Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1520 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 2 hours for debate, equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, well, I just want to respond to my colleagues and chairman and ranking member. While I am extremely grateful for their leadership and their willingness to review and take on the IRC recommendations, the IRC recommendations are limited. It was only a 60-day review of the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment only. It did not look at the military justice system overall. It did not have the benefit of 8 years of review, study, and passing related amendments and changes. Our committee has passed over 200--or nearly 250--different resolutions and changes to how the military deals with sexual harassment and sexual assault, to no effect. Deferring only to the IRC, which is an unelected panel that has only looked at this issue for 60 days, is not sufficient. Not only do we have Senators on the Armed Services Committee who have been studying this issue for 8 years, making recommendations and passing laws on this topic for 8 years, it would seem that to defer to a panel that has only looked at this issue for 60 days, to one issue, seems irresponsible. Second, I do not believe that issues of this weight and of this significance should be dealt with the committee only. The Armed Services Committee has been working on this issue for 10 years, and we have seen no improvement in the number of sexual assaults in the military and on the rate of prosecution and the rate of conviction. That is highly problematic. Also, when I asked for a vote on this measure over the last several years, I have been denied a vote on this measure on the floor by the chairman and the ranking member. So they have been unable or unwilling to allow me to have a vote, given all the bipartisan support we have had from the beginning. This bill has been bipartisan from day one. Senator Grassley has been on this bill from day one, as have several other Republicans. Today, we now have 63 cosponsors to this legislation--widely bipartisan--and more than half of the Armed Services Committee. We have established that the weight of this Senate, in a filibuster-proof majority, wants a floor vote on this and does not want to leave it up to the committee. The Armed Services Committee has lost their opportunity to claim sole jurisdiction over this issue by failing to improve this situation over the last 10 years. In fact, the 250 measures that we passed were all approved by various panels that took 60 days or 90 days or a year to review this issue, and we willingly took those recommendations and turned them into law. I, too, will willingly take the recommendations of the IRC board and turn them into law because they are good and thoughtful recommendations, but they are limited. By design, they were only allowed to look at two crimes--sexual assault and sexual harassment-- and by not looking at all serious crimes, you are not looking at the weight of the problem. We now have evidence that has been developed since 2017 about racial disparities and how the criminal justice system in the military works. Protect Our Defenders issued a significant report that can be found at https:\\www.protectourdefenders.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ Report_20.pdf. Mr. President, that report will show that Black servicemembers were at least 1.29 times and as much as 2.61 times more likely to have disciplinary action taken against them in an average year across all branches from 2006 to 2015. These disparities largely did not improve and in some cases worsened in the most recent years covered. So we have other challenges within the military justice system, and now we have two areas where we have data that the military itself has collected. On sexual assault, we have 10 years of data, and now on racial disparities and racism within the military, we have data over the last 3 years, and that has to be considered as well. So the way to fix both of these problems is really simple: Professionalize the military justice system. Allow serious crimes to be taken out of the chain of command and given to trained military prosecutors who do not have bias and have highly specialized training. If we professionalize the military justice system, we will see justice done because there will be less bias in the system and there will be more professionalism. The combination of those two things, we believe, based on what military members have told us, will result in more cases going forward and more prosecutions. Second, we have the support of military justice experts. We have a letter from the National Institute of Military Justice: The National Institute of Military Justice recommends transferring prosecutorial discretion not only for all sex offenses, but also for all serious offenses--those for which the authorized maximum punishment exceeds one year's confinement. The dividing line is a familiar feature [in the] American criminal justice [system]. These changes will strengthen the fairness of military justice and bolster public confidence in the administration. Similarly, we have a piece published in the Marine Corps Gazette by Capt. Lambert Jackson, who has prosecuted these cases. He served as trial counsel for the 2nd Marine Division and is complex trial counsel. He fundamentally understands the nature of these cases. He was an operational law attorney in the 1st Marine Division. He says: Felony prosecution determinations must be vested with trained military attorneys rather than commanders; disentangling commanders from the often-ugly legal determinations for which they are ill-trained will allow commanders to more effectively focus their attention on preparing their units for conflict. While I appreciate the willingness to take the recommendations of the panel that General Austin has impaneled to look at just two crimes and while I agree that we should accept those recommendations--and I intend to push them into the mark through our personnel subcommittee--we also should look at the reforms that 63 Senators want done. We should also look at the reforms that are supported by more than half of the Armed Services Committee members. We deserve a floor vote, and we deserve a process that cannot be undermined by the committee. I have served on this committee for 10 years, and the chairman well understands that in conference, bills that have passed both sides have been taken out. You do not have to look further than what happened to the safety report language. It was passed in the House, passed in the Senate, and it is safe to report, by the way, that it was offered in the Senate by Senator Ernst and me in the Armed Services Committee because it would deal with retaliation. That bill was passed in the Senate, passed in the House, and taken out in conference. That is a problem. I do not want to expose this massive reform that is a generational reform to the whims of those who decide what gets taken out in conference. It is not acceptable to me to be watered down or reduced or minimized by those in conference. That is the risk you run by not allowing this to have a floor vote, which it deserves.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, one of the concerns I have is that we have been studying this issue and debating this issue for years. We have had several floor debates. We had two floor debates because we only got to vote on it twice. Both times, we had the majority of the Senate promoting this provision. What we have is a record of our allies already making this change, not for the issue of sexual assault in the military but for the issue of defendants' rights. The UK, Israel, Germany, Netherlands, Australia all took serious crimes, a bright-line of felonies out of the chain of command because they believed that a defendant had a right to basic civil liberties. When they did so, they did not see a diminution in command control or the ability to have good order and discipline within the ranks. And they wrote to one of the many panels that we have had over the past 10 years--that information--to tell them that this is a change we have made. And the UK even said this was a change that our commanders basically didn't notice. So this is not some untested, out-of-the-box idea. This is an idea that is supported by the survivors, by veterans, by commanders, by experts in military justice, and by our allies. I believe that our servicemembers deserve a criminal justice system worthy of the sacrifices they make. Last, I do not think this is a moment to defer to the committee. The committee has failed survivors over the last 10 years, and I do not think it is in their purview to make this ultimate decision. When we had a vote on the ``don't ask, don't tell'' repeal--something that was similarly a generational change--it was done on a floor vote, an up-or- down vote, and we had that vote twice. It was called twice because the first time Republicans refused to participate in the vote. We called it again, and we had the 60 votes we needed to overcome a filibuster. I believe this vote is also a once-in-a-generation vote that needs the review and the vote of the entire Senate because, not only does the Congress have the responsibility to oversee the military and the entire executive branch, but this whole body has the ability to oversee individual committees if they aren't going far enough when the moment demands it. I believe this is some such time. We are here for a time such as this. We should do our job. We should vote on this measure, and it should be an up-or-down floor vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I would simply state that we have already established that this is something that should become law. We already have 63 Senators on a bipartisan basis supporting this reform. This is not something that is new to the committee. We have been debating this issue for 8 years. I have asked for a vote every one of those 8 years and have only been given one twice. We had the majority of the Senate on both of those votes. So this bill has been filibustered for 8 years. This bill has been refused to be allowed to be part of the NDAA for a long time. This is not a new issue. These are not new facts. These are things that we have been wrestling with and failing. So I believe it is time this measure comes to the floor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the extraordinary service of my friend Representative Jane Margaret Lakes Harman, who will be leaving her position as president and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars after nearly a decade of distinguished leadership. Born in New York City, Representative Harman grew up in Los Angeles and received her bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Smith College and her law degree from Harvard Law School. Like many young people who believe in the unmatched power of public service, Jane moved to Washington, DC, where she served as a staffer to Senator John Tunney and with the Senate Judiciary Committee. She would go on to serve her country in the Department of Defense and as President Carter's Secretary of the Cabinet. From 1993 until 2011, Representative Harman served the people of Southern California's 36th District. Throughout her tenure, Representative Harman fundamentally improved the national security of the United States through her work on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees. Not content with leading just from the halls of Congress, she sought to find the truth for herself. Her work in pursuit of the facts relevant to protecting our democracy and our allies took her to Guantanamo Bay, Syria, and North Korea. Her oversight and leadership on national security was especially critical throughout this time period, as the United States sought to understand and push back from threats both new and old, including foreign terrorism. While Representative Harman's contributions speak for themselves, her receipt of the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service, the CIA Seal Medal, the CIA Director's Award, and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal highlight an extraordinary career serving the American people. At the Wilson Center, Representative Harman continued her diligent work keeping our policymakers and the public informed on the ongoing security challenges the United States and her allies face. As we prepare and steel ourselves for the next era of security challenges, knowledge produced under her leadership and the relentless efforts of her colleague and staff will continue to be an invaluable resource. Like many extraordinary Americans, Representative Harman carried out this work while also caring for her family, including her four children, her four grandchildren, and her late husband Sidney, an enormous personality in his own right. After a lifetime of public service, from staffer to elected official to thought leader in the policy-making community, Representative Jane Harman has left an indelible mark that has deeply strengthened the safety of our Nation. I am forever grateful for her service, her friendship, and wish her all the best in her next adventures.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I rise today to speak about the future of the Supreme Court, the future of our country, and the responsibility this body has to the people of our Nation. It seems that my Republican colleagues have lost sight of what the people of our States have sent us here to do. They sent us here to raise their voices, represent their interests, and provide them with the help they need. The American people are truly struggling, and they are calling upon us to provide them with real relief during this public health and economic crisis. That should be our No. 1 priority. Eight million Americans have fallen into poverty during this pandemic, including an outsized number of people of color and children. The proportion of American children who sometimes do not have enough to eat is now 14 times higher than it was last year. Parents are now joining food lines for food banks because they cannot feed their children. Cases of COVID are on the rise as we head toward our third peak. Small businesses and their employees don't see a rebound on the horizon. People are sick. They are struggling and scared about the future. For months, my fellow Democrats and I have been calling for a vote on the relief package the House put forward to address these concerns, and we have been met with silence. Then, after dragging their feet, Republicans put forward a totally inadequate $500 billion package that puts the needs of big businesses ahead of working families. What is worse is that they know it has absolutely no chance of becoming law. Their only aim is to score political points, all the while the American people keep suffering. The weeks we should have dedicated to negotiating a real relief package have instead been spent rushing through the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. The hypocrisy is truly stunning. The same people who denied Merrick Garland a hearing months before an election are now trying to ram this process through while an election is already happening. Millions of ballots have already been cast. Millions of Americans are already voting. Their futures are on the line. They should have a say in this outcome. We know why Republicans are rushing. They are rushing because they know it is their last chance to impose a very extreme conservative view on this country. They are rushing because they see a clock ticking toward November, when the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions will continue to have access to affordable healthcare. They are rushing to seat Judge Barrett in time for her to rule on that case--a case that could strip millions of Americans of healthcare in the middle of a pandemic, at the very moment they need it the most. It is simply inhumane. The Affordable Care Act is a matter of life or death. I recently spoke to a New Yorker named Allie Marotta, who has been living with type 1 diabetes since 2006. Last December, she turned 26 and aged off her parents' insurance. Because her work is contract-based, she couldn't enroll with an employer. She made too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford $400 monthly premiums. She was uninsured from December to March and had to ration her insulin, putting her life at risk. It was only when the pandemic started and she lost all of her income that she was able to qualify for the essential plan in New York's ACA marketplace and access her life-sustaining medication. If the ACA is repealed, Allie will have nowhere to turn. She is not alone. My friend Kyle lives with Down syndrome. His father Bill has multiple preexisting conditions. Right now, Bill works part time in order to help Kyle, who needs to be with somebody 24/7. They are worried about cuts to Medicaid, which could affect the job-coaching Kyle receives at the pizza parlor where he works, and about the repeal of the ACA, which provides them the only care they can afford. Rushing to seat this nominee means rushing to put Allie's life and Kyle's life and millions of Americans in danger. My colleagues are putting them all at risk only to further a very conservative agenda. It is extreme. Their agenda is to seat a nominee who has called Roe v. Wade ``barbaric,'' when nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe that it is a fundamental, human, and civil right for women to make decisions about their bodies, including when or if or under what circumstances they will have children; a nominee who referred to sexual orientation as a preference--language that is not just outdated but truly harmful when two in three Americans believe love is love, believe in marriage equality, believe in the right to marry the person they love; a nominee who refused to admit climate change is settled science and not a controversial issue, when 99 percent of scientists and 81 percent of Americans believe that humans are drivers of global warming. So whose views does she represent? Certainly not those of the people who sent us here. They believe in access to reproductive care. They believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ community. They believe in science. They believe that this seat should be filled by the next President and confirmed by the next Senate. They have made it clear and don't want the process of a lifetime appointment rushed. This is the wrong judge for this seat, and this is the wrong process for a lifetime appointment. It is hypocritical. It is dangerous. It is not what the American people want. I ask my colleagues to stop ignoring the people who sent us here and to remember that it is our job to look out for their best interests--no one else's. If we don't do that, we don't have the right to be here at all. I also want to express my condolences to the families and loved ones who have experienced the human toll of the coronavirus pandemic. Over 220,000 Americans have died, and millions of others have been changed forever. I am going to read some of the names of the people we have lost. The families of these individuals have given permission for their names to be read on the Senate floor, adding them and their stories to the Congressional Record: Mark Anthony Urquiza, Paul Osterman, Frederick Harold Quinn, Richard Rosenberg, Charles Mahoney, Felix Chidinma Oruh, Margaret R. Hogan, Mahmooda Shaheen, Alan Kaplan, William W. Boyd, Breda C. Meadows, Jose Morales Ramirez, David Benfield, John A. Alexiades, Michael F. Hughes, Bob McDonald, Richard Proia, Rashonne Smith, Jose ``Joe'' Ramirez, Steve Petras, Sr., Fareeda Kadwani, Jean Yettito, Abby Spitzer, Robert ``Bobby'' McCoskey, Jose A. Matias, Erick B. Chavez, Anastasia Koiveroglou, Shafqat Rasul Khan, Lynette Scullen and Joan Scullen, Marue Santini, Buck McKinney, Christina Danielo, Cal Schoenfeld, Gregg Pappadake, Sarah ``Sally'' Bielen, Rolando Castillo, Nais Coque, David Tashman, Joseph LoBianco, Ramash Quasba, Edward Alonzo. I would also like to share some concerns of the people of New York over what a future without the Affordable Care Act would look like. While my colleagues try to rush this confirmation so Judge Barrett can be seated in time to rule on a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose access to their healthcare, I think it is important that we remember how that case will affect the people we are here to serve. In New York, there are more than 8 million people with preexisting conditions who could face higher costs, fewer benefits, and more trouble finding the coverage they need if the ACA is repealed. There are more than 3 million people who could be denied coverage altogether over preexisting conditions that are deemed uninsurable. There are more than 470,000 people who have been diagnosed with COVID, each of whom could find themselves paying higher premiums for worse coverage. My mailbox has been flooded with letters from New Yorkers who are cancer survivors and parents and people with disabilities who are all worried about their families not being able to access the care that they need. Working to take away their care, especially in the middle of a pandemic, is inhumane. Jane from West Islip wrote: As a cancer survivor, I am very concerned about healthcare and pre-existing conditions. We're facing a healthcare meltdown. This next Justice could be the deciding vote that determines whether health care for tens of millions of people, protections for pre-existing conditions, and other provisions of the ACA that benefit almost everyone, will stay or go. Judge Barrett's documented hostility towards the ACA disqualifies her from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. A vote for Judge Barrett is a vote to end healthcare. Oppose her nomination. Jane is not alone in her concerns. Candice from Brooklyn wrote: I am writing to urge you to oppose the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I am worried that Judge Barrett's statements on the Affordable Care Act mean that, if confirmed, she would vote to overturn the ACA. Millions of Americans with disabilities rely on the ACA to protect our right to healthcare. If the ACA is overturned, especially during a pandemic, millions of lives could be at risk. This is a concern I have heard over and over and over and over again. Meredith from New York City wrote to me about Stacy Staggs, the mother of two young children who both have complex medical needs and disabilities, who shared powerful testimony during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Meredith wrote: When she spoke, she spoke for me. The ACA and disability rights are at stake. This confirmation should wait until after the American people have chosen who should pick the next justice. Parents across the State are also worried about what the Court with Justice Barrett would mean for their children. Susan from Amherst wrote to me about her daughter. She wrote: My daughter is an amazing young woman--and a lesbian--and an individual with preexisting conditions. Her depression has worsened because she sees what a confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation would mean to her and many of her friends. Even Pope Francis believes members of the LGBTQ+ community deserve to be part of a family and should be able to participate in civil unions. Please help! She needs to have hope! The rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is concerning. Not only have Senators not had enough time to duly vet her, but we are in the middle of a highly consequential election in which millions have already cast their ballots. Further, Judge Barrett's LGBTQ rights record suggests she cannot be an impartial jurist on these matters. I'm deeply concerned about the future of rights for the LGBTQ community. These letters also send dire reminders of what life was like for too many New Yorkers before the Affordable Care Act--a history we should never repeat. Jan from Ridgewood wrote: I am 61 years old and have been self-employed for most of my working life. This circumstance has made me a healthcare voter! For decades I thought I was the only one complaining about impossibly high health care costs. The cheapest plan that I could find had a monthly premium of $692. For me as an individual, with my husband--[who was] also self-employed-- and daughter it was about 1,250. After my divorce, I went job-hunting for health insurance. I was willing to work for free if I could be put on a health insurance plan. I didn't find any. The ACA put an end to that demeaning search. My income fluctuates, so my premium goes up-and-down, but it has never been as expensive as it was before ObamaCare. There is ample evidence to suggest that Judge Barrett would overturn the Affordable Care Act. Confirming such a justice during what is perhaps the worst public health crisis in American history, and while the Senate refuses to act to address the coronavirus economic and health crisis, is unconscionable. Let me say that again: Healthcare is so important that she was willing to work for free just to have it. That is what is on the line here. Repealing the ACA would also mean an end to the rules preventing insurance companies from charging women higher premiums than men and requiring them to cover essential health benefits for women. That means women would not only have to pay more, but it would also be harder for the more than 4 million New York women who are covered by private insurance to find coverage for maternity care, contraception, and cost- free screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and bone density. It would return us to the days when uninsured women could be denied coverage altogether if they are pregnant or have a health problem. It would also put our older adults at risk. Striking down the ACA would reopen the prescription drug coverage cap--the so-called doughnut hole--and could leave nearly 350,000 seniors in our State paying thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs for the medications they need. Thomas is one of those seniors. He writes: The price for the family insurance is high and with our present administration will go higher and millions of Americans will not be able to have insurance. And this is the time it is needed with the lack of the virus control. Many Americans are out of work and will never be able to get a job that paid as much as the previous job. . . . Many Americans have died because the administration would not treat the virus when it was starting. Many homes now have less people bringing in money to pay bills because of this. The administration has no plan to replace ObamaCare. . . . And with the second and third round of virus and flu, many more may die. . . . Seniors are on a fixed income and seldom get any breaks when it comes to bills. Part D of Medicare prescriptions really went up this year. At the end of the year, we fall in the doughnut hole and have to pay two to three or more times for our medicine than we were paying. And then at the beginning of the year, we must pay the deductible which, on the average, is 400 plus dollars. But remember we are on a fixed income, so that means going without something else. Again, a zero-deductible plan does not cover much unless you pay above 70 dollars a month. Do not expect the average American to have much extra money. A lot of people live on Social Security alone, and the present administration wants to stop that income. The American people do not want to lose their healthcare, not in the middle of a pandemic, not ever, and they certainly don't believe we should be prioritizing this nomination over providing them with real relief. Christine from Beacon wrote: I find it appalling and horrific that instead of a humane relief bill for the people who have lost family members, jobs, homes, the stability of their children's shelter, food security and education--not to mention the social cost of interrupting normal childhood social development and just the terrible grief and fear [people are dealing with] . . . that instead of working on a relief bill, we have another judge infuriatingly and unfairly jammed in to the court. The Supreme Court! My god . . . the lack of respect and audacity of beginning this process. There is wrong and right. And to quote a great patriot: ``This is America. And here, right matters.'' Christine is right. Doing the right thing for the American people matters. It is actually our job. New Yorkers and people across this country who have lost their jobs and their employer-based healthcare are calling on the Senate to provide them with the relief they need to survive this health and economic crisis. Instead, the Republicans are pouring salt in their wounds by rushing this process in order to eliminate the Medicaid expansions and marketplaces these newly jobless Americans have turned to for coverage. Overturning the ACA would immediately end the Medicaid coverage nearly 1.9 million beneficiaries in New York are relying on. These stories I have shared represent the fears and concerns of the people who sent us here to represent them. They are people with debilitating illnesses, parents who are worried about sick children, adults who are worried about elderly parents, and young men and women who live with conditions like diabetes and are already struggling to find insurance that will help them access the insulin they need. They are struggling, and it is our job to get them the help they need. The American people oppose this nomination. They are watching, and one way or another, they will be heard. I would like to read from an article in the New York Times by Reed Abelson and Abby Goodnough, entitled: ``If the Supreme Court Ends ObamaCare, Here's What It Would Mean.'' ``The Affordable Care Act touches the lives of most Americans, and its abolition could have a significant effect on many millions more people than those who get their health coverage through it. What would happen if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act? The fate of the sprawling, decade-old health law known as Obamacare was already in question, with the high court expected to hear arguments a week after the presidential election in the latest case seeking to overturn it. But now, the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg increases the possibility that the court could abolish it, even as millions of people are losing job-based health coverage during the coronavirus pandemic. A federal judge in Texas invalidated the entire law in 2018. The Trump administration, which had initially supported eliminating only some parts of the law, then changed its position and agreed with the judge's ruling. Earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Mr. Trump has vowed to replace Justice Ginsburg, a stalwart defender of the law, before the election. If he is successful in placing a sixth conservative on the court, its new composition could provide the necessary five votes to uphold the Texas decision. Many millions more people would be affected by such a ruling than those who rely on the law for health insurance. Its many provisions touch the lives of most Americans, from nursing mothers to people who eat at chain restaurants. Here are some potential consequences, based on estimates by various groups. 133 Million

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 today to remember a daughter of New York and an American giant. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an icon, a legend, and a role model for so many people, myself included. We may never see a jurist with her kind of courage again in our lifetimes. The daughter of an immigrant furrier and Garment District bookkeeper, born and raised in Brooklyn, she pushed back against every expectation and limitation that society had for her and rose to the bench of the highest Court in the land. She was a brilliant legal mind, an unparalleled jurist, an opera fan, fearless dissenter, and the ``Notorious RBG.'' Justice Ginsburg spent her whole life fighting against injustices, those she faced personally and those she could not abide in society. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to law school, she was one of just 9 women in her class of 500. She graduated at the top of her class but was rejected by law firm after law firm because she was a woman and because she was a mother. Undaunted, she found a different path to success. She educated generations of law students at Rutgers and Columbia and spent her time outside the classroom at the ACLU, becoming an architect of the plan to eradicate gender discrimination. One strategically chosen case at a time, she proved to a male-dominated legal system that discrimination on the basis of sex is real. She was a trailblazer. She took herself to places that few women had ever been, and she took the law to places it had never been. She stood for all of us. She stood against discrimination in all its forms. She was someone who fundamentally understood the gifts that people have to give to this country regardless of one's sex, one's gender orientation, one's race, or one's background. She knew that the words etched in stone above the entrance of the Supreme Court--``Equal Justice Under Law''--were still a goal, not a given, and she fought to make them a reality every day of her life. As has been noted, in the Jewish tradition, only those of great righteousness die on Rosh Hashanah--because God determined that they were needed until the end. Justice Ginsburg was truly someone of great righteousness, and at the very end, she left us with one final message: ``My most fervent wish is that I not be replaced until a new president is installed.'' She asked us to respect the right of the American people to be heard, but within just hours of her passing, that wish was denied by Members of this body. The hypocrisy of my colleagues is breathtaking. The same Members rushing this process are the very same ones who denied Merrick Garland hearings because his nomination was supposedly too close to an election. He was nominated in March. It is nearly October. This election is not just close. It is already happening. People across the country are already casting their ballots. Yet this is about more than rank hypocrisy. Let's look at what is really at stake. The first case that will be argued in November will decide if 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions will continue to have access to affordable healthcare. Think about that. My Republican colleagues are rushing through the confirmation of a judge in order to nearly guarantee that 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions will see their premiums go up or have their healthcare ripped away entirely. That would be inhumane at any time, but in the middle of a pandemic, it is truly unthinkable. They are rushing to vote on a Justice who will decide the fate of more than 640,000 DACA recipients who have known no other home, no other country, but this one. They seek to confirm a judge who will revoke the rights of 50 percent of the population to make decisions about their own bodies and their reproductive healthcare. This new judge could very well overturn recently decided cases that have finally granted same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry the persons whom they love. This new judge will likely decide on the Nation's ability to conduct a fair and accurate census and the right of every person in this country to have equal representation under the law. It is clear to me why our colleagues are rushing this. They fear that the American people simply don't agree with their views. They fear that this is their last chance to impose an ultraconservative view on our country, in which women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigrants' rights take a back seat to corporate interests and discrimination. That is not what the American people want. They should get the chance to have their say. Their ability to access healthcare, to marry, to live in this country, and to be represented fairly and fully by this government is on the line. Their rights hang in the balance. The actions of my colleagues deny the people a voice. What does that say about this Chamber? What does it say about our democracy I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Objection.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified so that in addition to the request of the Senator from Alaska, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 317, S. 908, the Fluke Fairness Act. I request that the bill be read a third time and passed and that motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I object.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object. This amendment list does not include my amendment No. 1932, a bill that the Presiding Officer and I have worked on and a bill that the majority leader has voted for. This amendment is so simple. It professionalizes how the military prosecutes serious crimes--serious crimes such as sexual assault, rape, and murder. It removes the systemic fear that survivors have in reporting these crimes. According to the Pentagon's most recent survey, almost 21,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in 2018. This is a 30-percent increase from the year before. The current climate is not good for survivors. Currently, most survivors are retaliated against when they come forward and report these crimes. In fact, the rate of retaliation is two-thirds of all survivors, unchanged from past years. Worse than that, of the cases that the command considers for action, of those unique few, only 10 percent of those went to trial. Year after year, we have hearings, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. We have hearings and the commanders and generals come forward and say: Ma'am, we have got this. Let us take care of this. We have got this. We know what we are doing. We understand. We are going to take this crime so seriously. We are going to prosecute these cases. Leave it to us. We know what we are doing. It is infuriating. They should not say they know what they are doing or they are just lying to us--it is one or the other--but, either way, they are failing. The failure rate is so high--20,000 rapes last year; less than 10 percent going to trial of the small number that are even considered. The rate of conviction is going down. There is no measurable in the entire system of military justice for these survivors that is getting better--not one aspect. ``We have got this, ma'am. Leave it to us.'' It is just not true. They don't have it. They never have. If they don't look themselves in the mirror and recognize their failures, they never will. Year after year, thousands of servicemembers are raped and sexually assaulted and assailants are not held accountable. It is not just a few bad apples. In many of those cases, the assailant is someone in the survivor's chain of command--the same chain of command that decides the case. They pick the judges, the juries, the prosecutors, and the defense counsel. That is the system. That system is so weighted that if a commander has a view before they go in, your chance of success is very little. There is no other judicial system in America that would ever allow this to happen. That commander is not even trained. He is not a prosecutor. He is not a lawyer. This system is not delivering justice. People in the military do not have the benefit of civil liberties because of this. They don't get justice. They never had it, and they never will. This amendment, this bipartisan and commonsense reform, leaves the majority of uniquely military crimes within the chain of command. It would only remove the decision making over whether to prosecute serious crimes to independent, trained, unbiased military impartial prosecutors. It is the Senate's job to provide the oversight and accountability to the U.S. military. We owe our U.S. servicemembers everything. For every year that we don't address this fundamental scourge, it is another year we are failing them. I have asked for a vote, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, for 5 years in a row. This is the fifth year I am denied a vote. It is the fifth year that you are saying to our servicemembers that you don't care, and you don't want to fix the system. We have tried every small-ball reform you can imagine--every study, every panel, every recommendation. We have made sure those recommendations got in the underlying bill every year. They are just not working. So I would like for us to look ourselves in the mirror and say: Are we doing our job? Are we standing by our servicemembers when they need us? Sadly, the answer is no. Mr. Chairman, I would like to modify your request to include amendment No. 1932 to just get a vote on it.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw my objection, and I look forward to working with you on the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to address a glaring inequality in the law--one that leaves our servicemembers with fewer protections from discrimination than civilians. On June 15, the Supreme Court issued a momentous decision--welcomed by Members of both parties--extending civil rights employment protections to LGBTQ individuals in workplaces across America. That decision, however, does not apply to servicemembers. That means our servicemembers, who often come from communities that have for generations bravely sacrificed for the United States, currently enjoy fewer statutory protections than their civilian counterparts. Think about what that says about our country: The law treats the people willing to risk their lives to defend our freedoms as second class citizens. It is unconscionable, and it is un-American. In this moment of reckoning on civil rights, we must ensure those rights extend to all of our military servicemembers. The push for the desegregation of our troops, for gender integration into combat, and for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell were all met with similar arguments about how increased opportunity for the group in question would hamper readiness, unit cohesion, or otherwise weaken the military. Those arguments have been proven wrong every single time. It is, in fact, the lack of protections for these groups that hamper readiness. Without protections, an able platoon sergeant can be stigmatized and driven from the military because he is transgender. His years of experience and the immense investments the military has made in him can be erased with the stroke of a pen. Our military has grown only stronger as it better represents our country. But, right now, in the year 2020, people who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices for our freedoms are being told no simply because of who they are. We must do better. And we can. We can make sure the National Defense Authorization Act includes discrimination protections for all servicemembers. My amendment with Senator Collins would codify in the law that servicemembers of all races, religions, and sexes are protected from discrimination. It would affirm that Americans of every race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin have the right to join and serve and sacrifice in our military. I was proud to have Senator John McCain join me in leading similar legislation to protect transgender troops 3 years ago. The late Senator said: ``Any member of the military who meets the medical and readiness standards should be allowed to serve--including those who are transgender.'' I hope this will be the year that we deliver the results he wanted for our troops. Placing language safeguarding this right into the NDAA can help us begin to overcome an unfortunate legacy of creating artificial, blatantly unfair barriers to service by underrepresented groups. It is a legacy that continues to this day with the Trump administration's ban on transgender servicemembers. That discriminatory ban is not only an insult to members of the transgender community who have served our country; it is an insult to every LGBTQ person who has given their life to protect it. Arguments against open transgender service have no basis in experience or in science. Transgender individuals served openly in the military for more than 2\1/2\ years without any readiness or cohesion issues. I know because I asked all four service chiefs and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they all confirmed it. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, who was then Chief of Staff of the Army, told me that he had received ``precisely zero reports of issues of cohesion, discipline, [or] morale'' caused by transgender individuals in the service. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and other experts agree: There is no medically valid reason to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Anyone who can meet the military standards should be allowed to serve--and serve in an environment free from discrimination. It is that simple. Our Armed Services should reflect the best of what this country has to offer--in their values and in their ranks. We cannot allow for laws that unnecessarily limit their ability to recruit and retain the best person for the job. I ask my colleagues to support our troops with more than lip service. I ask my colleagues to extend to them protections from discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. These are people who are willing to fight for our country. These are people who are willing to die for our country. This body and our country must be willing to fight for them. My amendment will do exactly that. I ask all of you to support its inclusion in this year's NDAA

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise again to address another issue. I rise because, according to the Pentagon's recent biannual survey, almost 21,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted in the year 2018. That was a 38-percent increase from the year before. I rise because the current climate of retaliation in our armed services and the lack of justice provided by the chain of command meant nearly three-quarters of those assaults went unreported, and less than 10 percent of cases considered for command action went to trial--less than 10 percent. I rise because I stood in this very Chamber in 2013 and shared essentially the same statistics. Year after year, the leaders of our armed services come to Congress and commit to making things better. They commit to us in hearing after hearing: We will get this right. Yet, year after year, thousands of servicemembers are raped and sexually assaulted, and their assailants are not held accountable. In many of those cases, the assailant is someone in the survivor's chain of command--the same chain of command that will decide the case, picking judge, jury, prosecutor, defense counsel--all decided by a commander in that chain of command. There is no other judicial system in America that would ever allow this to happen. This system is not delivering justice. The chain of command is not delivering justice. These decisions--these fundamental civil rights decisions--need to be made somewhere else. They need to be made by trained, impartial military professionals, prosecutors, lawyers--people who are trained to make this very hard decision. We are asking survivors to come forward in an environment where they know that there is less than a 10-percent chance that the chain of command will try their assailant for a crime and--worse--that there is only a two in three chance that they themselves--they themselves--will face retaliation. Despite repeated efforts to stamp out the scourge of retaliation against military sexual assault survivors, the most recent Pentagon survey found that 64 percent of these survivors have experienced some form of retaliation for reporting the crime. This figure is statistically unchanged from 2016. It is unacceptable. I ask you: Who is this system designed for? I think so often about a Marine veteran who told me: When I reported the assault, my command responded with retaliation . . . ostracism, intimidation, and isolation. The humiliation of the retaliation was worse than the assault because it was sanctioned from those same leaders I once would have risked my life for. The climate of retaliation comes from the top. It comes from the chain of command. They should not be deciding these cases. They do not have the background or the impartiality necessary to deliver justice. This system is broken, and it is failing our servicemembers. This Congress has passed and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on incremental reforms since 2013. During this time, an estimated 137,000 servicemembers have been assaulted. Let me say that again. During that time, 137,000 servicemembers have been sexually assaulted. What are we doing here? Can we not hold the U.S. military accountable? Can we not do our jobs? Can we not stand up for the men and women who risk their lives for us every day? Incremental change that leaves the power in the hands of the chain of command is not enough. We have the proof and the evidence. ``We've got this ma'am; we've got this.'' They say it every year. They don't have it, and they haven't had it for the last 7 years we have been focused on this very issue. It does not do enough to protect our servicemembers from sexual assault in the ranks or to punish perpetrators who commit these violent crimes. Just for a minute, imagine this is your daughter or your son. Imagine just for a minute that your children decide to go into the military. Do you think they will be protected? My bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act, is being offered as an amendment to the NDAA. This amendment will professionalize how the military prosecutes serious crimes like sexual assault, and it will remove the systemic fear that survivors have to report these crimes. Survivors don't report these crimes because they fear the retaliation against them. This bipartisan and commonsense reform leaves the majority of uniquely military crimes, as well as all crimes punishable by less than 1 year of confinement, within the chain of command. It would only move one decision--literally, one decision--that only 3 percent of commanders actually have the right to make, and that decision will be made by a trained military prosecutor. These prosecutors, or military JAGS, are required to be licensed attorneys in good standing with their State bar associations and are subject to professional rules of ethics. Those are commonsense standards, but they are not the standards that commanders have to meet. Commanders aren't typically lawyers. They are not typically criminal lawyers. They are not trained in how to make this fundamental decision about whether a crime has been committed. So why wouldn't you let military police investigate the crime just as they do today? They take that investigation and, instead of putting it on the commander's general counsel's desk, they will put it on a military prosecutor's desk. The military prosecutor gets to make a decision: yes or no; I can prosecute or I can't. Then, that file goes right back to the commander. So when the commander wants to do nonjudicial punishment, he gets to do it. Every time a prosecutor says there is no case here, he gets to have the same authority he has today. Under today's standards, only 10 percent of these cases go to trial. That would mean the commanders don't get to make that one decision that 3 percent of them get to make 10 percent of the time because 90 percent of the time it comes right back to the commander to do whatever nonjudicial punishment he or she thinks is appropriate. This is a very small but important change because when you make this change, the survivor sees that the decision isn't being made within her chain of command. She or he sees that the decision is being made by somebody trained to make the decision--someone who is actually a prosecutor. He or she will then believe it is worth reporting the crime. So many of these crimes don't even get reported and, sadly, the percentage of those that are being reported is going up--the percentage of those reported confidentially. It doesn't show that there is any faith in the system if people will only report if they don't name their perpetrator. This reform is nothing new. This reform has been done all across the world by our allies. Our allies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, Germany, and Australia have all removed reporting and prosecution of violent sex crimes out of the chain of command. Leaders in those militaries have reported that these changes have not diminished their ability in any way. It has not diminished their commanders' ability to maintain good order and discipline, to train their troops, and to do what they are there for. Congress owes our servicemembers a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. These brave men and women who have experienced the unimaginable are counting on us this year to finally take real action. Until we do, we continue to fail in our responsibility to protect them. Madam President, this is something we have worked on together for over 7 years. This is something that, on a bipartisan basis, this Chamber has worked on for 7 years. We have been denied a vote on this over the last 5 years--denied a vote on this the last 5 years. The military has fought tooth and nail to not put in these fundamental reforms. They ask us over and over: Trust us; we got this. Trust us; we got this. They don't have it. They haven't had it, and they don't focus on it. If you just look at the report from this year alone, we are up to 20,000--over 20,000--sexual assaults in the last year. The percentage of cases that are being reported confidentially is going up. The percentage of cases that are being reported openly is going down. The percentage of cases that are going to trial is going down. The percentage of cases ending in conviction is going down. So under no measure today has the military succeeded in this mission, under absolutely none. They say they got this. They don't have it. They never have. And if we don't do our job this year, they never will. This is not something new. This is something that other countries that are our allies have done. It professionalizes the military. It gives hope to survivors. It creates permission for them to report these crimes. If more crimes are reported, more prosecutions will be completed, and more cases will end in conviction. Send a message: Convict perpetrators. Protect survivors. Honor the sacrifice and legacy of every man and woman who serves in the military today who will give their life for this country. That is our responsibility. I urge everyone in this Chamber to stand with our troops. Stand with the men and women who sacrifice everything, and do the right thing. It is our job. We are supposed to provide oversight and accountability over the U.S. military. It is the Senate's job, and every year that we don't address this fundamental scourge is another year we fail. I am tired of this Chamber failing our servicemembers. I am tired of our commanders and our military failing our servicemembers. We owe everything to them I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak about an overwhelming and urgent need to reform the way our country approaches policing. The death of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Tony McDade, Andrew Kearse, and countless others are deeply disturbing and, most unfortunately, nothing new. The truth is, for every name we know, there are countless more that we don't. This type of oppression and brutality has been part of Black- American lives for far too long. It should not happen, and in the horrific instances when it does, it should not take a viral video and a nationwide protest to get some measure of justice. We are at a moment of moral reckoning in this country, and we must take action. Our country needs bold reforms to address the systemic and institutional racism that plagues our criminal justice system. The Justice in Policing Act of 2020, introduced by my colleagues Senators Booker and Harris, would make crucial and much needed changes to address our Nation's policing practices and policies. We should pass this bill as soon as possible. We were reminded, sadly, of the urgency of this legislation on Friday, when Rayshard Brooks was shot in the back by police in Atlanta. It is clear that we don't have time to waste. Lives are on the line today. We need reform now. We need accountability, and we need it to happen now. The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 would ban the no-knock warrant police used to enter Breonna Taylor's apartment before killing her. It would prevent unnecessary deaths like Rayshard Brooks by requiring that officers use deescalation techniques and resort to deadly force only as the last resort. It also includes a provision that I worked on with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the Eric Garner Excessive Force Prevention Act. It would ban the types of choke holds and carotid holds that killed George Floyd and Eric Garner by making the use of these dangerous maneuvers a Federal civil rights violation. Black Americans are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans, despite accounting for less than 13 percent of our population. This legislation would not only end racial and religious profiling, but it would mandate training on racial bias and on an officer's duty to intervene. The bill would also improve accountability by requiring Federal uniform police officers to wear body cameras and require State and local law enforcement to use existing Federal funding to ensure their officers use body cameras as well. Too often, after these unthinkable incidents of brutality, we learn that law enforcement officers responsible had a history of misconduct. This bill would collect better and more accurate data on police misconduct and the use of force and create a national registry that would track officers' complaint records throughout their careers. And it would improve the use of pattern and practice investigations into unconstitutional and discriminatory policing practice at the Federal, State, and local levels. The fact is that 99 percent of killings by police do not result in any charges. Convictions on those charges are even rarer. This bill would amend the Federal criminal statute that has made it extremely difficult to prosecute law enforcement officers. Finally, the bill would take the long overdue step of making lynching a Federal crime. After the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, it is clear that this problem must be addressed. We can never bring back those who we have been lost in these horrific killings or even begin to make these families whole. But we can and must take steps toward making sure that these tragedies never happen again. An Executive order that merely restates the law that Congress passed in 1994 is clearly not enough. Establishing justice is at the heart of the preamble of our Constitution, and we must deliver on the promise that we made as a nation. We must match the efforts of those working to change the system from the outside with the efforts of those who are changing the system from the inside, with efforts to change it for good. We have a lot of work ahead of us, and this bill will ensure that we start on the right foot. I would like to read a passage of Scripture that informs me on this issue. Matthew 25, verse 44: They also will answer: Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? He will reply: Truly, I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Then, they will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life. We have a moral obligation. We have an obligation given our shared commitment to upholding the Constitution. We have a moral responsibility to not let this moment pass. Who are we? What defines us? What kind of people are we? If we refuse to act now when the country is raging--rightfully so--we decline to do what is right. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I strongly disagree with both of my colleagues' statements because, in fact, there is no administrative burden given to the small businesses. In fact, our bill is doing exactly what the small businesses want, which is to provide direct payments to the businesses--not a tax credit that they get many months in the future but direct payments to them. I don't think unemployment insurance given to the States is going to result in immediate relief for the employees who need it. Again, you are creating a false structure. Requiring people to quit their jobs so they can care for a child who has been sent from school is absurd. It is far better to have a national paid leave program in this country. And unlike what my colleague said, it is not permanent; it is temporary, and there is no administrative burden. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 1559

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, across New York State and around the country, schools are closing and businesses are shutting their doors as we face this unprecedented crisis. This public health emergency has exposed the weakness in our economy and in our system. We are not doing nearly enough for workers, for their families, and those who need to deal with medical and financial emergencies that this virus has caused. Congress has a duty to look out for families who are staring down uncertainty, fear, and financial ruin. Our top priority must be strengthening our public health system and ensuring that hard-working Americans, who are facing this crisis due to no fault of their own, can keep their jobs while taking care of themselves and their loved ones. We must also ensure that businesses, many of which have been forced to close their doors in the name of the public good, do not have to cover these unexpected costs alone. The PAID Leave Act ensures that every worker in America has full paid sick and family leave. It strengthens their financial footing. It gives certainty and confidence to businesses. Congress has a responsibility to pass this legislation. It is not only a health imperative but a financial one too. Unfortunately, our colleague, Senator Johnson--his amendment is cynical and counterproductive. This amendment would eliminate paid sick and family leave provisions in favor of providing coronavirus-infected people with unemployment compensation. So what he is saying is you have to actually lose your job if you need to stay home to care for a loved one or because you are sick yourself, and that is just wrongheaded because, the truth is, we want people to keep their jobs. We want people to have their jobs be there when they get better or when their family member gets better. We want them to have their jobs after they recover themselves. This is why paid leave and sick leave is such a better solution than just straight-up unemployment insurance. Workers deserve protections so they don't lose their job just because their kids' school closed, and they need to be home to look after them. Wouldn't any employee in America today prefer to keep their job and have paid sick leave rather than having to quit and take unemployment insurance? Wouldn't every Member of this body and President Trump himself want to keep unemployment numbers from exploding any further than they are already? While the unemployment system will continue to play a very important role for those who have lost their jobs, it cannot be the only answer. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership and her steadfast advocacy for family and medical leave and paid sick days. This amendment is crafted to provide extraordinary economic stimulus and support to our businesses when they need it absolutely the most, and most of all, it is giving certainty because people are afraid. They don't want to have to spread coronavirus to every person they work with. They don't want to have to leave their children unattended at home. They would love to stay at work, but under the circumstances, they cannot. Allow them to keep their jobs. Allow them to draw down on paid leave while their child is at home for a week, a month, or 3 months. If they themselves are sick, God forbid, make sure they are not in the community spreading this virus, make sure they can be home getting better and reemerging to do their work when they are well. Democrats stand ready to work with Senate Republicans to pass this important bill. We need to meet the needs of the American people today. This is our duty in this grave time of need. 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, right now, across New York State, the country, and the world, we are facing a crisis not seen in a century. It risks the health of our families and the health of our fellow Americans as well as our economic present and future. We are at the edge of a precipice, and lives are on the line. It poses a deep challenge to our collective psyche. How do we defend against such an overwhelming danger? How do we overcome our fear? If you are a person who looks to history, you may turn to great leaders of the past. If you are a veteran or serving in our military today, you might look to your training. We are at war with this invisible threat. How do we create the right strategy, tactics, and assault plans? If you are a person of faith, you might turn to scripture. The book of Ephesians tells us how to fight against such fears: ``Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.'' It calls us to take up our ``shield of faith,'' to wear our ``belt of truth,'' and to stand firmly with our feet ``fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.'' Regardless of where your inspiration comes from, in times like these, we are afraid, and we need to be brave. We need to be selfless, and we need to be courageous. We have to look inward to find our inner strength, our resilience. We have to use our God-given common sense, and we need to fight--fight far harder than we could ever imagine. Our enemy is clear--a novel coronavirus that is at our doorstep and taking lives. Our mission is to stop the spread, protect the vulnerable, and ultimately prevent future outbreaks. Every blocked transmission is a victory. Our frontline defenders are our doctors, our nurses, our first responders. Our National Guard is rightfully being called in to support these actions. To defeat this enemy, though, we need far more support. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and all caregivers are going to be essential in limiting the spread of this virus. We need them added to the frontlines today--all of them. The House passed a bill last week that takes a first step in beginning to address these needs. It provides mandatory emergency sick days and up to 3 months of coronavirus-related paid leave for some workers. This puts us closer to helping those on the frontlines of this crisis so they no longer have to face the impossible choice of whether to stay home to care for themselves, for a child who is home from school, for a loved one who is sick, or to risk public health to put food on the table for their families. Unfortunately, the bill falls short. First, over half of the private sector workforce was left out of the paid sick and family leave provisions. Let me say that again. Of the over 100 million private sector workers in this country, over half will not be helped by this bill. Companies with more than 500 workers are not required to provide any paid sick leave, and the administration can give exemptions to companies with fewer than 50 employees. Taken together, this could amount to exemptions for about 75 percent of workers. Worse, it fails to take care of many of those who are most at risk--low-wage workers. These are the workers who are the least able to afford to take a day off, let alone weeks to self-quarantine. In order to fight this crisis, we must slow the spread of this virus and ultimately stop its transmission. We must provide paid sick days and paid family and medical leave to every American worker now. There can be no exceptions or carve-outs, especially not for the wealthiest companies in the world. For those who say this can't be done, they could not be more wrong. We should never send Armed Forces into battle without a plan, the right equipment, and the resources they need to win. If we don't equip all of our frontline defenders, including our parents and caregivers, we will fail to limit this spread. Second, it is clear that, in a matter of days, most public school children in America will be out of school. The stress this puts on working parents is truly hard to articulate with or without there being guaranteed paid leave. Many low-income children rely on school meals for the best meal of the day. A school lunch can often make the difference between being healthy and being malnourished. Therefore, we need a surge in food stamps, food distribution, and emergency meal delivery programs. Third, we need a surge of testing. Without this critical information, we cannot reopen schools or businesses. To ensure universal free testing, we must authorize testing by all labs and hospitals and remove burdensome restrictions. From the start of this crisis, public health officials have uniformly highlighted the importance of there being widely available testing and have decried our lack of it. As we have more fully grasped the magnitude of this crisis, States have developed their own tests, and their labs and hospitals are ready to conduct them. However, the approval process is still lagging. We are testing below our capacity because the FDA and CDC have yet to approve testing methods. This is not the time to let redtape stand in our way. The administration must authorize States to utilize their own testing methods in their own facilities in order to try to keep up with the spread of this virus. Again, fighting a war without facts on the ground, without critical intelligence, cannot prevail. We need this information--yesterday. Fourth, I support Governor Cuomo's call to deploy the Army Corps of Engineers to build temporary medical facilities so that when hospitals are overwhelmed, we can move people into those temporary facilities. The Federal Government must work aggressively to help our States increase hospital capacity. Finally--and I can't emphasize this enough--every future policy that we debate here must put families and workers first--no half measures. These are the people on the frontlines of this crisis. They deserve our unwavering support. Just like we give the troops the resources they need, we have to have the same war footing today. The very next piece of legislation before this Chamber must extend full-paid sick and family leave to every American worker. It must deal with the strain caused by the shuttering of our public schools, and it must increase our testing capacity and build more capacity for urgently needed care. We must pass it without further delay. Anything less will be a failure of government in this time of need. Anything less is defeat before the battle has even begun. This is how we fight. Every person we protect is a victory. This is our shared duty. God bless America. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Colleagues, over the past few weeks, we have conducted the third impeachment trial in our entire Nation's history for a President. Let's be perfectly clear about something: Democrats did not want to impeach President Trump. From the start, efforts to begin an impeachment inquiry in the House were met with resistance until the President's reckless behavior and unprecedented actions forced the Speaker's hand. The Speaker could not sit idly by after the President withheld congressionally approved military aid from a U.S. ally in order to orchestrate foreign interference in our upcoming election. We have worked hard to find common ground with this President, and at times, Democrats have worked together to get good, bipartisan legislation accomplished. But President Trump's brazen misconduct forced this issue. His misdeeds posed a moral challenge to every single Member of Congress. How much corruption should we stomach? How much of our integrity should we sacrifice? How much malfeasance should we tolerate? Will we look the other way as the President flaunts our laws and ignores the Constitution? Sometimes it can seem far easier to just stay silent. All of us know that it can be easier to avoid angry phone calls. But think about how much harder it would be to explain this moment in history to our children and our grandchildren. Think about how painful it will be to explain if you knew what President Trump did was wrong and you did nothing; if you knew what President Trump did was wrong under the Constitution that you swore to uphold; that you knew it was wrong, but you voted to acquit anyway because of your ambition, because of your political party. Lest you think you can convince them otherwise, let me dispel this fiction. History's record of this time will be very clear. The American people can see through these lies. They recognize the inconsistencies and the double-speak. The American people are not naive. They are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They are not immoral. My Republican colleagues are not naive or ignorant or immoral either. They are good men and women. They love their children, their neighbors, and our country. I consider many of them my friends. When we have dinner together, when we go to visit the troops overseas. We don't do it as Democrats and Republicans. We do it as colleagues, friends, and as peers in this body. We do so as elected Members of Congress, as Senators representing our States and our country. It should be the very same when we judge President Trump. In I John 2:21, John writes to a group of believers who are in turmoil. He wrote: ``I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth.'' This trial had the goal of accomplishing one thing--to discover the truth, to know what happened, to hold the President accountable. We pledged to listen to receive that evidence fairly and to judge honestly. We swore to defend the Constitution, not to defend a man or a political party, and we should all remember this when we cast our votes, because President Trump is not like you. He is not honest, kind, or compassionate. He doesn't have integrity or moral conviction. He is neither fair nor decent. We, as Senators who swore to uphold the Constitution, should, based on the facts laid before us, vote to convict. Hold President Trump accountable for what he has done. We have to show the American people, ourselves, that President Trump does not represent our values, that we still believe that we must fight for what is right, for truth, for justice, for honesty, for integrity, and that laws mean something, and we don't put ourselves before the law. For those who lack courage in this moment, those who are unwilling to do what they know in their heart of hearts, in their conscience and in their deepest thoughts to be right, if they do not do what they know they should, they will be remembered as complicit. They will be remembered as not telling the truth. They will not be remembered well. I urge you to vote your conscience. I suggest the absence of a quorum.