a prescription refill very soon if not right now. There are countless more stories just like these throughout my State and, no doubt, in many of my colleagues' States as well. The $36 billion that is for all of Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands is just not enough. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it cost the Federal Government $120 billion to rebuild the Gulf Coast. That is the amount of funding that we need to be thinking about for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands right now. It will take at least $5 billion just to rebuild Puerto Rico's power grid, and that will not even cover improvements to make the system more resilient and more efficient than it was before the storm. Right now, two-thirds of Puerto Rico still does not have power. That means no refrigeration so that people can have food to eat or can keep medicine from spoiling. It means no electricity for oxygen tanks in nursing homes and no lights at night to keep people safe. It will take additional funding to restore roads so that whatever supplies do make it to Puerto Rico can actually be delivered, and people can get to their loved ones in need. The Small Business Administration will need billions of dollars to help people rebuild their businesses, which are vital to their basic economic recovery. The Army Corps of Engineers will need funding and the authority to rebuild the dams and the ports that were damaged so that commerce can actually go on, and FEMA will likely need $8 billion more just to respond to all of the households that have requested assistance to repair and rebuild their homes through its Individual Assistance Program. In other words, the recovery effort must be massive. There is no way around it, because we can never turn our backs on fellow citizens, whether they are in New York or Texas or Florida or the U.S. Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico. What we need right now is a Marshall Plan. That is the only way that Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are ever going to really fully recover. A new Marshall Plan would help Puerto Rico greatly reduce its crushing debt owned by hedge funds, and a new Marshall plan would also completely modernize infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by rebuilding their energy grid, hospitals, roads and bridges, reservoirs, schools, dams, and the thousands of buildings and homes that were destroyed by these hurricanes. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this effort. We must never stop fighting for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to get the funding they need to fully recover and fully rebuild. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the horrific mass murders last night. My heart is obviously with the victims and their families, and I thank all of our brave first responders who acted so quickly. These senseless mass shootings must end. We cannot allow this to be the new normal, where tragedy after tragedy happens, and we do absolutely nothing to address it. It is not good enough to just send thoughts and prayers and extend our condolences when people are losing their lives to gun violence every day. We still have to learn the details about what happened, but what we do know is this: This violence, this mass murder, is one of the worst massacres we have ever seen in this country. It is yet another reminder of Congress' failure to act to protect Americans from gun violence. It is another disturbing and painful example of how Congress is too weak and too cowardly to stand up to the gun industry. The news reports are saying that the gun was shooting in rapid-fire bursts, a military-style weapon specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, a weapon of war. We have to pass laws that protect the American people from this kind of horrific violence. It should not be legal for a civilian on American soil to own and use a weapon of war like an assault weapon. Our military is highly trained to use such weapons. It should not be easy for any person to buy a suppressor--known by many people as a silencer--to attach to their guns, which makes it harder for police to do their jobs and catch violent criminals. The people of Nevada voted in November to require background checks on all weapons, but the politicians in that State are refusing to implement the will of the people. The violence in Las Vegas is only the latest tragedy like this. Mass shootings get all the news, but every single day in my home State, gun violence on a much smaller scale is destroying more and more lives. We really need to act. We must take gun violence as seriously as we take the threat of terrorism, wherever it is happening. We will get to the facts and the bottom of this. And when we do, let's honor the lives of those we have lost by doing something about it, doing everything we can to make sure this never happens again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is one of the worst disasters our country has ever seen. The men, women, and children who live on these islands are American citizens. Do not forget that. They are suffering, and they need our help. They have no food to eat, no water to drink, no power, and no refrigeration. If we don't give them help now, then many more people there will die--far more than those who were killed during the hurricane itself. I urge my colleagues to think about our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and what they are suffering through right now. Listen to their cries for help. Listen to what one of my constituents said to me: We need help getting my grandparents to come to New York. Their house is damaged and not safe. My grandfather is 93 with Alzheimer's. He is bed bound. He has not been able to walk for over 18 months. My grandmother is 92 and diabetic with a heart problem. My aunt is 68, and we think had a brain aneurism and needs medical care. Please help them. Help get them to New York. We can pay for the plane ticket. We need help getting them to the airport and putting them on the plane. Another New Yorker told me that her father is a veteran of Vietnam and is a retired police department lieutenant who now lives in Puerto Rico. This veteran of the U.S. military told his daughter that he suffered from head trauma because he slipped and fell while clearing water from his house. He told his daughter that Puerto Rico is devastated and looks like an atomic bomb has struck the island. He is without power, cell phone use, and water. He told her that Mother Nature had unleashed a monster on them. He said, ``God have mercy on us,'' and then told his daughter that he loved her. This man is a veteran. He served in our military alongside so many other Americans from Puerto Rico. He protected our country when we needed him, so we need to protect him now. How would you respond if this humanitarian crisis happened in your State or in my State or any other State around the country? Can the Presiding Officer imagine what this would be like if it were Ohio? Can you imagine what this would be like if it were New York? We would act as quickly as we could. We would give people there every resource they need to recover. We wouldn't hesitate even for a moment. This is urgent and serious, and we have to help our fellow citizens now. Congress must provide the funding necessary to send every resource available. Help them clean up. Help them recover without further delay. That includes providing disaster community block grant funding, just as we did for the people of Texas and Florida. We cannot turn our backs on our fellow citizens. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.