Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I have such respect for my colleague from Oklahoma. We are often on the same side of issues related to matters of national security and the Middle East, but I disagree with his analysis that he has presented here today. Let me make just a remark or two about his immediate request and then make a few remarks about the broader work to try to protect the world from a nuclear weapons-armed Iran.

First, as I understand it--and I just had a few days to take a look at the underlying legislation--it would significantly remove the administration's discretion to waive sanctions or to enter into certain oil sales or authorize business with Iranian financial institutions in that only a treaty entered into by the United States would provide that authority to the administration.

I think that is generally bad policy.

We can imagine a whole set of diplomatic engagements with any nation, including Iran, in which an executive may wish to toggle sanctions or licenses in order to provoke some behavior beneficial to the United States.

That is, in fact, why we regularly build waivers into our sanctions statutes. So to suggest that on Iran policy, the President is going to have no ability to impact sanctions or licenses until a treaty is entered into ties the administration's hands--both Republican and Democratic administrations--in a way that I simply don't think is helpful.

I understand my friend's argument.

He is not a supporter of the JCPOA, and he does not desire for the United States to enter back into a nuclear agreement with Iran. And at the heart of this request is the essence of President Trump's Iran policy--the idea that if we just keep hammering Iran with sanctions that either their behavior will get better or they will at some point choose to come to the table and do a comprehensive deal--the nuclear program, their ballistic missile program, their support for terrorism.

Now, I think that was a credible argument back during the Obama administration. Many people said Obama shouldn't give Iran anything until Iran comes to the table on everything.

This Congress went a different way. We ended up taking a vote that, by our rules, allowed for the nuclear agreement to go forward. But we now have the benefit of the opposition's argument to the JCPOA having been tested for 4 years. Trump basically took that philosophy--keep sanctioning Iran; don't worry about the fact that it is unilateral, and eventually Iran will come to the table on everything. He tested that for 4 years, and it was an unmitigated disaster--an unmitigated disaster. Not only did Iran not come to the table on everything, they came to the table on nothing. Their behavior in the region got much worse and much more adversarial to U.S. interests.

Just look at the reality on the ground in a place like Lebanon or Yemen or Iraq or Syria. At the end of Trump's term, did Iran have more or less influence in those places? Unquestionably more. More integrated with the Houthis--by the end of Trump's term, they were in charge of the Lebanese government. There was less separation between the Iraqi power structure and Tehran.

At the end of that 4-year period of time, testing maximum pressure, Iran was more deeply involved with its proxies than ever before. They were not negotiating with the United States on any of the conditions that the Trump administration laid down for us, and they were shooting at us.

There was not a single attack on U.S. servicemembers by Iranian proxies while the United States was in the JCPOA. Let me say it again: Not a single attack on U.S. servicemembers by Iranian proxies when the United States was in the JCPOA. They occur with regularity today. Attacks against U.S. forces in housing and on bases in Iraq and Syria restarted once we withdrew from the deal. In this year alone, there have been attacks in February, March, April, May, June, July, and August.

And so, I am not sure why we have to do a lot of guessing now as to whether we are better off with or without a nuclear agreement with Iran, because here's what we got for maximum pressure: American troops under fire, more support for proxies, no hopes of negotiation, and--the icing on the cake--an Iranian nuclear program that is now weeks away from having enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. Compare that with a year away during the time of the agreement.

So we tested this theory that we just hit them with sanctions, hit them with sanctions, and, eventually, they capitulate. It didn't work by, I think, all objective measures. It didn't work. And so it makes sense that the Biden administration wants to engage and try to put back together a deal that was good for the United States and our allies.

And, lastly, I will say this. The Senator from Oklahoma is right. The Iranians are bad people. You can just see what they are doing right now in the streets of Tehran in brutally repressing another wave of protests. Listen to what the President said on TV just this week-- denying the Holocaust. These are our adversaries. This is an enemy. But all throughout American history, we have understood there are times when it makes sense to sit down across the table with your enemy and adversary and engage in diplomatic conversation that is good for you and good for the world. It is true that if Iran was further away from a nuclear weapon, it would be good for us and it would be good for other countries in the world, including Russia, which is why Russia is sometimes part of these negotiations. But I don't know that because something is good for everybody, it shouldn't be acceptable to the U.S. Congress.

And so I am going to object to this request because I believe that the JCPOA is the right thing for the security of this Nation; because I believe in diplomacy even with your adversaries; because I think we have tested the proposition that maximum pressure will work better than a nuclear agreement, and we now know the results; and I also believe that some of the details of this resolution would ultimately bind the hands of American Presidents in a way that, you know, probably isn't good precedent for the long-term security of the Nation.

So, again, I think my colleague comes to the floor with good faith objections and longstanding objections. I come down in a different place, and for that reason, I would object.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, the Senator is right--I am not going to engage in a colloquy on the merits of this request or the previous request. This isn't real. This is a TV show. This is click bait. This is theater. This isn't an actual attempt to pass legislation.

Senator Lankford approached me about this particular bill on the floor a week ago and asked to engage in a dialogue with me about it. I thought it was a legitimate request, and I set my team to the task of trying to work something out with Senator Lankford. And now there is a unanimous consent request to pass a bill that is under negotiation and discussions between serious legislators who actually want to find a result.

So, no, I am not going to debate the merits of these UCs. This isn't real.

I object.

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

Madam President, Egypt is one of America's closest allies. Our taxpayers send them more direct funding for their military than we send almost any other nation in the world.

But here is what happens to political opponents of the Egyptian regime when they get arrested--and they get arrested at a dizzying rate and get sent to the infamous Tora prison. Arrivals there are blindfolded and then are forced to run through a human corridor of guards who pummel them with sticks until they collapse.

Following this initiation for political prisoners, many of them are routinely beaten and tortured for months or years on end, often with no formal charges being filed. Some never make it out alive.

Human rights groups estimate that there are around 60,000 political prisoners in Egypt.

I get it. The big numbers sometimes lose their meaning in this place. But, by comparison, estimates are that Russia has 420. China likely has around a thousand. Egypt locks up 60,000 political opponents of the regime.

To keep up with the demand of President El-Sisi's imprisonment spree, the country has had to build 60 new detention centers over the last decades. These prisons house some of the country's most prominent human rights defenders, journalists, opposition leaders, but also just ordinary people who are locked up for years because they just attended a protest or they liked a Facebook post or they recorded a TikTok video.

Let me tell you a story of just one of these 60,000 people. Right now, one of my constituents is suffering through the pain and uncertainty of having a relative unjustly imprisoned in Egypt. Muhammad Amasha is studying at Yale University, pursuing his Ph.D. Meanwhile, his father, Dr. Ahmed Amasha, was imprisoned in Egypt from 2017 to 2019 and rearrested and jailed again in June of 2020. According to the U.N., his detention seems ``to constitute [an act of reprisal] against Dr. Amasha for documenting cases of enforced disappearances for the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations.''

Since his arrest in 2020, Dr. Amasha reportedly has endured abuse during his interrogations that resulted in broken ribs and other significant injuries. His abuse included rape, electrocution, threats to rape his wife, and physical abuse while blindfolded. He was forced to sign a written confession during his time of abuse.

Since President El-Sisi came to power in 2013, more than a thousand people have died in Egyptian custody. Fourteen percent of those deaths were torture. More than 70 percent are because of a denial of healthcare.

This isn't an adversary of the United States. This is Egypt, our ally. Every day that we continue to send billions of dollars to the Egyptian Government, while paying lipservice to these egregious human rights violations, it is a blow both to our Nation's character and to our credibility around the world.

For the last several years, I fought to change our Egypt policy, and for the first time, in fiscal year 2021, we conditioned, with no waiver, $75 million of Egypt's $1.3 billion military aid package on ``making clear and consistent progress on releasing political prisoners and providing detainees with due process of law.'' Because there is no waiver, the administration either has to certify that Egypt has made this progress to merit the release of the money or that they haven't made that progress and withhold the money.

The record is clear that they have not. Let me just provide one way of measuring ``clear and consistent progress'' on releasing political prisoners. A group of Egyptian human rights organizations submitted a list of 2,954 known political prisoners to the government's Presidential Pardon Committee earlier this year. These are people who should not be in jail. They simply protested the government. And if you are going to be an ally of the United States, you shouldn't be locking people up for political speech. But of those 2,954 detainees, the government released 49. That is not ``clear and consistent progress.''

Another metric: Since April, Egypt's terrorism courts have ordered the release of 417 prisoners. But over that same time period, at least 4,400 political prisoners have had their detentions renewed by the courts. That is not ``clear and consistent progress.'' It is progress, but it is always one step forward and two or three steps backward, at best.

Egypt has certainly not made the kind of progress required to merit the release of $75 million.

In addition to that piece of funding tied to political prisoners, Congress has also tied an additional $225 million of Egypt's military aid to ``sustained and effective steps'' to improving Egypt's human rights record--a broader record of human rights abuses. The statute lays out that, in order to receive this money, Egypt needs to allow NGOs and the media to operate freely, protect women and religious minorities, hold security forces accountable when they violate human rights, and investigate and prosecute these cases of forced disappearances.

Again, the record is overwhelmingly clear that things in Egypt have gotten worse on these fronts, not better, over the last year. Journalists are regularly still charged with ``joining a terrorist group'' or ``spreading false news'' for any critical reporting. Just last week, four journalists from the independent outlet Mada Masr were charged with a single news article that documented corruption within a political party close to the President.

Earlier this year, human rights lawyer Youssef Mansour was charged with ``inciting terrorism'' after he wrote a social media post denouncing prison conditions.

Egypt is also not content with imprisoning its critics at home but increasingly is pursuing its critics abroad. News reports emerged in December that a prominent opposition

leader who lives in exile in Turkey had his phone hacked with NSO group software. In January, the U.S. Justice Department arrested a foreign agent here acting on behalf of Egypt. This is not the behavior of a foreign government that has made ``significant progress'' toward improving human rights to merit the release of $225 million.

Lastly, every year when we have this debate, there are always proponents who argue that, even though Egypt has this horrific human rights record, we should give them the money anyway. The argument is that because Egypt is a really important strategic ally, if we withhold just a portion of the $1.3 billion, Egyptians might stop cooperating with us or shop around for another partner.

Let me just take a minute to address the fallacy of this argument. First, Egypt does provide strategic benefits to the United States. Egypt provides counterterrorism cooperation. It shares intelligence with us about shared threats. Access to the Suez Canal is critical for the United States. When violence does flare up in Gaza, Egypt often steps in and helps mediate and facilitate a truce through its ties with Hamas. There are good reasons for the United States and Egypt to be partners.

And it is not crazy that we give them military aid, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that reducing our aid from $1.3 billion to $1 billion, after giving Egypt an entire year to meet these commonsense conditions, is going to cause the sky to fall. Just last year, the administration actually did withhold $130 million of Egypt's aid. Of course, the Egyptians were angry. It probably did make our diplomats' life a little bit harder in Egypt, but, by and large, our relationship didn't change. The Egyptians still cooperated with us on counterterrorism. They provided Suez overflight access. They again facilitated a truce in Gaza.

Why? Because all of these areas in which we engage are beneficial for the Egyptians. They don't do it as simple payback for our aid. They engage with us on these issues. They engage with Israel because it is good for Egyptian security, notwithstanding whether they get $1 billion or $1.3 billion from the United States.

We also sent a signal to the Egyptians by withholding some of that money last year. And while we didn't see significant improvements, we did see some political prisoners released.

This year, we have to keep the pressure up. The United States needs not just to talk the talk when it comes to human rights abroad; we need to be able to walk the walk as well. And the decision that the administration will make this week as to whether to comply with the conditions set forth by Congress on holding the Egyptians accountable for progress on human rights is critical to American credibility globally when it comes to our call to protect human rights and democracy abroad, and, for that reason, I would urge the administration to withhold the full $300 million as called for by the appropriations act until Egypt's record gets better.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am coming down to the floor to speak briefly on our efforts to protect women's access to birth control and contraception, but before I do, I just want to note something that happened here today that was really odd.

So a few weeks back, we came together and had a consensus bipartisan vote to stand up for our veterans. A number of Republican and Democratic legislators here in the House and the Senate worked together to develop something called the PACT Act.

This is groundbreaking legislation, decades in the making, that provides veterans access to healthcare for exposure to toxic chemicals, exposure that comes through being subjected to military burn pits-- these are pits where a lot of toxic chemicals and plastics are burned at military installations--but also for exposure to chemicals like Agent Orange.

So we had an 84-to-14 vote here just a few weeks ago in favor of the PACT Act and then the bill came back to the Senate due to some technical corrections having nothing to do with the substance of the bill. And yesterday the vote went from 84 to 55. Thirty Senators reversed their vote, and the bill failed. All 30 of those were Republicans.

What happened in 2 weeks that convinced 30 Republicans, who previously thought it was a good idea to help veterans, to decide instead to tank a bill that was helping veterans?

There are really only two explanations.

The more charitable explanation is that 30 Republicans just changed their minds; that 3 weeks ago they thought it was a good bill, helping veterans was a good idea, and 3 weeks later they decided that it wasn't a good idea; that they would rather spend that money on somebody else instead of our most vulnerable veterans.

Now, that would be pretty fantastic to have 30 Members of the Senate change their minds on the merits of a bill, especially a bill that helps veterans, the most vulnerable veterans in this country, veterans who are dealing with cancer and respiratory illnesses.

The less charitable explanation is this. Republicans are mad that Democrats are on the verge of passing climate change legislation and have decided to take out their anger on vulnerable veterans because that is the other thing that has changed in the last 3 weeks. Republicans thought that Democrats weren't going to be able to pass a bill asking corporations to pay a little bit more, tackling climate change. Yesterday, news emerged that there is an agreement that makes it likely that a climate change bill is going to proceed on the Senate floor, and, magically, 30 votes flipped.

That is the less charitable explanation because that would be pretty horrific if Republicans were mad about a climate change bill and decided to take out their anger on veterans--on vulnerable veterans.

So maybe in the coming days we will figure out which one it was. Maybe we will figure out if 30 votes flipped because the merits of the bill dictated that flip or maybe we will find out that Republicans have decided to just take out their anger about the reconciliation bill on veterans. Either way, this is not a good day for veterans in this country.

Democrats are standing up for veterans. We are going to keep voting for the PACT Act. We are going to bring it back. But 30 Republicans who thought helping veterans was a good idea just 3 weeks ago all of a sudden abandoned the cause.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

I appreciate the Senator's interest in trying to make sure that American energy resources don't go to benefit communist China. And it is interesting because I don't think a lot of Americans know that prior to 2015, the United States didn't allow for the export of American oil. We saw it prior to 2015 as a strategic asset, all of the oil produced in the United States.

Prior to 2015, we decided that the oil produced in the United States would stay in the United States; that it should benefit U.S. consumers.

And I have heard my Republican colleagues come down to the floor over and over again calling the Biden administration to do more drilling, to do more exploration, to authorize more permits under the belief that drilling in the United States will produce results for American consumers.

But the reality is we have done more drilling in the United States, but much of that drilling and exploration has benefited--you guessed it--China. Prior to 2015, the United States didn't export oil to China. In 2013, we exported .3 million barrels, the next year .4 million barrels, the next year 8 million barrels, the next year 80 million, then 84 million, dipped down to 50, then back up to 176. In 2021, 91 million barrels of oil shipped from the United States to China.

And so if we are sincere about trying to make sure that American- produced oil benefits American consumers, rather than the Chinese Communist Party, well, then let's make that our policy. Let's not limit the policy to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; let's just make the decision that American oil is going to benefit American consumers.

Now, that change was made in 2013 as part of a compromise. Republicans wanted the ban on oil exports lifted. Democrats wanted the extension of some tax incentives for renewables. It was a bipartisan compromise. But now that we seem to have greater consensus around stopping American exports of fuel benefiting China, then let's not just do this halfway; let's make it a clear policy.

And so I just learned of the Senator's unanimous consent request this morning, and I will commit to him to learn more about the more targeted approach that he is making, but I am going to plan to object to it today unless we can modify it to make this policy universal.

Senator Markey has a piece of legislation that would reimpose that ban on the export of oil. It seems like a pretty important time to do that. If we have oil in the United States, why don't we keep it here to benefit the people of the United States instead of shipping it to China? Senator Markey's bill has language in it that would allow for national interest exemptions so that if we needed to get oil to Ukraine, for instance, we could still do that. But 91 million barrels of oil, that is a lot of oil to be sending to China every year.

And so I am going to ask that the Senator modify his request to pass Senator Markey's legislation instead, which would, frankly, get at the concern that Senator Cruz is articulating but do it in a much more comprehensive way. I expect he may object to that modification, and if he does, I will object to his original request but commit to him to spend some time looking at his more targeted approach given a little bit more of a window.

So I am going to make this request right now, which is that the Senator modify his request and instead that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1415 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, here is what the Senator from Texas is saying: It is fine to sell to China so long as you are a big American oil company and profiting off of it.

That is the bottom line.

The Senator had the chance to endorse the policy that would have stopped all American exports to China. If the priority is to not enrich the Chinese Government, then let's enact that policy.

What Senator Cruz is essentially saying is that if the end result is massive profits for the oil company, then we are just going to look the other way. Then we are just going to look the other way.

The strategic petroleum reserve? No, we are going to keep that oil here. That can't go to China. That would be an immoral abomination if the Chinese got their hands on that oil.

But if the end result is that oil companies get to pad their profits by selling oil to the Chinese, well, then that is fine. Well, then, that is fine.

So let's be 100 percent clear in what is happening here. If your priority is not selling oil to China, then let's make that the policy. Let's make that the policy.

But that is not the priority. The priority is to make sure the oil companies can make as much money as possible.

ExxonMobil expects to make $10 billion in profit--not revenue, in profit--in the second quarter of this year. So I don't apologize for a second for making my priority the people of this country, not the profits of the oil companies.

Yes, I want to keep American oil here because I want it to benefit American consumers, not the oil companies' bottom line.

And spare me the rewrite of history on Nord Stream 2. Those sanctions that we passed were ready to go for Donald Trump. What I objected to was the Senator being silent when Donald Trump sat on the sidelines and refused to implement those sanctions, and then taking a hard line when a Democrat was in the White House.

Senator Cruz held up every State Department nominee that President Biden offered, as hostage in order to get a change on Nord Stream 2 policy. The Senator did not do that when Donald Trump was in office, during a period of time in which the pipeline was being built.

By the time that Donald Trump left office, that pipeline was 95 percent built, and had Senator Cruz taken the same policy during the Trump administration, arguably, we could have been in a different place by the end of 2019.

So I don't apologize for saying: You know what. The oil companies are making too much money. Our prices, our constituents, our consumers should come first. And if we are serious about not exporting oil to China, then let's be serious about it and make the policy universal.

And so for that reason, I would object.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and memory of a dear friend, Thomas Tresselt, who passed away on July 12 in Hartford.

Tom was an American classic. He grew up in Indiana where he was the star of his high school's basketball team before taking his talents to Yale University. In his first year, he scored 16 points on future NBA player, U.S. Senator, and Presidential candidate Bill Bradley's Princeton team. While he was not destined for the NBA, he never lost his love of basketball. In the early 80s--before computers were commonplace--he and a friend started their law firm's March Madness pool, providing comprehensive round-by-round standings, calculated manually using brackets drawn by hand.

Tom went on to the University of Michigan Law School where he married the love of his life, Sally. Sally and Tom would be married for 57 years. Following law school, Tom was commissioned an officer in the U.S. Navy, where he served in Beachmaster Unit 2 from 1969 to 1971. After the Navy, Tom and Sally moved to San Francisco where Tom worked as a litigator for Orrick, Herrington, Rowley, and Sutcliffe.

``Tired of always arguing for a living,'' Tom moved back to Connecticut, the place he and his family would call home for the next nearly 50 years. From 1974 to 1977, he was assistant dean of Yale Law School before joining Shipman and Goodman, where he practiced corporate law until 2008.

A leader in every sense of the word, Tom was an extremely active member of his community. At Asylum Hill Congregation Church, he served as moderator, was cochair of the capital campaign, served on the board of Christian service, was a deacon, and performed in the Boar's Head Festival as a king, log carrier, Beefeater, and other roles for nearly 20 years. He also served on the board of Loaves and Fishes, the American School for the Deaf, and Leadership Greater Hartford--3rd Age Initiative.

I knew Tom as a great friend and coworker of my father who, like Tom, made Shipman and Goodwin his work home for five decades. To me, Tom was a legend. Thoughtful and kind, with this big, booming, smiling personality that drew people to him. That person in your life that everyone just wants to be around. He was a man of action who led by example and was committed to his country, his family, and his community.

Tom battled Alzheimer's at the end of his life, but never lost his sense of humor, compassion, and love for his family and friends.

I only wish I could have known him better. But I knew him well enough to

know how great he was. Tom Tresselt will be missed by all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote. Senator Murphy for up to 15 minutes; Senator Cornyn for up to 15 minutes; and Senator Coons for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a piece of legislation that was introduced yesterday by 16 bipartisan Senators: the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act.

I am proud of the effort between Republicans and Democrats to put aside our differences on other issues and to be able to put before this body a proposal that will assure that the votes that are cast all across this country for President in 2024 result in the winner of that election sitting in the Oval Office.

And I come to the floor today to underscore for my colleagues why this piece of legislation is so vitally necessary.

All across the country, we are seeing an epidemic of candidates being nominated for Governor, for secretary of state, for Congress, who don't believe Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

They instead believe these wild conspiracy theories about voting machines that magically switched votes from one candidate to another, Sharpies that voted for Joe Biden illegally. All of it has been debunked, but the conspiracy theories and the support for this notion that Donald Trump actually won the election, according to the rules of the electoral college in 2020, continue to spread.

The Republican nominee for Governor in Pennsylvania, who appoints the State's chief election official, was right here at the Capitol, yards away from this Chamber on January 6, as individuals were storming the building trying to do harm to us. He took part in high-level meetings after the 2020 election, intended to overturn Biden's win in Pennsylvania.

He is perhaps mere months away from being the next Governor and chief elections officer of that State. Across the country, former President Trump is organizing what he calls an America First Secretary of State Coalition, and he is pretty unapologetic about what the design is. It is to install election officers all across the country whose chief loyalty is to Donald Trump, not the vote.

His endorsed candidate in Arizona, for instance, called for Biden's win in Arizona to be thrown out and for the Republican State legislature to appoint its own electors instead.

In Nevada, the endorsed Republican candidate for secretary of state, another Trump loyalist, says if he was in office in 2020, he would not have certified Joe Biden's win, leading to an immediate constitutional crisis.

What is happening all across the country right now is a complete, total rejection of democracy by Trump supporters and his endorsed candidates.

Now, they aren't representative of the entire Republican Party, but, unfortunately, they are winning primaries all across the country, and they are winning elections all across the country.

And these Trump loyalists, they are not interested in the winner of an election becoming President if that winner isn't Donald Trump. They effectively want Donald Trump installed as a monarch, and they are willing to just throw out democracy if that is what is necessary to keep their leader in power.

And as I mentioned, this isn't some fringe phenomenon any longer. I think we have a lot of Republicans in the Senate and the House who see this danger coming and want to take steps to prevent it. That is why we are introducing this legislation, but there are over 100 winners of Republican primaries for Congress and statewide office this year who believe--who have stated this belief publicly that the 2020 election was stolen and that Donald Trump should still be President.

There is just a very well-developed and well-organized movement, where Trump supporters are learning from his inability to overturn the election in 2020, and they are galvanizing themselves to leave nothing to chance in 2024.

The operation to install Trump in the White House in 2025, if he runs, will be more sophisticated and better organized than 2020. The threat that 2024 will be the last year of American democracy is real.

I know that sounds like hyperbole, but we came really close to losing our democracy in 2020. And if a President is installed in the White House who did not actually win the election, then I don't know how you claim that this experiment for 250 years is still ongoing.

So we need to act, as a body, across the aisle. Those of us who believe that our loyalty to country is more important than our loyalty to party need to act to make it as hard as possible for a group of traitors to install as President the loser of the 2024 Presidential election.

And so toward that end, we have introduced a piece of legislation that will seek to reform the way in which electors are sent to Congress and the way in which we count those electors to put up as many barriers as we can to these efforts to install the loser of the 2024 election as President of the United States.

So I am grateful to Senator Collins and Senator Manchin for leading this process. I am grateful to be a part of it, along with Senators Portman, Sinema, Romney, Shaheen, Murkowski, Warner, Tillis, Capito, Cardin, Young, Coons, Sasse, and Graham.

And so let me tell you, in just a few minutes, what the most important elements--let me just tell you about some of the key elements of the Electoral Count Reform Act. It engages to make the selection and counting of fraudulent electors harder by both addressing efforts by Congress to overturn valid State results but also to make it harder for States to submit to Congress invalid State results.

Now, on January 6 of last year, we saw a handful of our colleagues attempt to throw out the valid elector slates from States like Pennsylvania and Arizona. And, luckily, in the end, those efforts only got a handful of votes here in the Senate, but the majority of Republicans voted to throw out those slates in the House of Representatives, which just tells you how mainstream these views have become.

And so, in two important ways, we make that attempt by Congress to throw out valid results from a State a little bit, but substantially, harder. Under our current law, it only takes one single Senator in order to throw this entire Senate into a debate over whether or not we should count or throw out certain electors.

In the end, there were, I think, 12 Republican Senators who suggested we should throw out ballots, but really all that was needed was 1. So what we do is we increase that threshold from 1 Senator to 20 percent of Senators, from 1 House Member to 20 percent of House Members to begin that debate. Ultimately, you still need a majority of the House and the Senate to throw out an elector slate, but you can't even begin that debate now without having 20 percent of each body. That is a substantial and important change.

Second, we clarify the role of the Vice President. Now, some would argue that this isn't necessary; that the Vice President's role in this process is ceremonial, but that is not what Donald Trump thought. Donald Trump and his cadre of fringe lawyers believed, by reading a statute in a particular way, that Mike Pence had the ability by himself to refuse to count certain slates of electors.

Now, that is not how the 1887 Act reads, but just to be absolutely clear, our reform act clarifies the law to make 100 percent clear that the Vice President's role is just ceremonial.

And then, as I said, we also take steps to make it harder for States to send fraudulent results to Congress because that is the primary threat in 2024. I still think that there are the votes in the Senate, no matter what the elections look like in 2024, for the Senate to make sure that we don't throw out valid results that are sent to the Congress.

The bigger threat is that one candidate wins in a State like Arizona or--depending on what happens in the gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania and instead that State decides to send electors for the losing candidate to Congress, making some vague, broad claims of fraud that they can't substantiate.

So we make that exercise in fraud less likely through a number of means. First, there is a really ambiguous provision in the 1887 law which President Trump argued in the courts allowed for State legislatures to appoint their own electors if they judged that the election was incomplete. Now, what that was initially intended to mean was if an election didn't happen because of a natural disaster, but Trump's lawyers thought that that meant that these claims of fraud could satisfy that incomplete criteria.

Well, we removed that ambiguity in this underlying piece of legislation. No longer will anybody be able to claim that State legislatures can just step in after the fact and appoint different electors.

Second, we have a clear prohibition that State legislatures can't change the rules of how electors are chosen after the election itself. Now, it is up to State legislatures as to how they appoint electors.

Every State right now appoints them based upon who won the popular vote in their State, but the Constitution does give that power to the State legislature. It does not give them the power to change that process after the voters have cast their vote. We make that clear in this piece of legislation.

And then, most importantly, we clarify the process by which campaigns and candidates can contest a fraudulent certification or a fraudulent appointment of electors.

As we saw in the 2000 election, there is overlapping contesting jurisdictions between States and the Federal court system. It often takes very--a very long time for those processes to play out and unwind. We set up in this bill a new expedited process of review by a three-judge panel. We limit the cases that can be brought to that panel by the campaigns themselves, just to make sure we aren't incentivizing spurious litigation.

But that new process allows the candidates and the campaigns, if they believe that the laws of the State have not been upheld in allowing the majority winner of that State to dictate what electors get sent to Washington, to make that claim before a three-judge panel in an expedited fashion, to have that case go up to the Supreme Court in an expedited manner as well.

Clarifying the way in which we solve for these contests, if they arise over a valid slate of electors and an invalid slate of electors is an important reform in this bill.

Listen, what we have built over the last 250 years in the United States of America, it really is a miracle, and we should never forget how much of an anomaly American democracy is when you look at the broad scope of the governments under which people have lived.

This idea that citizens, not dictators or Kings or plutocrats, get to decide who leads a nation--250 years later, it is still a revolutionary idea.

And I remind my constituents all the time that democracy is really unnatural, right? There are not a lot of other things that are important to us in our lives that we run through democratic vote. Our workplaces are really important places, but we don't run our workplace through democratic vote. The boss--the CEO--makes the decisions there.

We love our sports teams, right? We follow them. We live and die for them. But the decisions on those teams--they are not made by democratic vote. There is a coach, a general manager who makes the decisions. I love my kids, but they don't get an equal vote in the decisions of my household with my wife and me. Lots of things that are important to us in our lives don't run by democratic vote. We are very comfortable, in fact, with hierarchal systems, with one person or a handful of people making decisions for us, but we have reserved this idea of democracy for the decisions that are made that govern our community, our town, our State, or our Nation.

We need to remember that over the course of world history, almost no one has lived in a democratic civilization. Why? Because it is natural for human beings to want their chosen leader to be in charge, their preferred leader to be in charge, no matter what everybody else in the community believes. It is also natural for leaders, once they have tasted power, to want to cling to that power and refuse to give it up, no matter the wishes of their citizenry.

So we need to be constantly vigilant to protect this experiment. In the grand sweep of world history, that is what it is--a revolutionary experiment. We need to recognize the moments when the threats to that experiment are new and novel and more grave than normal and be nimble enough to respond.

So I would argue that this is one of those moments, and I am so grateful to the group of bipartisan Senators who have worked so hard to introduce this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, 4 weeks ago, I was sitting where you are sitting, presiding over the Senate on a quiet Tuesday afternoon, when news broke that 19 children--all the same age as my youngest son--had been gunned down in their Texas elementary school.

As I scrolled through the early reports of the carnage, all I could think of were these two simple questions: What are we doing? Why are we here?

I sat up there obsessing over our willful decision as a body to ignore the slaughter that has become so regular that the news only seems to pay attention now when over a dozen die. Our collective decision year after year is to do nothing. What is the point of this job that we fought so hard to get if we just decide that saving children's lives is too hard or involves too inconvenient an amount of political risk?

Shooting after shooting, murder after murder, suicide after suicide-- for 30 years, Congress stood in its political corners and did nothing. But not this time. Within 2 days of the Uvalde massacre, Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, and I, joined by other Members of this body, had started talking, not about our disagreements--we

have plenty of those--but instead about what could be possible if we sat together and refused to give up until we figured out the set of things that we could agree on--the things that could get 60 votes--to save lives.

I am so grateful in the bottom of my soul to John, to Thom, to Kyrsten, and the other Senators here who took part in these talks for what they did over these last 4 weeks.

I am grateful to Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell for empowering these discussions and allowing us to have this debate this week.

I am equally proud of my team--Allison and Samir, Emily and Rebecca, Pete and Elizabeth--who worked 24/7 for the last 30 days straight to get this bill done.

But mostly I am proud of the regular people all across this country, many of whom were forced to become advocates after this epidemic took from them a son or a daughter, a mother or a father. Those citizens, many of whom are watching this debate right now, who protested or wrote letters or showed up at townhalls year after year, failure after failure, roadblock after roadblock, refusing to give up because the stakes--their children's safety--was so high that they couldn't afford to give up, that is who I am really proud of today, people who would not take no for an answer and knew that the righteousness of their cause had to eventually prevail.

This bill is a compromise. It doesn't do everything I want. But what we are doing will save thousands of lives without violating anyone's Second Amendment rights.

Through more effective red flag laws, by keeping guns away from domestic abusers, by being more careful about giving weapons to 18- year-olds, by getting more people access to treatment for their mental illness, this will become the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress has passed in three decades.

As a result, this bill also has the chance to prove to a weary American public that democracy is not so broken that it is unable to rise to the moment when the need for action, like right now, in the wake of Uvalde and Buffalo, is most acute.

What are we doing? Why are we here? We are answering those questions today--not fully but with enough force that anxious moms and dads and kids all across this Nation will wake up tomorrow and be a little more confident that the adults who run this country actually care about their safety, because, you know what, people still believe in us. People still count on us.

Two months after his son was gunned down by a 19-year-old with an assault rifle in Sandy Hook, one of the dads came to Congress and gave this testimony: ``Before he died,'' Neil Heslin told Congress, my son ``Jesse and I used to talk about maybe coming to Washington someday. He wanted to go up to the Washington monument. When we talked about it last year Jesse asked if we could [go] meet the President. Now I could be a little cynical about politicians. But Jesse, he believed in you. He learned about you in school and he believed in you. I want to believe in you, too. I know you can't give me Jesse back. Believe me, if I thought you could, I'd be asking you for that. But I want to believe that you will think about what happened to my son and what I've seen. I want to believe that you'll think about it and then you'll do something about it.''

What are we doing? What are we here for if not to do something-- something meaningful, something real, something together--to end this carnage.

Jesse believed in us. And, today, more so than at any time since I came to Congress 16 years ago, I believe in us too.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the Gallery right now listening to the Senate debate on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is one of my interns. Her name is Sari Kaufman. I am glad to have her as an intern in my office this summer, but Sari has a story to tell because she is a survivor of a mass shooting.

She was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School when a gunman entered that campus and shot and killed her friends, her classmates. She reminds us that she went to more funerals in a matter of a week than many adults do in their entire lifetime.

She was in debate class when the shooting started, and she ran for her life, as did hundreds of other survivors of that horrible day.

No student in America should have to experience what she went through. No young person should have the burden that she bears to come to Washington and argue for changes that will make sure that other students don't go through the same thing, and no parent should have to go through the grief that parents day after day do, mass shooting after mass shooting, urban homicide after urban homicide, as we lose a generation of kids, of young people in this Nation to an epidemic of gun violence that can be stopped by better public policy.

I have been on this floor hundreds of times pleading with my colleagues to do something, and I am so grateful that Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and a handful of their colleagues on the Republican side this time stood up and sat down with Senator Sinema, myself, and other Democrats to find the common denominator.

I am here on the floor to talk a little bit more about what our piece of legislation does, but I agree with Senator Sinema--this is a moment where we have shown this country what is possible here in the U.S. Senate.

I talked last night about the fear that families in Connecticut and all across the country felt in the wake of Buffalo and Uvalde and that twin fear about what fate awaited their children but also what fate awaited our democracy if we were unable to rise to this moment to deal with this existential challenge--the loss of life in schools, in shopping malls, in supermarkets.

And while this compromise was hard-earned, every single day for the last 4 weeks proved to me what can happen in this body if we decide to come out of our political corners.

And let me say that this moment that we are in today, on the precipice of passing the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation in the last 30 years, would not be possible if it were not for Senator Sinema. It would not be possible if it wasn't for her decision to sit down and help us find a path to what was possible.

But it is also clear that without the leadership of Senator Cornyn, who has been through way too many of these tragedies in his State, and Senator Tillis, a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights but also somebody who believes in this place finding a way to that common denominator, this day wouldn't be possible either.

So I want to talk for a few moments about what this bill does because there will be a lot of folks who focus on what it doesn't do. It certainly doesn't do all of the things I think are necessary to end the epidemic of gun violence in this Nation. But it will save thousands of lives; there is no doubt about it in my mind. And, in fact, I could make the argument that every single one of the provisions in this bill, in and of themselves, would save thousands of lives.

We don't get to do that very often in this place. We don't get a chance very often to pass legislation that has this kind of impact. So if you want to focus on what is not in this legislation, you can, it is your prerogative, but I want to spend a few minutes talking about the difference this legislation will make in people's lives.

Senator Sinema and Senator Cornyn rightly focused--and I put it right at the top--this major, historic investment in mental health access. I made no secret in my belief that you can't solve America's gun violence epidemic simply through mental health funding, but there is no doubt there is an intersection, and there is no doubt that our mental health system is just broken--period, stop--whether you believe that it has any intersection with America's gun violence epidemic. There are far too many kids and adults in crisis in this country who cannot get access to mental health services. In my State, kids get stacked up in emergency rooms in hallways, waiting days, if not weeks, for inpatient beds.

There is $11 billion in this bill to unlock pathways to treatment for kids and adults all across this country; funding in this bill for school and community safety--$2 billion to make our schools safer, not just for better door-locking mechanisms, but also in programs inside these schools that can try to identify kids in crisis early. There will be supportive school environments that cut down on the pathways to violence. But also there is money for community-based intervention, what we call violence interruption programs. We have them in Connecticut where you intervene when a shooting victim comes to the hospital. You will make sure that that incident doesn't spiral into retributive violence in the community--funding for school safety and community safety in this bill.

And then the parts of the bill that probably get the most attention, the changes in our gun laws--these crisis intervention orders do work. Not every State has them. It was important to Senator Cornyn for money to go to every State regardless of whether they have red flag laws; but if you have a red flag law or you want to pass one, you will be able to get funding through this bill--significant funding--to allow you to implement that red flag law better. There are States that have them, but they don't work very well because people don't know how to access them. Police officers or first responders don't know what to do when they see somebody in crisis, when they see somebody threatening violence to themselves. Now, we will have funding to help States that will allow the authorities with court orders to be able to temporarily take weapons away from people who were threatening to kill themselves or threatening mass violence.

We are going to keep guns away from domestic abusers, and we know that in States that make sure that every domestic abuser is not allowed to purchase or possess guns that there is a significant impact on domestic violence. And so our bill makes it a national policy that if you have carried out an act of domestic violence against your partner, whether you are married to them or whether you are in a serious dating relationship, you are not going to be able to have guns in your home.

But because this is a compromise, we built in a process by which those who have no previous record and those who keep their records clean subsequent to the offense could get those rights back. It makes sense to us, especially if you are convicted of a felony, you have a pretty clear pathway in your States to get your rights back--your voting rights or your Second Amendment rights. So we set up that process for those who are convicted of domestic violence, dating misdemeanors.

Enhanced background checks for young buyers--whether we like it or not, the 18-to-21-year-old profile, those are the mass shooters right now in this country. And so we want to make sure that we do a more significant background check to make sure you are a responsible gun buyer, including a check with the local police department.

The shooter in Uvalde was known to local police. He didn't have an offense that would have prohibited him from buying those weapons. But, ask yourself, what would have happened if the local police department had gotten a phone call as a part of that background check, had been alerted that a young man who they knew to be in some form of crisis was going to buy AR-15-style weapons on his 18th birthday? Would there have been an opportunity for an intervention? Possibly. Maybe that tragedy could have been avoided by better public policy.

In this bill, we also have new penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchasing. Why on Earth hasn't the United States of America had a law banning gun trafficking at the Federal level or banning straw purchasing when the main way that guns get into the flow of illegal traffic is through straw purchasing and through complicated gun trafficking networks? Now, our Federal law enforcement agencies are going to have available to them new tools that will allow them to cut down on the flow of illegal weapons throughout the country, but in particular and most importantly, into our cities.

And the last thing we are going to do is more background checks because of this bill. We clarify in this bill the definition of a federally licensed gun dealer to make sure that everybody who should be licensed as a gun owner is. In one of the mass shootings in Texas, the individual who carried out the crime was mentally ill. He was a prohibited purchaser. He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. He was actually denied a sale when he went to a bricks-and-mortar gun store, but he found a way around the background check system because he went online and found a seller there who would transfer a gun to him without a background check. It turned out that seller was, in fact, engaged in the business, but didn't believe the definition applied to him because the definition is admittedly confusing. So we simplified that definition and hope that will result--and I believe it will result--in more of these frequent online gun sellers registering, as they should, as federally licensed gun dealers which then requires them to perform background checks.

Each one of these provisions arguably saves thousands of lives in and of themselves; but cumulatively, this is a groundbreaking piece of legislation--a true compromise--not as much as I would like to do but certainly more than some Republicans would like to do. And it is a message to this country that there is a path forward in this body to address the epidemic of gun violence. It is a message to the activists like Sari Kaufman, who have been coming to this place, who have been going to their State legislatures, asking time and time again for change that speaking truth to power works, that legislators do listen.

And I hope it as an invitation for us to find more ways like this to work together in the future. My belief is that those who vote--even those who have been on the outside of these negotiations in the past will find that when they get back to their States, there will be unfamiliar supporters showing up at your events indoors, people who are cheering you on because we worked together to take this existential issue, the fear of death from gun violence, more seriously than we have in over 30 years.

So I am glad to share in a little bit more detail than I was last night what is in this package. I believe this is a week to focus on what we have done and not what we have left undone and to accept this as an invitation to find other ways to come together around difficult, vexing issues in this country.

I have a fourth grader the same age as those kids in Uvalde, and I do not want him to grow up in a world in which he and his classmates have to worry about their survival when they walk into their school every day. I do not want to live in a world where survivors of these tragedies in school after school have to become advocates and activists in this cause. And while this bill doesn't solve America's gun violence, it shows we have the potential to work together on these difficult vexing challenges in a brandnew lifesaving way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when I returned to Connecticut after the shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, I saw

a level of fear on the faces of the parents and children whom I spoke to that I have never seen before. This country has lived through mass shooting after mass shooting, rising rates of homicide, but there was something different in the eyes of these families as they once again had to contemplate the idea that our schools are no longer safe places, that our supermarkets are no longer safe spaces.

But they also were contemplating the idea that Congress was so caught up in its own politics, so addicted to backing into our own corners that we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful about the thing that matters most to parents and to families in this country: the physical safety of their children. Think about it. What matters more to you than the physical well-being of your children? You would give away everything--your job, your car, the roof over your head--in order to guarantee that your children were safe from physical harm.

So the anxiety and the fear that I saw in Connecticut and that I think many of my colleagues saw when they returned to their States was not just for the safety of their children but also a fear about the ability of government to rise to this moment and do something and do something meaningful.

I believe that this week we will pass legislation that will become the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress will have passed in 30 years. This is a breakthrough, and more importantly, it is a bipartisan breakthrough. I am glad to join my friend Senator Cornyn on the floor today to talk a little bit about the piece of legislation that our colleagues will be able to look at hopefully in a matter of moments and that this body will be able to consider this week.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema in particular. It was a hard road to get to this compromise, but nothing worthwhile is easy. And nobody in a compromise gets everything they want. This bill will be too little for many; it will be too much for others. But it isn't a box-checking exercise. This bill is not window dressing. This bill is going to save lives. This bill is going to save thousands of lives. It is going to be something that every single Member of this Senate who votes for it can be proud of.

I want to tell you a little bit about it, and some of this has already been covered by my friend Senator Cornyn. First, let me talk about the provisions in this bill that change our Nation's firearms laws.

First, we are going to invest in the development of crisis intervention orders. We are going to give money out to States that they will be able to use to implement what are commonly called red flag laws. These are laws that allow local authorities and courts to take weapons, firearms, temporarily away from individuals who are threatening to hurt themselves or others.

We just saw Connecticut's red flag law be used just in the last month or so to take weapons away from a young man who was making threats to shoot up schools, potentially saving dozens of lives.

Under this bill, every State will be able to use significant new Federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop dangerous people--people contemplating mass murder or suicide--from being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate that crime.

As Senator Cornyn said, we will also make those dollars eligible for a narrow range of other court-based anti-violence interventions-- something that was very important to our Republican colleagues.

Second, this bill is going to make sure that no domestic abusers can purchase or own a gun. We are closing the boyfriend loophole. What we know is that in States that have taken this step already, there are 10 percent fewer intimate partner deaths. This is an incredibly important step forward. We know this provision alone is going to save lives of so many women who unfortunately die at the hands of a boyfriend or an ex- boyfriend who hunts them down with a firearm.

To be consistent with State felony restoration rights, this legislation will allow individuals to be able to get their right back after a period of time but only for first-time offenders and only if there are no crimes of violence in the intervening time.

This bill will provide for enhanced background checks for younger buyers. What we know is that the profile of the modern mass shooter is often in the 18- to 21-year-old range, and so this bill has enhanced background checks for those individuals, including a call to the local police department--a process that can take up to 3 days and up to 10 days if there are particular signs of concern that investigators need to perform followup on. That enhanced background check is going to make sure that younger buyers who are in crisis have another check performed--perhaps a short period of time in between their decision to buy a lethal weapon to perform a crime and their ability to get that weapon.

This bill has new criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and straw purchasing. This is incredibly important for our cities. We have a flow of illegal guns coming into these cities, and yet, for decades, for some reason, Congress has not given our Federal authorities the ability to interrupt these gun-running rings because we have no effective ban at a Federal level on trafficking and straw-purchasing. We will after we pass this law.

Finally, we clarify under this bill who needs to register as a federally licensed gun dealer. One of the individuals who sold a weapon to a mass shooter in Odessa, TX, should have been licensed as a Federal dealer, but he wasn't, and he sold the gun to a person who was prohibited from buying the gun because of his mental health history, without a background check. We will clarify in this law that individuals like that need to register as Federal firearms dealers, and they need to perform background checks.

As Senator Cornyn said, this bill makes a historic investment in mental health--a historic investment in mental health. Thanks to Debbie Stabenow and Roy Blunt, we are going to be able to expand the certified community health center model nationally. That literally means millions of people in this country in underserved areas who have no access to mental health are going to be able to get it after we pass this bill.

We have significant new funding in this bill for school-based health centers to make sure that kids are better served, especially those kids who are in crisis.

We have help in this bill for pediatricians who are trying to do telehealth consults with behavioral health professionals who are trying to get more training on mental health so they can help their patients.

Finally, we make investments in school and community safety, funds to help schools make their campuses safer places but also funds for community-based programs that are doing good work in cities from Boston to Hartford to Dallas interrupting cycles of violence in our communities.

For 30 years--murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass shooting after mass shooting--Congress did nothing. This week, we have a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives. It is a compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is a path forward to the way that both Republicans and Democrats can work together to address some of the most vexing, most difficult challenges this Nation faces.

We have a chance to show parents and kids and families that we take their safety seriously and we are prepared to do not just something but something that saves lives in order to protect them.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, 13 kids dead in an elementary school in Texas right now. What are we doing? What are we doing?

Just days after a shooter walked into a grocery store to gun down African-American patrons, we have another Sandy Hook on our hands. What are we doing?

There have been more mass shootings than days in the year. Our kids are living in fear every single time they set foot in a classroom because they think they are going to be next. What are we doing?

Why do you spend all this time running for the U.S. Senate? Why do you go through all the hassle of getting this job, of putting yourself in a position of authority, if your answer is that, as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives, we do nothing? What are we doing? Why are you here if not to solve a problem as existential as this?

This isn't inevitable. These kids weren't unlucky. This only happens in this country and nowhere else. Nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day. Nowhere else do parents have to talk to their kids, as I have had to do, about why they got locked in a bathroom and told to be quiet for 5 minutes just in case a bad man entered that building. Nowhere else does that happen except here in the United States of America, and it is a choice. It is our choice to let it continue. What are we doing?

In Sandy Hook Elementary School after those kids came back into those classrooms, they had to adopt a practice in which there would be a safe word that the kids would say if they started to get thoughts in their brain about what they saw that day, if they started to get nightmares during the day, reliving stepping over their classmates' bodies as they tried to flee the school.

In one classroom, that word was ``monkey.'' Over and over and over through the day, kids would stand up and yell ``monkey,'' and a teacher or a paraprofessional would have to go over to that kid, take them out of the classroom, talk to them about what they had seen, work them through their issues.

Sandy Hook will never ever be the same. This community in Texas will never ever be the same.

Why? Why are we here if not to try to make sure that fewer schools and fewer communities go through what Sandy Hook has gone through, what Uvalde is going through? Our hearts are breaking for these families. Every ounce of love and thoughts and prayers we can send, we are sending. But I am here on this floor to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues: Find a path forward here. Work with us to find a way to pass laws that make this less likely.

I understand my Republican colleagues will not agree to everything that I may support, but there is a common denominator that we can find. There is a place where we can achieve agreement. This may not guarantee that America never ever again sees a mass shooting. It may not overnight cut in half the number of murders that happen in America. It will not solve the problem of American violence by itself. But by doing something, we at least stop sending this quiet message of endorsement to these killers whose brains are breaking, who see the highest levels of government doing nothing shooting after shooting.

What are we doing? Why are we here? What are we doing?

I yield the floor.