Elizabeth Warren

Ms. WARREN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Sanders' objection and amendment. Massachusetts is home to many of the Nation's best scientists and most innovative biomedical companies. I believe we have a moral imperative to save money and save lives by expanding medical innovation in the United States. I have been here for almost 4 years. I have spent nearly the entire time working both publicly and privately to try to fix the broken medical innovation system in this country. I will be blunt: It has been maddening because we know what we need to do to fix this problem. We know that medical cures come from taxpayer investments in basic research, followed by private industry making its investments to turn that research into viable treatments. Nobody in Congress seriously disputes that. Every single person I have talked to here says they support increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health. Yet for over a decade Congress has decimated the NIH's budget. It has effectively been cut by nearly 25 percent. Those cuts are singlehandedly choking off support for the projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against ALS, Alzheimer's cancer, and rare pediatric diseases. Those cuts are driving scientists out of the country or out of research entirely. Those cuts are discouraging a whole generation of brilliant young researchers who see no path to launch the work that could save millions of lives. Only in Washington can every single elected official say they are committed to fix something and then do nothing. Newt Gingrich and I do not agree on much of anything, but we teamed up last year to plead with Congress to address this travesty. Newt Gingrich said: ``To allow research funding to languish at a time of historic opportunity when you could be saving lives and saving money takes a special kind of stupidity that is reserved for this city.'' I agree. For 2 years, Republicans in the Senate have claimed loudly that they want to do something about this. For a year they talked to Democrats about a comprehensive, bipartisan package that would include investments in NIH and FDA. Then one day they stopped talking and instead started pushing a bunch of small, piecemeal bills through the committee, all without a single dime of new money for medical research, and then declared themselves the conquering heros of medical innovation. Now, look, I support some of these bills. I helped write some of these bills. Others, like the Advancing Hope Act, I have serious concerns about. But without new funding for medical research, this bundle of bills will not move the needle on medical innovation. The Advancing Hope Act is an example. I support getting more transformative cures for pediatric rare diseases, but the Advancing Hope Act doesn't put a dime of additional money into medical research or approval--not one dime. This bill just hands drug companies vouchers so they can jump to the front of the line at the FDA. The drug companies love it. Most of them have turned around and sold off their vouchers, sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars. But the FDA has said there is no evidence this program is effective at incentivizing drug development for rare pediatric diseases. Who knows what breakthrough cancer or Alzheimer's treatment now takes longer to approve because some giant drug company uses a voucher to move something more lucrative but less important to the head of the line. I am not opposed to these vouchers under any circumstances, but without more, these vouchers cynically ask people with diabetes and people with breast cancer to fight the parents of children with rare pediatric diseases over who gets approved first. I want cures, and to get them, we need to put more money into the NIH so that we can cure more diseases. We need to put more money into the FDA so they can approve everything that is worth approving as quickly as possible. Senate Democrats have made their position clear. Whatever our views on these individual policies, we do not support moving piecemeal bills without a real, bipartisan agreement on new investments. Every Democrat on the HELP Committee has cosponsored a serious proposal to provide $50 billion in new mandatory NIH and FDA funding. Republicans have put no proposal on the table--nothing. Chairman Alexander said publicly that he understood the importance of getting this done, but it has been months and we have seen nothing. The supporters of this expiring voucher program want to extend it to the end of December. I am willing to do that. I will join Senator Sanders in that. I believed Chairman Alexander's promise to work in good faith on a bipartisan package that will actually fix medical innovation in this country. Despite months of silence, I still believe it. I want to give him every opportunity to keep that promise. If Republicans want to ignore the real problems here and play political games instead, if they want to cynically use sick children and desperate moms in the runup to an election as a political football to avoid actually doing the right thing by these families, I cannot stop them, but I will not play along. We are losing an entire generation of scientists and researchers because Congress will not face the hard fact that medical research takes money. We are forfeiting cures and treatments that could help people all across this country because Congress will not make the investments in basic research. We are losing our mothers, our fathers, our sons, and our daughters because Congress plays politics with people's lives. I will not play along, and I will do every single thing I can to get the funding we need to support real medical innovation in this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I am on the floor today to talk about the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. It is a simple proposal that would require every Presidential candidate of a major party to release their tax returns. Hillary Clinton has already done it. In fact, every single general election candidate in the past nine elections has done it. I will be honest. This is not the kind of legislation that I thought Congress would ever need to pass, but, like a lot of people, I never thought that someone like Donald Trump would be the nominee of a major political party. Donald Trump makes a big show, strutting around, pretending to be tough, but he is too chicken to show his tax returns to the American people. He has had a million excuses, but we all know why Donald Trump isn't releasing his taxes. He is hiding something. For a long time I wasn't sure what he was hiding. But thanks to the tireless work of journalists and experts, we at least have some clues about what he is hiding. We don't know everything, but slowly some of his secrets are starting to leak to the public, and they are not pretty. Let's start with the tax scams that we know about. Here are just three of them. The first scam is claiming tax credits for homeowners who make less than $500,000 a year. He wasn't eligible, so he lied--nothing fancy. Eventually, the press caught wind of it, and Trump paid up. And if he hadn't been caught, he would still be lying about it today. Here is another Trump tax scam. Scoop up hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate developer subsidies, then skip out on paying any income taxes. In 1978, 1979, 1991, and 1993, Trump paid zero dollars in income taxes--zero, and that is not a comprehensive list of his zero- tax years. It is just the years when, for one reason or another, his tax returns were public. Here is the third Trump tax scam. In this campaign, Trump claims the charitable deduction when he gives money to his own foundation, and then he uses that foundation for personal expenses and campaign fundraising. That is just the stuff we know about. So how bad are the things we don't know about? The American people should see Donald Trump's tax returns so they can decide for themselves if his shameful and, in some cases, illegal behavior disqualifies him from being President. The tax scams are awful, but they are a sideshow compared to what else is probably tucked away in his tax returns. Those tax returns would show his personal deals with foreign governments, arrangements that could put him in direct conflict with American interests. We already know about some of Trump's foreign dealings. We know he has gotten Russian oligarchs with close ties to Vladimir Putin to fund his businesses. Is he still doing that? We know he has financial ties to political dynasties in Turkey. We know he is wrapped up in aggressive pipeline plans in North and East India. The list of countries where Trump has financial conflicts is staggering: South Korea, India, Turkey, Libya, Russia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates. Remember the Libyan dictator Qadhafi. Back in 2009, Trump was set to lease his own estate to the dictator, but local protests shut that down. So who else has he been leasing his home to--Putin? I mean, maybe Trump's next business will be Airbnb for dictators. Tax returns will not tell us everything, but we know that they will tell us something about what Trump is hiding. Donald Trump praises brutal dictators and murderers. He threatens our allies. He denigrates democracy right here at home. He is right out front with all of that stuff. What is so bad that Donald Trump has to hide it? Would his tax returns show how deeply Donald Trump's personal, financial interests run directly counter to the national interests of the United States of America? It is 8 weeks before a national election. Everyone wants Donald Trump to do what other candidates--Republican candidates and Democratic candidates--have done and disclose his financial information to the American people. George W. Bush's IRS Commissioner has said: Trump should release his taxes, period. The IRS Chief Counsel for Ronald Reagan has said the same thing: Trump should release his taxes, period. Ted Cruz has released his taxes. John Kasich released his taxes. Jeb Bush released his taxes going all the way back to 1981. Look, it is no surprise that Trump thinks the rules don't apply to him; he never does. But the American people are not going to buy a pig in a poke. He should release his taxes voluntarily. But since he will not, then we should pass the Presidential Tax Transparency Act and make him release those taxes. No one knows what he is up to with Russia, Libya, or any other country. Let's take a look at his taxes and find out. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Republicans who control the Senate are setting new records for obstruction by slowing the pace of judicial nominations to a crawl and leaving courts across this Nation overburdened and understaffed. I have listened as Senator McConnell has asserted that he is acting fairly on judges because more Obama judges have been confirmed than total George W. Bush judges. Here is my question: What kind of game does he think this is? At this point in time during the Bush administration, there were 42 judicial vacancies. Today, there are 90. At this point during the Bush administration, there were 13 judicial emergencies--vacancies in courts that are severely shorthanded and overburdened with cases. Today there are 32--more than twice as many vacancies, more than twice as many emergencies. Senator McConnell says, well, he just doesn't want to do his job, and neither do other Republicans. And we all know why. Republican leaders in Congress have made it abundantly clear that they want Donald Trump to be President so that he can appoint judges who will bend the law to suit his own interests and those of his wealthy friends, and if that doesn't work, then Republicans will settle for paralyzing the judicial system so that it cannot serve anyone at all. Judicial nominees stand ready to provide American individuals, families, small businesses, and entrepreneurs with the justice they are guaranteed by our Constitution. One of those nominees is Inga Bernstein, a highly regarded Massachusetts attorney who has spent years serving families, teachers, and workers. Ms. Bernstein is not controversial. She is supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Give Ms. Bernstein her vote. In fact, give these 10 noncontroversial nominees their votes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 10 nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, it is disgraceful that Republicans are blocking confirmation of these judges. It is even more disgraceful that 18 additional nominees haven't even had hearings yet, including Merrick Garland, who has now waited longer than any Supreme Court nominee in the history of the United States to receive a confirmation vote, while our highest Court continues to deadlock on issue after issue of importance to this Nation. All we are asking for is the Senate Republicans to stop playing politics and do their job. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Donald Trump spent years pedaling Trump University, a sham college that his own former employees refer to as one big, fraudulent scheme. Now he is being sued for fraud and, worse, for targeting the most vulnerable people he could find, lying to them, taking all their money and then leaving them in debt. Now, the judge presiding over Trump's case is Gonzalo Curiel, a former Federal prosecutor who has spent decades quietly serving his country, sometimes at great risk to his own life. The Republican Governor who first appointed him calls him an American hero, and he was confirmed with bipartisan support from the Senate. Like all district court judges, Judge Curiel's work is not political so he is following the law in the Trump University case, but Donald Trump wants Judge Curiel to bend the law to suit Trump's own personal financial interests and Trump's very, very fragile ego. A little over a month ago, Trump began savagely attacking the judge's integrity and his Mexican-American heritage at political rallies. Some Republicans in Congress claimed to be shocked by the assault on our legal system. Paul Ryan called Trump's attack the ``textbook definition of a racist comment.'' Oh, please. Spare me the false outrage. Where do you suppose Donald Trump got the idea that he can demean judges with impunity? He got it from Republicans right here in Congress. It is bad enough that Senate Republicans will not even give Merrick Garland, the President's Supreme Court nominee, a hearing--while the Republicans' allies spend billions of dollars conducting a nonstop campaign of slime against him. But the story is actually much bigger than Judge Garland. Sixteen noncontroversial district court judicial nominees--16--are waiting to take their seats alongside Judge Curiel on the Federal bench. They have been investigated, they have gone through hearings, and they have been voted out of committee. About half have been sitting there for more than a year. But in a few days, the Republicans who control the Senate are planning to pack up and shut down this body for most of the rest of the year, leaving every single one of these men and women to twist in the wind. Why? Because in 6 months Donald Trump might be President. Make no mistake, Republicans want Donald Trump to appoint the next generation of judges. They want those judges to tilt the law in favor of big businesses and billionaires like Trump. They just want Donald Trump to stop being so vulgar and obvious about it. It is ridiculous. If Republicans expect the American people to believe they don't agree with Trump's disgraceful attacks on an independent judiciary, they should confirm these judges. We have just one message for the Republicans: Do your job--now-- before shutting off the lights and leaving town. At least confirm the 13 noncontroversial district court judges who were nominated before 2016. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, and 573; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am not sure what version of the Constitution you are reading that doesn't say confirming judges is part of doing your job in the U.S. Senate. These judges have all been completely vetted, they are noncontroversial, and they have bipartisan support. The amount of time it would take to get these judges confirmed is simply: Don't object. Let us go forward. We hear a lot of talk these days from Republicans in Congress suddenly caring about the rule of law. Talk is cheap. Real cases are piling up. Real courts are starved for help. Real justice is being denied, and the American people aren't easily fooled. If Senate Republicans leave town without putting a single one of these highly qualified, noncontroversial judicial nominees on the bench, they are making it clear that for them politics is everything 24/7, that politics trumps everything, even an independent judiciary. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for yielding. I just want to talk a little bit about data. I believe in data. I try to find good information about issues and use that information to inform my work. We need good data. But can we trust the think tanks and public policy groups that hold themselves out as offering solid independent research? The work at these think tanks and public policy groups is increasingly funded by wealthy corporate interests, and the line between objective scholarly research and pay-for-play studies is becoming blurred. The problem is compounded by the fact that corporate financial support often occurs in the dark. Think about it this way: Companies are required to disclose their expenses when they directly lobby lawmakers. But these same companies are allowed to make huge secret contributions to think tanks, even if they have the same goal of influencing those same lawmakers. Today, climate deniers have an increasingly difficult time selling their anti-science positions. So a small industry of think tanks has emerged to give the veneer of plausibility to their bizarre views. Take a look at just one organization, the Science and Public Policy Institute. The Science and Public Policy Institute describes its mission as providing ``research and educational materials dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.'' That seems pretty reasonable. But where is this sound public policy and sound science actually coming from? Well, for several years, the chief science advisor at the Science and Public Policy Institute was a man named Willie Soon, one of the most notorious climate change deniers around. Armed with scientific credentials and a part-time job at the Smithsonian Institution, Soon churned out paper after paper, disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are driving climate change. Eventually it was revealed that--surprise, surprise--Soon had accepted $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry. Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and coal giant company, Southern Company, made payments to Soon, payments that he rarely disclosed when promoting his climate change denial research. In other words, Soon was raking in fossil fuel cash by producing research helpful to the fossil fuel industry. Great deal. Willie Soon left the Science and Public Policy Institute a few years ago. These days, the most prominent figure at the organization is Christopher Monckton, the think tank's chief policy advisor. So let's ask the question here: Who is Christopher Monckton? Oh, boy, Christopher Monckton is a former politician from the UK. He has presented himself as a member of the House of Lords, a claim that is so off base that the House of Lords was forced to do something that it had never done before, and that is issue a statement saying: No, he is not part of the House of Lords, and he should stop lying about it. Monckton used to represent the ultraconservative, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party that recently led the Brexit campaign. In fact, Monckton thought Brexit was such a good idea that he has also called for a Texit, as he puts it, pushing for Texas to secede from the United States to protect itself against Muslim and Latino immigrants. Monckton is clear about where he stands on climate change and on the people who are concerned about it. He said that global efforts to fight climate change are part of a ``totalitarian'' plot to create a ``world government,'' and he has compared climate change activists to ``Hitler youth.'' To be clear, these allegations of government overreach are coming from someone who believes that reading the Koran out loud should be a prosecutable offense in the United States and who once called for everyone with AIDS to be rounded up and permanently quarantined. Now he has backed away from that last idea, but don't worry. Monckton has found a new idea to address AIDS. He claims to have invented a miracle cure that can treat everything from HIV to multiple sclerosis to the flu. You can't make this stuff up. The fact is, Monckton is not a climate scientist or a scientist of any kind. His degrees are in classics and journalism. Actual scientists who have taken a look at his work have found his conclusion to be completely made up. So why does it matter that scientific posers like Christopher Monckton and industry-funded hacks like Willie Soon are running around saying crazy things about climate change? Well, I will tell you why it matters. It matters because by attaching themselves to the Science and Public Policy Institute and other credible-sounding think tanks, people start to take them seriously. You don't think so? Monckton has testified in front of Congress three times, each time representing the Science and Public Policy Institute. A former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee called him ``one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, expert from a skeptical point of view on this issue of climate change.'' Soon's work has been repeatedly cited by influential climate change deniers, those in Congress and elsewhere. As Senator Whitehouse has pointed out, Monckton, Soon, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are part of a much larger network of pseudoscientific researchers and organizations who get paid to spin a web of denials about the science behind climate change. It is a network that has been funded by the fossil fuel industry and by its friends. But there is no getting around it. Climate change is real. It is caused by humans. If we are going to address it in a meaningful way, we need to take decisive action now. This is why the fake science think thanks are so dangerous. They throw enough fake facts into the process to justify inaction, enough fake facts to excuse inaction, enough fake facts to let every politician in the pocket of Big Oil or Big Coal keep right on blocking meaningful action while the earth slowly chokes on its own filth. It is time to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and its well- funded PR efforts and say enough is enough. Our children's futures are at stake. We will not sit on the sidelines while big fossil fuel companies call the shots here in Washington. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, it would take no time to confirm these judges. These are all people who have been examined by the committee, who have passed out of committee, who are pending on the floor, and who have bipartisan support. These are judges from Tennessee, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Indiana. Fourteen States will be left without vital judges because of the Republican blockade. At a certain point, reasonable people have to ask: Why are Republicans actually doing this? Is it so that if Donald Trump is elected President, he will be able to nominate more judges? What in this world has Donald Trump ever said or done that makes the majority whip so enthusiastic about his judicial appointments? Is it Trump's enlightened views on the judiciary? Donald Trump is a guy who just a few weeks ago race-baited a Federal judge--attacked a judge who spent years defending America from the terrors of murderers and drug traffickers. Trump attacked him simply because the judge refuses to bend the law to suit Trump's personal financial interests. And where do you think Donald Trump got the idea he can attack the integrity of Federal judges with impunity? He got it from you--from the Republicans in the Senate and their decision to turn scores of highly qualified, nonpartisan judicial appointees into political footballs. Talk is cheap. If Republicans really do disagree with Donald Trump's approach to judges, then do something about it. Confirm these highly qualified noncontroversial judges. Do it now before shutting off the lights and leaving town. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, ``judicial emergency'' is an official term that refers to a vacancy in our court system for a court that carries a heavy caseload or a vacancy that has remained open for an extended period of time. In the United States, we now have dozens of judicial emergencies. Why are there so many judicial emergencies? Why are there so many vacancies in courts that have heavy caseloads? Why are there so many long-term vacancies? Well, the reason is simple. When it comes to confirming judges, Senate Republicans simply refuse to do their jobs. Their view seems to be very simple. If government isn't working for them or their rich friends or their rightwing allies, then they will simply refuse to let it work for anyone. Yesterday the Senate confirmed one judge, Brian Martinotti, to sit on the district court in New Jersey--one judge, one noncontroversial nominee for a noncontroversial job who had been waiting for a vote for over a year. The Republicans who control the Senate seem to think that is reasonable. It is not. Sixteen district court judges have been investigated, gone through hearings, been voted out of committee, and are pending on the Senate floor right now. One circuit court nominee is also on this list for a vacancy that has remained vacant for more than 6 years. Fourteen States have judges on this list. About half of these nominees have been sitting for nearly a year or more. These courts do an enormous amount of work. Their work is not political. Democratic and Republican Senators have worked with the President to select these nominees to fill vacancies on these courts, and those nominees deserve votes. Right now, there is no indication that they are going to get votes. And in a few days, the Republicans who control the Senate are planning to pack up their things and shut down the Senate for most of the rest of the year. This is ridiculous. No other workers in America get to walk off the job before the job is done, and the same should be true for the U.S. Congress. We shouldn't leave until we do our work. The Senate can act right now to confirm these 17 nominations, all of whom have bipartisan support. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 597, 598, 599, and 600; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we do not have a process that is working. The Nation faces a judicial vacancy crisis. Ten percent of the district court judgeships in this country are empty. We face nearly twice as many judicial emergencies as President Bush faced in 2008 or President Clinton faced in 2000. Cases are piling up, and courts are starved for help. The Supreme Court of the United States sits paralyzed, unable to deal with some of its most challenging cases. But the majority whip is going to pack up and go home, leaving 18 judgeships vacant because--well, that is the process? This isn't a game. There is no scoreboard. You don't get to ignore a national crisis because you care more about scoring political points than keeping government functioning. President Obama's job is to nominate judges to fill vacancies, and the Republicans' job here is to lead us to confirm those judges to fill those vacancies. Do your job. So if you won't confirm all of the pending judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are currently waiting on the Senate floor, then before you leave town for months, let's at least confirm the 13 judges on that list who were nominated last year to fill district court vacancies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 13 nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, and 573; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, this has been going on now for a year and a half. The Republicans have delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed until we face dozens of judicial emergencies. There is always an excuse not to take up even noncontroversial appointments. We can't get the 17 who were voted out of committee and are currently pending on the floor, we can't get the 13 who were nominated in 2015 so how about this deal. There are four district court nominees who have been waiting around for a year or more. They are from Tennessee, New Jersey, New York, and California. When President Reagan was in office, almost no uncontroversial nominees took longer than 100 days to confirm. Let us at least give these four nominees who have been waiting nearly a year or more for their vote. The Senate can do this, it can do it quickly, and we will be done. There is bipartisan support for every one of them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following four nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, and 364; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. I thank my colleague. Last Saturday, I was in Boston for our annual Pride Parade. They are practically an institution in Boston, and this marked our 46th annual march. I have gone to Pride for years, and when I go, I don't march, I dance. I dance with people--young people and old people, Black people and White people, Asian people and Latino people, gay people and straight people, bisexual people, transgender people, queer people. The parade has everything. It has intricate floats, marching bands, elaborate costumes, and tons of onlookers. One Boston reporter called our parade pure joy, and he is right. I love Boston's Pride Parade. I love it as much as anything I have done as a Senator. For me, this parade is the tangible demonstration of what happens when we turn away from darkness and division and turn toward our best selves, when we turn toward each other. It shows us what this Nation looks like when we are at our best--inclusive, strong, united, optimistic, and proud. It shows us what this Nation looks like when we beat back hate and embrace each other. Early Sunday morning, at around 2 a.m., someone tried to take that away from us. It wasn't the first time. It was the most recent. It was extreme and horrible and shocking. Dozens of lives were lost, and dozens more were injured. All across our country we grieve for those lost and for their families and for their loved ones. This is especially true in Massachusetts. Three years ago, the people of Boston came face-to-face with terror at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The cowardly attack and its aftermath took lives, injured people, and forever changed a beloved tradition. This week, two people with Massachusetts roots were killed in Orlando and at least two more were wounded. Thirty-seven-year-old Kimberly ``KJ'' Morris, who was working the door at Pulse, had lived in Northampton, MA, for more than a decade, performing in nightclubs and working at Amherst College and Smith College. She had recently moved to Florida to help take care of her mother and grandmother. Twenty-three-year-old Stanley Almodovar, a pharmacy tech, spent his childhood in Springfield, MA. He came out of the bathroom at Pulse just as the bullets were flying. He pushed people out of harm's way as he was shot three times. A third Massachusetts native who survived the massacre was also shot three times. Angel Colon of Framingham, MA, was shot in the leg, the hand, and the hip. He is alive today, according to Colon, only because the gunman missed his head as he shot those who were lying on the floor to make sure they were dead. Thirty-seven-year-old Geoffrey Rodriguez, raised in Leominster, remains in critical condition now. Rodriguez was shot three times. As of Tuesday, he had undergone three surgeries. His family is optimistic he will pull through, and all of us from Massachusetts and all across the Nation are rooting for him. Now, there are still things we don't know about the shooter. We don't know about his planning, his motives--things we may never know. But here is what we do know. We know the shooter called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS, declaring his intention to be known in history as a terrorist. We know he carried an assault-style weapon that was designed for soldiers to carry in war. We also know that hundreds of people in Orlando went to the Pulse nightclub to continue their celebration of Pride and that the shooter targeted them to die. I woke up on Sunday morning still in the glow of the Boston Pride Parade. That ended fast. But I thought about the history of Pride. In the 1960s, the mere act of publicly associating with the LGBT community was considered radical. That was true even in places where the community came together to seek strength and protection, like New York's Greenwich Village. Greenwich Village's Stonewall Inn was one of the popular gay bars in New York, and it was regularly raided by police officers who arrested patrons for any number of bureaucratic violations, obviously designed to harass, embarrass, and abuse people whose only crime was to want a place to be together. One night, in late June of 1969, the bar's patrons fought back. The rioting continued intermittently for five nights, and it wasn't pretty. It reflected the demands of the group for equality, for the same chances that other Americans have to be themselves. A few months after that, LGBT activists began planning for the first Pride march. It was set for the following June to commemorate the Stonewall uprising. The idea was to use that anniversary as an opportunity for the community to remind us all that they, too, are citizens, they, too, get to have some fun, and they, too, are entitled to the same dignity and respect as every other American. Over the years, the tradition expanded across this great Nation, just as tolerance and acceptance expanded across this great Nation. Pride both helped us move forward and showed us how far we have moved together. When terrible things like the Orlando shooting happen, we face important choices, as a country, as individuals, and as a community. When terrible things happen, we have to choose how we respond, and all of us will decide whether we are going to come together or splinter apart. We have become a country that is defined by fear and hate--fear of each other and hatred for anyone who is different from ourselves. In the America of fear and hate, we will alienate and isolate entire communities, creating even more fear and hate, and threatening further violence. We will fracture as a people, splintering off into separate groups, each fearing others and each seeking to serve only themselves. Or we can make the choice to come together. We can choose that no community--no community of immigrants, no community of Muslims, no community of young men--is isolated in this country. We can do this knowing that when we embrace each other and build one people out of many, we become a stronger country--stronger because the bonds of community prevent alienation, stronger because the bonds of community make it harder to turn us against each other and break us apart, stronger because the bonds of community mean people can get help before it is too late. We cannot ignore the fact that this massacre targeted an LGBT club, and we should learn from that and from the message of Pride. In Orlando, an act of terrorism was also an act of hate visited upon people who came together in friendship and celebration. But the patriots at Stonewall showed us the way. They gave birth to a movement that changed our Nation. They beat back hate. They showed us that change is possible--that change for the better is possible. They showed everyone that love can triumph over fear and hate, that we can all come together. But, boy, they showed us that you have to work for it. This is not an abstract idea. When it comes to our response to the tragedy in Orlando, we are already beginning to see the splintering of America. One side shouts: It was a gun that killed all those people. The other side shouts: It wasn't a gun; it was a terrorist that killed all those people. Through all of the shouting, we miss what should be obvious: It was a terrorist with a gun who killed all those people--a terrorist with hate in his heart and a gun in his hand who killed all those people. It is time for us to acknowledge all of these truths and to come together to address them. First, we must take the threat of terrorism seriously. We must continue to stop the flow of money to terrorist groups and to work with our allies to stop the movement of terrorists and disrupt hubs of radicalization abroad. Here at home, we need to make sure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need--funding, training, equipment. But we also need to make sure we have the resources to analyze and counter radical propaganda. The war on terror is now fought online, and we need to put our best forces online to fight back. We need to work with people in our local communities--not isolate or demonize them--to stop radicalization before it starts and to prevent tragedies before they occur and to show that nobody is kept out of the American family because of how they look or talk or pray. Second, we must take the threat from guns seriously. Our Nation is awash in the weapons of murder, and there are many things we can do to address that. We can ban Rambo-style assault weapons. We can take these weapons of war off our streets. We can also close the terror gap. The FBI should have the authority to block gun sales to anyone they believe is a terrorist. If someone cannot get on an airplane because the FBI is concerned that they might be plotting to do harm against Americans, then they shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy a Rambo-style assault weapon. We believe we can close the background checks loophole. Anyone who cannot buy a gun because of a felony conviction or mental illness should not be able to go to a gun show or go online and buy that same gun. We can act to make the next shooting less likely. We can act to reduce the likelihood that a disturbed individual, a criminal, or a terrorist is again able to kill dozens with a gun. If we fail to act, the next time someone uses a gun to kill one of us--a gun that we could have kept out of the hands of a terrorist--then Members of this Congress will have blood on our hands. But the truth is this is not just about Congress. It is about all of us. We all have choices. We have choices about how we are going to treat our neighbors and our fellow citizens; choices about what we do when someone is targeted at a coffee shop because of their background or their looks or their race; choices about how we react when a friend or a coworker, a son or a daughter, tells us the truth about who they love; and choices about how we treat our neighbors and fellow citizens who don't look or talk or pray like we do. It is a scary world out there. We all know that. Terrorism mutates into new and more dangerous forms. Terrorists have easy access to assault weapons that put us all at risk. And hate--plain, old-fashioned, naked, ugly hate--still lurks in dark corners. It is a scary world. But America is strongest when we work together, and all of us will decide whether we come together or splinter apart. We can keep weapons from those who would do us harm. We can make it harder for terrorism to take root in this country. We can drive the forces of hate out of our Nation. We can build a stronger, more united America, and we can begin right here in the Senate. We can begin right now. With that, my question for the Senator from Connecticut is this: Do you believe it is time for the Senate to act in the interest of the American people and finally pass these commonsense, widely supported proposals to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people?

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Yes. Mr. President, I wish I could say that I am surprised by this, but I am not surprised. The Republican leader can say whatever he wants today, but he has made his intentions very clear when it comes to President Obama. On the eve of the 2010 elections, Senator McConnell said that ``the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.'' Well, President Obama won reelection, but Senate Republicans have still stalled, delayed, and blocked his nominees. Since they took charge of the Senate last year, these Republicans are on pace for the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 60 years. So can we at least confirm one noncontroversial district judge? The nominee on the list who has been waiting the longest is Brian Martinotti. New Jersey needs this judge. He was nominated a year ago. He has been twisting in the wind for 9 months since his confirmation hearing. Give him a vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 357; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. I ask through the Chair if the majority leader will yield for a question.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am asking if the majority leader will yield for a question.

Ms. WARREN. All right, I will just ask my question. On Monday, I wanted to come to the Senate floor to make the request I just made, but I guess the majority leader was taking a lot of heat about judges and Donald Trump's racist statements about them and didn't want to draw any more attention to the Republicans' unprecedented blockade of judicial nominations. So the Republicans offered me a deal: Just go away, and we will confirm two Court of International Trade judges. The Court of International Trade is pretty important. It handles trade enforcement cases, and nearly half of that court has been empty for a year because Republicans refused to do their jobs. These two uncontroversial nominees have been twisting in the wind for 336 days. They are highly qualified, honorable lawyers who are ready to serve their country. So on Monday, I took the deal. The Republicans released two hostages, and the Senate confirmed them by a voice vote, without objection--not a single objection nearly a year after they were nominated. Today, the majority leader isn't offering to release any hostages, and my question for the majority leader is, What happened between Monday and today? I yield the floor if the majority leader wishes to respond.

Ms. WARREN. Then I certainly will. Mr. President, last week the majority leader wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and it was titled, without a hint of irony, ``How the Senate Is Supposed to Work.'' In his article, Senator McConnell declared: ``On issues of great national significance, one party should simply never force its will on everybody else.'' He pleaded that ``it's not an act of betrayal to work with one's political adversaries when doing so is good for the country.'' Senator McConnell agreed to confirm two highly qualified judges on Monday because it served his political interests. Today, he doesn't feel like it, so he forces his will on everyone else. That is not how the Senate is supposed to work. The Constitution is clear. The Senate's job is to provide advice and consent on the President's judicial nominees. There is no asterisk that says ``only when the majority leader has an embarrassing political problem'' or ``except when the President is named Barrack Obama.'' It is not what the Founders had in mind because it is small, it is petty, and it is absurd. For these district court nominees, the U.S. Senate should be asking one question and one question only: Are these judges qualified or are they not qualified? That is it. But that is not what is happening in the U.S. Senate. Instead, good people twist in the wind, hung up as political hostages, and that is undermining the integrity of our courts. So if you will not give all 15 judges their votes, let's at least have a vote on the 9 district court nominees who had their Judiciary Committee hearings last year. Senator Toomey called for some of these nominees to be confirmed last month. All of these nominees have been waiting for at least 6 months--almost 200 days--since their hearings. When President Reagan was in office, almost no uncontroversial nominees took longer than 100 days to confirm from the day they were nominated. The delay is ridiculous. Give them their votes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nine nominations that have been pending since 2015: Calendar Nos. 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, right this minute, right here on the floor of the Senate, we face one of those ``issues of great national significance'' that the majority leader wrote about in the Wall Street Journal. It is an exploding number of judicial vacancies. The Washington Post recently reported: Of 673 U.S. district court judgeships, 67--or 10 percent-- are vacant under President Obama, nearly twice as many as at this point of Republican George W. Bush's presidency and 50 percent higher than at this time under Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush. The number of federally designated district court ``judicial emergencies''--where seats carry particularly heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period--is also roughly double what it was in May 2008 and May 2000. Addressing those emergencies is good for the country. Keeping our courts functioning is good for the country. Confirming nominees who have the support of Republicans and Democrats is good for the country. But just a minute ago, the majority leader blocked confirmation of all 15 noncontroversial judges who are waiting for votes. That is not putting the country first; that is putting politics first. It is forcing the will of a small number of extremist Republicans on the entire country, and the integrity of our judicial branch is suffering for it. So let me try this again. Surely we can agree to confirm the four oldest nominations on this list--two Democratic recommendations and two Republican recommendations. They all had hearings in September, 9 months ago. What are we waiting for? Give them their votes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following four nominations: Calendar Nos. 357, 358, 359, and 362; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Brian Martinotti deserves better than this. All these nominees deserve better than this. Merrick Garland deserves better than this, and the American people deserve better than this. We will keep fighting to try to get the Senate Republicans to do their job. I yield the floor.

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, our government has work to do, but when it comes to making sure that our courts have the judges they need, when it comes to making sure that the Federal agencies have the leaders they need, and when it comes to filling a vacant seat on the highest Court in this Nation, Senate Republicans refuse to do their job. Senate Republicans have a long history of obstructing President Obama's nominees. Earlier this week, I released a report documenting that long history. The Republicans have slowed down the confirmation of judicial nominees to a crawl--the people needed to resolve important legal disputes. They have stalled confirmations of key agency heads. These are the people needed to protect consumers, to protect our environment, and to defend our country. They are blocking Merrick Garland, a judge whom our colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, previously called a ``fine man'' whom the President could ``easily name'' to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Instead of working to make government function and more efficient, Senate Republicans have made it their priority to keep key positions empty for as long as possible--to hamstring efforts to protect consumers and workers, to delay efforts to hold large corporations accountable, and to slow down work to promote equality. The view of Senate Republicans seems to be pretty simple. If government isn't working for them, their rich friends, or their rightwing allies, then Senate Republicans aren't going to let it work for anyone. But it isn't too late. They still have time to put aside their extremism and start doing what they were sent here to do. Start with district court judges, the men and women who resolve disputes over how government works and whether the Constitution or Federal laws are being respected. They do an enormous amount of work. Their work is not political. Democratic and Republican Senators have worked with the President to select these nominees. As of today the Senate Judiciary Committee has cleared 15 people who were nominated for seats on the Federal district courts. These nominees have the support of Democrats and Republicans. They are ready to serve their country. One of them is from Massachusetts. We need our judge. This Nation needs its judges. So let's vote. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 15 nominations: Calendar Nos. 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, and 573; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. WARREN

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

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Madam President, 8 years ago reckless bankers on Wall Street sparked a financial meltdown. Their too-big-to-fail banks gambled with our economy, encouraging reckless mortgage lending by funding the slimy subprime lenders who peddled their miserable products to millions of American families. Those same banks then gobbled up those dangerous mortgages, repackaged them, and spread huge risks throughout the financial system. The consequences were disastrous. Wall Street greed destroyed $7 trillion in housing wealth and resulted in millions of Americans losing their homes. It killed 8.7 million American jobs. It gutted hundreds of pension funds, leaving millions of retirees hung out to dry. Thanks to Washington bailouts, Wall Street is once again flying high. Corporate profits are up, and the stock market is soaring. But the real people who were hurt by the financial collapse--the millions of workers who lost their jobs, lost their homes, and lost their retirement savings because of Wall Street's reckless greed--many of them haven't bounced back. The evidence of this is everywhere, but consider just one recent example. Earlier this month, 400,000 participants in the Central States Pension Fund narrowly escaped having their hard-earned pension benefits slashed by as much as 70 percent. Their benefits were on the chopping block because that fund is in terrible trouble. There are a lot of reasons why, but one reason is beyond dispute: Wall Street greed. The story is ugly. In the runup to the financial collapse, Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust were in charge of managing the Central States Pension Fund and making its investment decisions. Instead of doing what was best for workers and retirees, these financial giants invested those retirement savings in junk bonds and mortgage bonds issued by firms whose names today would fill a Wall Street Hall of Shame: Bear Stearns, Countrywide, IndyMac, and Lehman Brothers. The crash of 2008 hit the Central States Pension Fund like a shiv in the ribs. In 15 months in 2008 and early 2009, pension assets managed by Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust dropped by 42 percent. That is more than twice the losses suffered by other multi-employer pension funds. And to add salt to the wound--the part that really twists the knife here--from 2005 to 2009, Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust charged Central States $41 million for the privilege of managing and wrecking their retirement fund. Last month the Treasury Department rejected pension cuts to the Central States Pension Fund for the short term and bought these retirees some time. But this story isn't over. Unless the Senate acts, this pension plan will collapse within 10 years. Unless the Senate acts, hundreds of thousands of retirees whose pensions are currently on life support will lose those pensions entirely. Tomorrow the Republicans, who control the Senate, are ready to act. Tomorrow they will bring a pension bill to the floor. Is it a bill to help save the 400,000 men and women of the Central States Pension Fund whose futures were decimated through no fault of their own? On that topic, the Republicans have nothing to say. Instead, the Republicans are bringing up a bill to make it easier--easier--for giant Wall Street financial institutions to cheat Americans out of their retirement savings. The Senate will be voting to make it easier for shady financial institutions and unscrupulous financial advisers to mislead investors about the quality of the investments so those advisers can continue pushing lousy products, just like the junk bonds and mortgage funds that tanked the Central States pension plan. The Senate will be voting on whether to overturn the commonsense regulations the Department of Labor completed last month to protect Americans' hard-earned retirement savings from slick-talking advisers who push complicated products that give great payoffs to the advisers and terrible results for their customers. Here is the problem: Because of loopholes in the law, it has long been perfectly legal for investment advisers to push products that drain away customer savings while they generate high fees, free vacations, cars, bonuses, and kickbacks for the advisers. These conflicts cost American families an estimated $17 billion every year. The new commonsense rule would put a stop to these practices. It is a pretty simple rule. It would ensure that financial advisers have to recommend products that are in the customers' best interests. No more pushing products just to generate high fees and payments for the advisers. No more free vacations. No more kickbacks. Why would anyone on Earth vote to overturn a rule designed to protect Americans from financial fraud? Why? Because it is an election year, so Senators and Congressmen have their hands out, willing to take every dime of Wall Street money they can get. Killing this new rule will cost American families $17 billion a year in lost retirement savings, but it will sure help to fill up the campaign accounts of the Republican Senators who vote for it. In the meantime, the clock keeps ticking for hundreds of thousands of Central States retirees, and the Republicans refuse to do anything. The Republicans who control the Senate may think that tomorrow's vote will help their fundraising efforts. Even so, I will be voting no because we weren't sent here just to raise money for reelections. We weren't sent here to make money for Wall Street and their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. We weren't sent here to reward the too-big-to- fail banks that tanked our economy and then got billions of dollars in bailouts. We weren't sent here to make it easier for financial institutions to cheat people. The Republicans who run the Senate seem to have forgotten that. If they don't remember it soon, you can bet the American people will remind them in November. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. WARREN

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, for months Democrats have asked the Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while the Zika virus has spread across South America, Central America, and several U.S. territories. For months, we have asked the Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while more and more American travelers are back in the United States after contracting the Zika virus. For months, we have asked the Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while health experts at the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have begged Congress for the resources to fight this disease. For months, we have asked Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while more people infected by Zika have developed a debilitating and sometimes fatal condition that damages the nervous system. For months we have asked the Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while more mothers infected by Zika have given birth to babies with severe brain defects. And for months, we have asked the Republicans who control the Senate to let us act, while the President has been forced to divert emergency funds from other critical areas, including the emergency Ebola response. Today, months after President Obama first requested nearly $2 billion to fight the Zika virus in the United States, the Republicans who control the Senate will finally let us vote on options for funding the Zika response. Today the Senate will consider three proposals. The first proposal would completely fund the President's response plan. It offers our best hope to fully protect Americans, and I will vote for that proposal. I plead with every Senator to do the same because that is what our Nation's experts have said it will cost to limit the sickness, death, and deformity caused by the Zika virus. I know that some Republicans understand this point. Senator Rubio, whose State of Florida is at great risk for local transmission of Zika, recently said this: I believe in limited government, but I do believe one of the obligations of a limited Federal Government is to protect our people from dangers, whether they be foreign enemies or the risk of disease outbreak. . . . I don't think we want to be halfway through the summer and wake up to the news that hundreds and hundreds of Americans in multiple States have been infected and we did nothing. Senator Rubio supports fully funding the President's response plan. I hope it passes the Senate. If it doesn't, it will be because the majority of Senate Republicans vote against it. If that happens, we will be forced to consider another proposal. The second proposal would give the President half of what is needed to fight the outbreak. I will support this proposal if that is the last resort, as will many Democrats, because this is a health emergency. If your ship is sinking and you need 12 lifeboats but you can only get 6, you take the 6. We will take whatever the Republicans who control the Senate are willing to give to protect the American people. Cutting the Zika funding request in half might give Republicans a chance to tell people how tough they are on spending, and that may be how Republican politics works, but it is not how science works. It is not possible to delay a response to a health emergency for month after month without consequences. It is not possible to nickel-and-dime a response to a health emergency without consequences. Sure, the Republicans' half measure is better than nothing. But an estimated 4 million people are facing the prospect of Zika infection by the end of this year, and a half response is not good enough. The final Republican proposal is even dumber. It would not only give the President about half of what is needed but it would cover the cost by gutting the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provides significant support to local public health departments all across the country. You heard that right. Some Senate Republicans think the best way to fund America's emergency response to the Zika virus is to rob from America's frontline responders who help identify and track infectious diseases such as the Zika virus. On the other side of Congress, House Republicans are kicking around an even more bizarre idea--funding only about one-third of the President's plan to fight Zika and doing it by cutting hundreds of millions of dollars out of our Ebola response. With the Ebola epidemic just passed and still no FDA-approved vaccine or treatment for Ebola, what could possibly go wrong with that plan? I simply do not understand the Republicans. The responsible thing to do--the rational thing to do--is to invest the resources needed to stop the Zika threat in its tracks and to invest in more science and public health infrastructure so that we are ready when the next crisis comes. As congressional Republicans embrace this irrational anti-spending ideology, this country is put in greater and greater danger. Instead of investing in research so we can develop effective treatments, instead of supporting careful planning so we are ready for the next health challenge, and instead of fully funding emergency response infrastructure so we are prepared to respond to new threats, these Republicans govern by simply lurching from crisis to crisis. We are in this mess with Zika--a mess that is about to get a lot worse--because of stupid decisions made right here in Congress. Keep in mind that Zika, like Ebola, is a disease we have known about for years. But our ability to do the necessary research to eradicate these threats has been undercut by Republicans' desire to make more and more budget cuts, even when they put the health of Americans in danger. This country's scientific research capacity has been decimated. Over the last decade, the budget of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has lost about 20 percent of its purchasing power-- 20 percent. The Prevention and Public Health Fund that helps build the infrastructure needed to prevent people from getting sick and to shut down outbreaks like Zika has been on the Republicans' chopping block year after year. Here is the bottom line. Our doctors, scientists, and health officials need our complete support in fighting this virus. They have told us how much money they need to do that. The less money Congress gives them, the more people will be hurt by the Zika virus--more babies with heartbreaking deformities, more adults with devastating illnesses. The Zika virus does not care what politicians in Washington decide is politically expedient. The virus is coming, and if Republicans block Congress from protecting the people of this country, then Republicans must accept responsibility for the devastating consequences. I yield the floor.