Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to call attention to the more than 112,000 foster children in our Nation who are waiting to be adopted. Of these, more than 14,000 are in California.

These are children with no permanent place to call home, who have experienced severe neglect or abuse. Through no fault of their own, these kids are uprooted from their lives, separated from everything they know, and unable to be safely reunited with their biological families. Many are moved from home to home with their few belongings in a garbage bag.

These are children who are waiting for a family, wanting to belong, and needing our help. Of these children, more than 20,000 age out of the foster care system every year without a place to call home. We can and must do better.

What happens to children who age out of the foster care system? They are shown the door and expected to suddenly be self-sustaining, successful adults. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of our foster youth. I say ``our'' because these kids are all of our responsibility. They are in every community, and we are failing

them. For those who age out of the system, 20 percent become homeless. Only half are employed by age 24. Seventy percent of young women who age out of the system are pregnant by age 21. Less than 3 percent complete a college degree. Foster youth are also at higher risk of being victims of child sex-trafficking.

We can do better. Our children deserve better. Every child is meant to be in a family. In America, families come in all sorts of wonderful shapes and sizes, and every foster child waiting to be adopted deserves the love, safety, and support that only a permanent family can provide. No child is unadoptable.

During the month of November, our Nation celebrates National Adoption Month, and recognizes the families that have opened their hearts and homes to children in need of a family and the joy that adoption brings. I encourage anyone interested in building their family through adoption to visit www.adoptuskids.org. It is also important to recognize the efforts of the volunteers and mentors who provide a positive, stable relationship for a child whose entire world is changing. In addition, programs that provide comprehensive resources--from mental health services to tutoring--help foster kids succeed. There may not be a simple solution, but we do know what gets us closer. There are programs in California and across the Nation that have shown improved permanency rates, nearly universal high school graduation rates, and success in college and employment. There is hope and not a second to waste.

As National Adoption Month comes to a close, we must remember our foster youth year-round and strive to ensure that each one is connected with a permanent, loving home. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure a better future for foster youth in our Nation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 274, on the nomination of Mark T. Esper, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Army. I believe Mr. Esper is well qualified to be the Secretary of the Army. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

I would also note that I was unavailable for this rollcall vote because I was serving as ranking member at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for judicial nominees--and specifically a panel of four district court nominees from Kentucky and Kansas that had been enthusiastically endorsed by Majority Leader McConnell and Senators Roberts and Moran earlier that morning. Senator Cruz--who was serving as the acting chair of the committee for this hearing at this time--and I had hoped that the vote would be held open long enough for us to participate.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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

Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking the Senator from Illinois. Not only did she serve this country, she sacrificed for this country. I for one, as I see her rolling up and down the aisles and through the halls, am just so proud and so thankful for her, for her family, for her work, and particularly I thank her for these comments. I think the Senator is very worthy, and I am delighted to be her colleague.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong opposition to the confirmation of Steven Bradbury to serve as general counsel in the Department of Transportation.

Steven Bradbury has a troubling history of disregard for United States and international law and seems unable to offer objective legal analysis. Both of these troubling characteristics were on display when he helped justify the CIA's torture program.

I was on the Intelligence Committee during this period of time--and still am--and one of the things we wanted to see were the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda. The OLC memos were never given to us, although individuals from the Department came and spoke to us about them.

Steven Bradbury was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2005 to 2009. During that time, he wrote four legal memos--finally declassified, finally here--and this is what they look like. Those memos provided the legal foundation for waterboarding and other interrogation techniques that were tantamount to torture.

The first memo, written on May 10, 2005, concludes that the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques was lawful. This memo, which addressed torture techniques including waterboarding, was written to replace the previous classified Office of Legal Counsel opinions.

The second memo, also written on May 10, found that the use of multiple interrogation techniques would not violate U.S. law because there would be no severe mental pain or suffering, just physical distress.

The third memo, written on May 30, 2005, reaffirmed a previous OLC opinion that the CIA's use of torture, such as waterboarding, was not prohibited by the Convention against Torture, so long as it was done overseas. That memo also concluded that constitutional prohibitions against cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment did not apply.

The fourth memo, written on July 20, 2007, concluded that the continued use of six enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA, including forced nudity and extended sleep deprivation, did not violate the Detainee Treatment Act or the War Crimes Act or the Geneva Conventions.

By writing these four memos, Bradbury not only provided the feeble foundation upon which the CIA violated well-established law and military doctrine, he also endangered U.S. troops--as the Senator from Illinois has pointed out--betrayed our country's values, and compromised our standing as a world leader.

The tactics used by the CIA were not only more brutal than was known, they also didn't produce actionable intelligence. We have a 7,000-page document, with 32,000 footnotes, which took 6 years of reviewing cables and information--all factual, not declassified, and a summary was declassified--and to date, nothing in it has been contradicted. Capturing terror suspects and torturing them in secret facilities failed. Period.

Among Bradbury's many troubling conclusions in these memos were that neither the Constitution's prohibitions against inhumane treatment nor the U.N. Convention Against Torture applied to the CIA's activities outside U.S. territory. That is interesting.

Even more troubling, Bradbury's 2007 memo was written with the purpose of evading congressional intent. It is stunning that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel would knowingly work to find loopholes in the law to justify the use of torture.

On October 5, 2005, the Senate voted 90 to 9 to approve the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. This law stated: ``No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.''

However, less than 2 years later, Bradbury's fourth torture memo explicitly allowed the CIA to continue many of the abusive interrogation techniques that Congress clearly intended to prohibit in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. These include forced nudity and extended sleep deprivation. This should be a disqualifier for

continued service in the U.S. Government, regardless of the position, I believe.

It is true that Congress settled this matter in June of 2015 when, thanks to Senator McCain, we voted overwhelmingly to prohibit torture in that year's National Defense Authorization Act, but that doesn't change the fact that Bradbury did his best to bypass Congress a decade earlier by writing those torture memos.

It is also true that as general counsel of the Transportation Department, Bradbury wouldn't be tasked with duties connected to detainees. But by ignoring the intent of Congress in order to justify the CIA's continued use of torture, Bradbury ignored the law to achieve a desired result and that is unacceptable.

Even the Justice Department found fault with Bradbury's actions. After the OLC torture memos came to light, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation of the facts and the circumstances surrounding those memos and DOJ's role in the implementation of the CIA interrogation program.

On June 29, 2009, the Justice Department found ``serious concerns'' about the objectivity and reasonableness of Bradbury's work. This included evidence that he gave into pressure in order to produce opinions that would allow the CIA torture program to continue.

The Department of Justice report cited several Bush administration officials who believed Bradbury was producing opinions with the goal of allowing the program to continue.

Jim Comey, who served as Deputy Attorney General at the time of Bradbury's memos, said there was significant pressure from the White House--specifically Vice President Cheney and his staff--to allow the program to continue. Comey said that one would have to be ``an idiot not to know what was wanted.'' Comey also said that in his opinion, Bradbury knew that ``if he rendered an opinion that shut down or hobbled the [interrogation] program the Vice President . . . would be furious.''

John Bellinger, who in 2007 served as legal advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wrote to Bradbury and stated that he was ``concerned that the [2007 Bradbury] opinion's careful parsing of statutory and treaty terms'' would be considered ``a work of advocacy to achieve a desired outcome.''

The DOJ was also concerned that Bradbury relied too heavily on the CIA's reviews of its own interrogation program, which of course were positive.

During a time when we needed independent voices in government to check the CIA's actions, Bradbury failed to rise to the occasion. He failed to fulfill the responsibilities of his position.

The Senate twice refused to confirm Bradbury as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration because of this very issue. Nothing has changed since that time. I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

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

Mr. President, for the last month, in the wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas, I have been asking my colleagues to show some courage, stand up to the gun lobby, and take weapons of war off of our streets.

Now, we have all had to bear witness to another tragedy. Three days ago, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, a single person armed with an assault rifle murdered 26 people and left another 20 injured. This gunman walked into a church and opened fire on peaceful churchgoers, including children as young as 18-months old. A helpless toddler who barely learned to walk. Eight members of a single family were also lost. Eight.

The shooter had 15 magazine clips of ammunition--almost 450 rounds-- and used all of them. Ask yourself: how would you feel in those moments, with hundreds of bullets flying around and not knowing whether you will live or die, or whether you will be able to protect your child? Think about those children--terrified, witnessing their families being shot while in a place of worship. It is time that we ask what this says about us as a country. And what does this say about us to the rest of the world.

In 1996, after a mass shooting where a gunman opened fire on tourists at the sea side in Port Arthur, killing 35 people, Australia acted swiftly. Twelve days later, Australia's government enacted sweeping gun control measures. Since then, there has not been a single mass shooting in that country since. Mass shootings in America, however, have become common place. It is no longer a matter of if, but when, another one will happen.

If there are now mass shootings in churches, where are we safe anymore? Not concerts, not schools, not holiday parties. Just a month ago, we experienced the worst mass shooting in our nation's history in Las Vegas. A gunman opened fire with multiple semi-automatic assault rifles that he had legally transformed into automatic weapons, killing more than fifty people and leaving more than 500 wounded. Among the victims were mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters.

There was Kelsey Meadows, 28 years old, who after graduating from the University of California, Fresno, returned to her hometown of Taft, California to be a substitute teacher at her alma mater, Taft Union High School. She was described by the high school principal as ``smart, compassionate, and kind'' with a ``sweet spirit and a love for children.'' Her entire family and community was completely devastated. Kelsey could have been any of us attending that concert. My own daughter told me after the Las Vegas shooting that she was supposed to be in the city that evening, but her plans had to change. It was only a little more than a year before the Las Vegas shooting that we experienced what had then been the worst mass shooting in our nation's history.

That was when 49 people who were enjoying an evening of dancing with friends and loved ones were massacred in Orlando. Victims in Orlando included 22-year old Luis Velma who was working at Universal Studios on a Harry Potter ride. There was also Eddie Justice, a 30-year old accountant who texted his mother from the shooting, telling her: ``Mommy I love you.'' ``In club they shooting.'' ``He has us.''

I encourage every member of this chamber to imagine receiving those text messages from their son or daughter.

And just six months before that, 14 people were killed and more than 20 injured in San Bernardino, California at a work holiday party.

Among the victims was a father of six. A mother of three. A woman who was eight when she and her mother left Vietnam for a better life in America. The youngest victim was 26, and the oldest was 60.

The list goes on and on. Eight murdered at the Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. A police officer and two innocent citizens brutally murdered by a man with an AK-47 style weapon in Colorado Springs. In 2013, 12 people fatally shot at the Navy Yard, less than two miles from where I stand today. And on December 14, 2012, 20 children had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Children.

Once again, I encourage every member of this body to imagine dropping their young child off at elementary school this morning, only to learn a few hours later that a gunman walked into that school and tried to kill as many people as possible. That is something we could have prevented. But we did not. Instead, we have made it easier for those with mental health issues to get guns. I often remember Sandy Hook and think about how we let these families down. We failed them. And sadly, the mass shootings have continued to get worse in terms of frequency and lives lost. And I will not sit by while these killings continue.

That is why today I am joining with my colleagues to reintroduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds. I will keep doing this. This legislation must constantly be before this body until it is enacted. Every member must make a decision whether to stand up or let the National Rifle Association win again.

This legislation is not perfect. But it is part of the solution. We must start with reducing the supply of the weapons of war that are used to take the lives of our loved ones.

The deadly assault weapons used by the attackers in each of the devastating shootings I have mentioned would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban bill that I am introducing today. The new legislation is based off of legislation we previously introduced following the horrific attack committed against young school

children in Newtown, Connecticut. It will provide much needed fixes to the law to keep our communities safer, while also protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

Back when we enacted the 1994 legislation, that law prohibited semiautomatic weapons with a detachable magazine and at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. This is the standard employed in my home state of California--and it works.

Based on the 10 years of experience from the 1994 law, we learned that the ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacturer could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will close that loophole. The bill also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. In San Bernardino, the assault rifles originally contained ``bullet buttons'' for their magazine clips--which enabled them to avoid California's assault weapons ban. Our bill contains language to close this loophole.

This bill also prohibits ``bump-fire stocks'', which, as we saw in Las Vegas, allows individuals to convert semi-automatic rifles to function like a machine gun.

Other changes to the 1994 bill include updating the list of specifically-named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models developed since 1994; prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large- capacity magazines; and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire. Importantly, our legislation also prohibits large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by exempting 2,258 firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons. The bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment. The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I disagree.

The Supreme Court expressly held in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'' The Court made it clear that reasonable regulations are allowable under the Constitution.

This bill is simply establishing reasonable regulations for what types of weapons may be sold and used--individuals should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

In fact, a number of courts have considered challenges to assault weapons bans. To date, every court that has considered a ban on assault weapons or large capacity magazines has upheld the law as reasonable.

In fact, the D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, as well as a number of federal district courts have all upheld laws like the one we are proposing.

Importantly, the Supreme Court let stand the ruling out of the Seventh Circuit upholding a local ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines from the City of Highland Park, Illinois.

Mr. President, I believe very strongly that the most important duty that government has to its citizens is to protect the nation and the safety of its people.

When 26 churchgoers are killed in cold blood with their loved ones in a Baptist Church on a Sunday morning, we fail them by not making sure that they can worship in peace.

When 58 people attending a concert in Las Vegas lose their lives because a madman was able to use laws on the books to make his semi- automatic rifle into a machinegun, all of those who sit in this chamber have failed them.

When 14 people are gunned down during a holiday party by those with assault rifles that let off 65-75 rounds within minutes, our government has failed them.

When 20 elementary school children are slaughtered by an assault weapon, America has failed them.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our churches, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

Now, I am under no illusions--I know that the gun lobby has a stranglehold on this building. I know we got 40 votes in 2013, and I know Republicans control the Senate today. But I also know this was hard-fought in 1994, and we prevailed--with Republican support--and it was a bipartisan vote. I still believe that, at some point, Americans will come together and realize that we can be a nation that protects its people from the savagery of these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the last month, in the wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas, I have been asking my colleagues to show some courage, stand up to the gun lobby, and take weapons of war off of our streets.

Now, we have all had to bear witness to another tragedy. Three days ago, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, a single person armed with an assault rifle murdered 26 people and left another 20 injured. This gunman walked into a church and opened fire on peaceful churchgoers, including children as young as 18-months old. A helpless toddler who barely learned to walk. Eight members of a single family were also lost. Eight.

The shooter had 15 magazine clips of ammunition--almost 450 rounds-- and used all of them. Ask yourself: how would you feel in those moments, with hundreds of bullets flying around and not knowing whether you will live or die, or whether you will be able to protect your child? Think about those children--terrified, witnessing their families being shot while in a place of worship. It is time that we ask what this says about us as a country. And what does this say about us to the rest of the world.

In 1996, after a mass shooting where a gunman opened fire on tourists at the sea side in Port Arthur, killing 35 people, Australia acted swiftly. Twelve days later, Australia's government enacted sweeping gun control measures. Since then, there has not been a single mass shooting in that country since. Mass shootings in America, however, have become common place. It is no longer a matter of if, but when, another one will happen.

If there are now mass shootings in churches, where are we safe anymore? Not concerts, not schools, not holiday parties. Just a month ago, we experienced the worst mass shooting in our nation's history in Las Vegas. A gunman opened fire with multiple semi-automatic assault rifles that he had legally transformed into automatic weapons, killing more than fifty people and leaving more than 500 wounded. Among the victims were mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters.

There was Kelsey Meadows, 28 years old, who after graduating from the University of California, Fresno, returned to her hometown of Taft, California to be a substitute teacher at her alma mater, Taft Union High School. She was described by the high school principal as ``smart, compassionate, and kind'' with a ``sweet spirit and a love for children.'' Her entire family and community was completely devastated. Kelsey could have been any of us attending that concert. My own daughter told me after the Las Vegas shooting that she was supposed to be in the city that evening, but her plans had to change. It was only a little more than a year before the Las Vegas shooting that we experienced what had then been the worst mass shooting in our nation's history.

That was when 49 people who were enjoying an evening of dancing with friends and loved ones were massacred in Orlando. Victims in Orlando included 22-year old Luis Velma who was working at Universal Studios on a Harry Potter ride. There was also Eddie Justice, a 30-year old accountant who texted his mother from the shooting, telling her: ``Mommy I love you.'' ``In club they shooting.'' ``He has us.''

I encourage every member of this chamber to imagine receiving those text messages from their son or daughter.

And just six months before that, 14 people were killed and more than 20 injured in San Bernardino, California at a work holiday party.

Among the victims was a father of six. A mother of three. A woman who was eight when she and her mother left Vietnam for a better life in America. The youngest victim was 26, and the oldest was 60.

The list goes on and on. Eight murdered at the Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. A police officer and two innocent citizens brutally murdered by a man with an AK-47 style weapon in Colorado Springs. In 2013, 12 people fatally shot at the Navy Yard, less than two miles from where I stand today. And on December 14, 2012, 20 children had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Children.

Once again, I encourage every member of this body to imagine dropping their young child off at elementary school this morning, only to learn a few hours later that a gunman walked into that school and tried to kill as many people as possible. That is something we could have prevented. But we did not. Instead, we have made it easier for those with mental health issues to get guns. I often remember Sandy Hook and think about how we let these families down. We failed them. And sadly, the mass shootings have continued to get worse in terms of frequency and lives lost. And I will not sit by while these killings continue.

That is why today I am joining with my colleagues to reintroduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds. I will keep doing this. This legislation must constantly be before this body until it is enacted. Every member must make a decision whether to stand up or let the National Rifle Association win again.

This legislation is not perfect. But it is part of the solution. We must start with reducing the supply of the weapons of war that are used to take the lives of our loved ones.

The deadly assault weapons used by the attackers in each of the devastating shootings I have mentioned would have been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban bill that I am introducing today. The new legislation is based off of legislation we previously introduced following the horrific attack committed against young school

children in Newtown, Connecticut. It will provide much needed fixes to the law to keep our communities safer, while also protecting the rights of lawful gun owners.

Back when we enacted the 1994 legislation, that law prohibited semiautomatic weapons with a detachable magazine and at least two military characteristics. The bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. This is the standard employed in my home state of California--and it works.

Based on the 10 years of experience from the 1994 law, we learned that the ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy to ``work around'': a manufacturer could simply remove one of the characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today will close that loophole. The bill also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain manufacturers developed to evade restrictions on detachable ammunition magazines. In San Bernardino, the assault rifles originally contained ``bullet buttons'' for their magazine clips--which enabled them to avoid California's assault weapons ban. Our bill contains language to close this loophole.

This bill also prohibits ``bump-fire stocks'', which, as we saw in Las Vegas, allows individuals to convert semi-automatic rifles to function like a machine gun.

Other changes to the 1994 bill include updating the list of specifically-named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new models developed since 1994; prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds; adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large- capacity magazines; and eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original law to expire. Importantly, our legislation also prohibits large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.

It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by exempting 2,258 firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes and exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons. The bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment. The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be prohibited from possessing them.

While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.

Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing federal Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected by the Second Amendment. I disagree.

The Supreme Court expressly held in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'' The Court made it clear that reasonable regulations are allowable under the Constitution.

This bill is simply establishing reasonable regulations for what types of weapons may be sold and used--individuals should not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and they should not own a military-style assault weapon.

In fact, a number of courts have considered challenges to assault weapons bans. To date, every court that has considered a ban on assault weapons or large capacity magazines has upheld the law as reasonable.

In fact, the D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, as well as a number of federal district courts have all upheld laws like the one we are proposing.

Importantly, the Supreme Court let stand the ruling out of the Seventh Circuit upholding a local ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines from the City of Highland Park, Illinois.

Mr. President, I believe very strongly that the most important duty that government has to its citizens is to protect the nation and the safety of its people.

When 26 churchgoers are killed in cold blood with their loved ones in a Baptist Church on a Sunday morning, we fail them by not making sure that they can worship in peace.

When 58 people attending a concert in Las Vegas lose their lives because a madman was able to use laws on the books to make his semi- automatic rifle into a machinegun, all of those who sit in this chamber have failed them.

When 14 people are gunned down during a holiday party by those with assault rifles that let off 65-75 rounds within minutes, our government has failed them.

When 20 elementary school children are slaughtered by an assault weapon, America has failed them.

The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our churches, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our workplaces.

Now, I am under no illusions--I know that the gun lobby has a stranglehold on this building. I know we got 40 votes in 2013, and I know Republicans control the Senate today. But I also know this was hard-fought in 1994, and we prevailed--with Republican support--and it was a bipartisan vote. I still believe that, at some point, Americans will come together and realize that we can be a nation that protects its people from the savagery of these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Thursday, Leader McConnell filed cloture on four circuit court nominees, including two nominees who had been voted out of the Judiciary Committee that very morning.

Voting on four controversial circuit court nominees in 1 week is highly unusual, as is voting on nominees just days after they have moved out of committee.

Senators who aren't on the Judiciary Committee deserve time to consider nominees, review their backgrounds, and make an informed decision for their vote.

But that is not what is happening in the Senate this week. Instead, Republican Senate leadership is pushing President Trump's judges through as quickly as possible.

Jamming through as many controversial judges as possible in as short a time as possible--to lifetime appointments, no less--is irresponsible. I cannot remember a time when we had cloture votes on four circuit nominees in 1 week.

It is important to understand the context in which we find ourselves.

After failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act and with the Republican tax reform plan facing opposition within his own party, President Trump has turned more and more to Executive orders to influence policy.

As we have seen, move after move has run into opposition in Federal courts. So it is really no surprise that Republicans are trying to stack those courts with ideological judges whom they hope and expect will uphold the President's harmful policies.

Consider how many Trump actions have or will see time in the courtroom, and you begin to understand why Republicans are rushing to fill these vacancies--after allowing countless vacancies to remain unfilled at the end of the last administration.

In each of the following cases, the President and Senate Republicans seem to hope that the outcome will be different with a transformed judiciary.

The President's Muslim travel ban has been struck down by multiple courts who ruled that the ban is based on religion and suspending the refugee program is discriminatory, with no basis in fact. The President went so far as to personally insult some of the judges who heard arguments on the travel ban.

The President's decision to end the DACA program is also likely to find its way into the courtroom. Beginning on March 5, 2018, it is estimated that around 1,000 DACA recipients per day will lose their protection from deportation. By ending the program and thrusting 690,000 young people into legal limbo, the President ensured that lawsuits would be filed, and he certainly is hopeful that conservative judges are on the stand to hear the cases.

We have also seen the Trump administration make moves to restrict women's access to healthcare. One woman had to go to Federal court twice to challenge the government's efforts to restrict her access to reproductive care. The full D.C. Circuit chided the attempt to ``bulldoze over constitutional lines'' and deny this 17-year-old young woman court-approved reproductive care. Republicans tried to block three of President Obama's nominees to this same court and now are rushing to fill its one vacancy as quickly as is possible. That is not a coincidence.

President Trump's voter fraud commission will also certainly end up in legal battles. At least eight lawsuits have been filed against the President's Presidential Commission on Election Integrity, created to investigate false claims that 3 million people voted illegally last year. It is possible the commission has already violated Federal laws with regard to how it handled sensitive information. This is already the subject of ongoing litigation.

These are just a handful of Trump actions that will see time in court. They highlight not only what is at state, but also why the President is so anxious to hurry judges that he has selected on the bench.

I would add that Republicans are now rushing to fill judicial vacancies for this President after spending years blocking President Obama from filling many of these same vacancies. It actually is the most egregious effort I have ever seen.

This record of obstruction dates back to 2001 during the Clinton administration. Senate Republicans used secret holds on nominees to prevent judicial nominees from receiving committee hearings or floor votes. This resulted in Republicans ``pocket filibustering'' nearly 70 of President Clinton's circuit and district court nominees, preventing their confirmation. As discussed by Senator Leahy when he served as chair and ranking member of the committee, Republicans would block nominees through pocket filibustering, which meant they would deny nominees hearings or up-or-down votes in committee. This is a chart that lists those nominees.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the chart printed in the Record following my remarks.

In the first 5 years of the Obama administration, Republicans forced Obama's district court nominees to wait nearly three times as long and circuit court nominees nearly twice as long as Bush nominees for confirmation votes. During the final 2 years of his Presidency, Senate Republicans engaged in a historic blockade of judicial nominees.

It wasn't just the unprecedented decision to block Chief Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court.

During the final 2 years of President Obama's administration, only 22 judicial nominees were confirmed--and just nine in the final year.

That is the lowest number of judges confirmed in a 2-year Congress since President Truman was in office. Contrast this with the last 2 years of the Bush administration when Democrats were in the Senate majority and still confirmed 68 of his nominees.

In the last 2 years under President Obama, there were 53 article III judicial nominees pending in the Senate at the end of 2016. That is 53 nominees who Republicans either refused to hold hearings on or refused to confirm once they were on the floor.

In fact, of those 53 nominees, 25 had been voted out of committee and were waiting for confirmation on the Senate floor. All they needed was for the Republican leadership to bring them up for a floor vote.

Twenty-three of those 25 nominees had been unanimously voice-voted out of committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Still, Republicans refused to confirm them.

Since my colleagues have spent some time noting that three of the circuit court nominees we are considering this week are women, I would like to note that half of the nominees Republicans blocked from becoming circuit and district court judges last year were women.

Here is the point: Republican leadership wanted those seats, including the Supreme Court, left open in the hopes that a Republican would be elected President and pick new judges. They ignored the needs of country and the judiciary for their own political wants.

Two of the nominees we are considering this week--Amy Coney Barrett and Stephanos Bibas--are filling seats that President Obama had nominated African-American women to. Neither were confirmed because Republican home-State senators didn't return blue slips. That is a fact.

Judge John Bush, who now sits on the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, was likewise confirmed only because Leader McConnell refused to return a blue slip on a well-qualified woman, Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Tabor Hughes, whom President Obama had nominated last year.

Republicans exploited the blue slip process during the Obama Presidency, but today we hear constant rumors that Republicans want to do away with the process--another tool allowing them to ram through more judges.

It is worth noting that, even though Democrats had sincere, legitimate concerns about the writings of John Bush--which included him equating slavery and abortion--his nomination was rushed through by Leader McConnell.

John Bush was confirmed just 73 days after he was nominated. In fact, President Trump's first four circuit court

nominees waited just 84 days, on average, from nomination until confirmation. By contrast President Obama's first four circuit court nominees waited an average of 213 days. That is nearly three times longer.

The hypocrisy we are seeing on display is stunning. With that in mind, I want to say a few words about the nominees themselves.

Our Nation's appellate courts are the final deciders of the vast majority of cases, so a nominees experience matters a great deal to me. However, the first nominee we voted on, Professor Amy Barrett, who has now been confirmed to the Seventh Circuit, had very limited experience.

She did not have any experience as a judge, and she only worked on one trial before becoming a professor.

Practically speaking, this meant the only record on which we could judge her was her academic writings. In those writings, I was especially troubled by her position that Supreme Court precedents can simply be set aside when a Justice disagrees with them.

The National Women's Law Center wrote that these writings ``raise serious concerns'' about how Professor Barrett, if confirmed, ``would interpret, apply, and follow precedent, including Supreme Court precedent.'' In fact, they point out that Professor Barrett's ``prior writings consistently suggest that she believes precedents like Roe and Casey should be considered weaker and are susceptible to challenge. . . .''

That is why I was unable to support Professor Barrett's nomination.

The second nominee we voted on was Justice Joan Larsen for the Sixth Circuit. Justice Larsen, who currently serves on the Michigan Supreme Court, has deeply troubling views on Presidential powers.

In fact, she advocated for the Bush administration's view that the President had the authority to disregard a law that Congress had just passed, which prohibited the U.S. Government from using torture.

It is no surprise that President Trump, who has shown contempt for the other coequal branches of government, nominated Justice Larsen. Her views are undoubtedly part of why the President included Justice Larsen on his short list of Supreme Court nominees last year.

President Trump repeatedly made clear that he was only considering nominees for the Supreme Court who passed his litmus tests, including to overturn Roe v. Wade. Recall President Trump's interview with ``60 Minutes'' immediately after he won the election. He said, ``I'm pro- life. And the judges are going to be pro-life.''

He added that his judges were going to be ``very pro-Second Amendment.''

We heard from 30 groups who were concerned about Justice Larsen's nomination, and several highlighted the danger of this litmus test.

As Lambda Legal wrote, ``A decision by this Committee to advance her nomination will be rightfully understood as not only a threat to Roe but also to the LGBT cases that were built upon Roe's foundation.''

I opposed Justice Larsen's nomination.

The third nominee we are considering is Justice Allison Eid for the Tenth Circuit. She was also included on President Trump's short list of Supreme Court nominees last year.

Since 2006, Justice Eid has served on the Colorado Supreme Court. A review of her opinions shows why the Denver Post wrote in September before her hearing: ``On the state's high court, Eid has earned a reputation as one of its most conservative members.'' Here are just a couple of examples.

In 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a worker who fell down a flight of stairs at her workplace and suffered multiple aneurysms as a result deserved to be compensated under the State's workplace compensation law. Justice Eid dissented, arguing that the employee did not deserve any compensation for her injuries, in City of Brighton v. Rodriguez.

In 2012, Justice Eid was the lone dissenting vote when the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a new redistricting map that was drawn to protect residents' constitutional right under the ``one person, one vote'' standard. The old map had unequal populations and was redone with the extensive work of a trial court.

On appeal, Justice Eid was the only dissenting judge, and she argued to throw out the trial court's work because she believed it had not given ``adequate weight'' to one entirely optional factor.

Justice Eid's record has also led a number of organizations to oppose her nomination, including the AFL-CIO, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights--LCCR--and Planned Parenthood.

I opposed Justice Eid's nomination.

The final nominee we will vote on is Professor Stephanos Bibas for the Third Circuit. Like Professor Barrett, much of his legal career has been spent in academia, so our job in reviewing his record is to carefully consider his writings.

Professor Bibas's writings have focused on criminal law, and he has pushed forward controversial ideas about punishment. His most troubling proposals were set out in a paper he wrote in 2009.

In it, he argued that, for a wide variety of crimes, ``the default punishment should be non-disfiguring corporal punishment, such as electric shocks.''

Bibas also suggested ``putting offenders in the stocks or pillory, where they would sit or stand for hours bent in uncomfortable positions. Bystanders and victims could jeer and pelt them with rotten eggs and tomatoes (but not rocks).''

For more severe crimes, he advocated ``multiple calibrated electroshocks or taser shots,'' with medical personnel on hand to ensure ``that the offender's health could bear it.''

These views are shocking and outside of the mainstream. A few years before Professor Bibas wrote his article, this body had already debated and passed the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, which prohibited ``cruel'' and ``degrading'' punishment of prisoners.

I appreciate that Professor Bibas testified to the Judiciary Committee that he now understands that his views on use of corporal punishment for prisoners are, in his words, ``wrong and deeply offensive.''

He came to this conclusion only after he repeatedly made public presentations on his paper, including one to a Federalist Society Chapter entitled, ``Corporal Punishment, Not Imprisonment: The Shocking Case for Hurting Criminals.''

I cannot support Professor Bibas's nomination and will vote no.

In closing, as my colleagues consider how they will vote on these and other nominees, I would urge them to consider the broader context in which we are considering this President's judicial nominees.

We have a President who has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law and for the independence of the federal judiciary. I am deeply concerned that this President expects the courts to just rubberstamp his policy preferences.

For every judicial nomination, we have to consider carefully the nominee's record and reflect on whether they can truly be fair, independent, and impartial--whether they will respect the rule of law. For these reasons and the records of the four nominees I have just discussed, I cannot support them.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize AMRO Fabricating Corporation for 40 years of business in our State. AMRO, a small family-owned business based in El Monte and Riverside, CA, employs more than 250 people. The company has made important contributions to NASA rocket programs, including building the large aluminum panels for the space launch system rocket and the Orion crew capsule. AMRO has used State and Federal grants to train high school and college students on how to develop critical job skills, such as aerospace welding and engineering, preparing them for good-paying jobs in the future. Founded in 1977, AMRO marks its 40th anniversary this year. I extend my warmest congratulations to AMRO for achieving this milestone.

Mr. President, the Senate is currently considering the nomination of Scott Palk to a lifetime appointment as a Federal district court judge on the Western District of Oklahoma. I voted against Mr. Palk's nomination in the Judiciary Committee, and I will oppose his nomination on the floor.

While his nomination was pending for a lifetime appointment to be a Federal judge, Mr. Palk changed his membership with the National Rifle Association to take out a life membership in the organization. When I asked Mr. Palk about this change, he asserted he expects to maintain this ``lifetime member'' status, even if he is confirmed, and he refused to commit to recuse himself from any cases where the National Rifle Association has taken a legal position.

What I find disconcerting about this is Federal judges must be impartial. Federal judges must not have any appearance of conflicts of interest. When individuals come before a court, they need to trust that their case will be heard fairly and on the merits.

Every American must believe that they will get a fair, unbiased hearing no matter who their judge is. Federal judges must follow applicable laws and regulations that severely limit the kinds of organizations they can participate in.

For example, the code of conduct for Federal Judges says, ``[A] judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office, interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties, reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.''

That is why members of the Senate Judiciary Committee often ask judicial nominees at their hearings what steps they will take to prepare for the bench. It is the committee's duty to determine whether a nominee is prepared to leave their former roles and personal beliefs at the door and instead serve in an impartial arbiter.

In fact, when nominated for lifetime appointments, most nominees try to rid themselves of conflicts and limit their affiliations, especially with advocacy organizations. However, Mr. Palk not only chose to maintain his membership with the NRA, he chose to extend his membership for life.

The fact that we are considering this nominee, given this issue with his background, just 3 weeks after the Las Vegas shooting, should really give us all a reason to pause. Las Vegas is now the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States. It has only been a year since the Pulse Nightclub massacre in Orlando, which was previously the deadliest mass shooting in our Nation's history. It has been only 5 years since 20 6-year-olds and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. What happened after each of those shootings?

After Sandy Hook, the NRA opposed any legislation that would have restricted high-capacity magazines or military-style assault rifles.

After the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the NRA opposed any legislation to expand background checks on gun buyers or to prevent gun sales to people on terrorist watch lists.

After the Las Vegas shooting, the NRA, despite initial statements to the contrary, has come out opposed to any legislation to ban ``bump- fire stocks,'' even though such devices allow guns to function as machineguns, which are already banned under the law.

The NRA has never supported any commonsense gun legislation. The NRA's views on gun control issues could not be clearer, which is why it is so problematic that a judicial nominee chose to double-down on his NRA membership while his nomination was pending, rather than extricate himself from his prior commitments and then refuse to commit to recusing himself on cases where the NRA has made its views abundantly clear. This should trouble all of us.

Our job in evaluating judicial nominees is to ensure our Federal courts are an independent part of our system of checks and balances. To do that, we need confidence that judicial nominees will safeguard their own impartiality. I think all of my colleagues feel that way.

That is not what Mr. Palk has done. Instead of taking steps to separate himself from strong political views, he has proactively taken steps to increase his commitment to specific views of the law.

I will vote against Mr. Palk's nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act,'' a simple, yet potentially life-saving solution to ensure that women receive their own medical information. I thank Senator Heller for working with me on this bipartisan bill and I appreciate Representatives DeLauro and Fitzpatrick for introducing a House companion to this legislation.

We have accomplished so much in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, and it still continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States and the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic women. Mammograms have aided tremendously in early detection efforts, helping many more women survive this diagnosis.

For women with dense breast tissue, however, a mammogram may not be capturing the whole picture. Dense breast tissue and cancer tumors look similar on a mammogram and make cancer harder to detect in women with higher breast density. Unfortunately, many women are never told about their tissue density on the report they receive after their screening, even though it is assessed and reported to their health care provider. This leaves women unaware their mammogram could be missing signs of cancer. If a patient doesn't have information to begin with, how would she know to ask her doctor about what additional screening might be right for her?

There is currently no Federal requirement for women to receive notice that they have dense breast tissue on their mammogram report. This bill would require that women be informed on the mammogram report, something they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, as well as a recommendation that they talk with their health care provider to discuss any questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue.

The bill does not impact State laws and simply sets a minimum Federal standard on a report that women already receive. Any State wishing to have additional reporting requirements would be able to do so. Withholding from women their own medical information just does not make sense. Having access to your breast tissue density could mean the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until it's too late.

This bipartisan bill has the support of major cancer organizations, including American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Susan G. Komen, DenseBreast-info, Tigerlily Foundation, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Don't be a Chump! Check for a Lump!, Sharsheret, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, Black Women's Health Imperative, and Men Against Breast Cancer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and I urge my fellow Senators to cosponsor the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act,'' a simple, yet potentially life-saving solution to ensure that women receive their own medical information. I thank Senator Heller for working with me on this bipartisan bill and I appreciate Representatives DeLauro and Fitzpatrick for introducing a House companion to this legislation.

We have accomplished so much in the treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer, and it still continues to be the second leading cause of death for women in the United States and the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic women. Mammograms have aided tremendously in early detection efforts, helping many more women survive this diagnosis.

For women with dense breast tissue, however, a mammogram may not be capturing the whole picture. Dense breast tissue and cancer tumors look similar on a mammogram and make cancer harder to detect in women with higher breast density. Unfortunately, many women are never told about their tissue density on the report they receive after their screening, even though it is assessed and reported to their health care provider. This leaves women unaware their mammogram could be missing signs of cancer. If a patient doesn't have information to begin with, how would she know to ask her doctor about what additional screening might be right for her?

There is currently no Federal requirement for women to receive notice that they have dense breast tissue on their mammogram report. This bill would require that women be informed on the mammogram report, something they already receive, if they have dense breast tissue, as well as a recommendation that they talk with their health care provider to discuss any questions and if they might benefit from additional screening. The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to focus on research and improved screening for patients with dense breast tissue.

The bill does not impact State laws and simply sets a minimum Federal standard on a report that women already receive. Any State wishing to have additional reporting requirements would be able to do so. Withholding from women their own medical information just does not make sense. Having access to your breast tissue density could mean the difference between catching breast cancer early and surviving, or waiting until it's too late.

This bipartisan bill has the support of major cancer organizations, including American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Are You Dense Advocacy, Susan G. Komen, DenseBreast-info, Tigerlily Foundation, Prevent Cancer Foundation, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Don't be a Chump! Check for a Lump!, Sharsheret, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health, Black Women's Health Imperative, and Men Against Breast Cancer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue, and I urge my fellow Senators to cosponsor the Breast Density and Mammography Reporting Act. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act. This legislation expands the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to provide surrounding communities much-needed additional access to nature while maintaining private property rights and existing local land use authorities.

This bill adds an additional 191,000 acres, known as the Rim of the Valley Unit, to better protect natural resources and habitats, and provide members of the local community with improved recreational and educational opportunities.

This proposed expansion comes at the recommendation of the National Park Service after a six-year special resource study of the area. The study was directed by Congress in the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act, passed in 2008. The National Park Service's recommendation takes into account over 2,000 comments received from the public, elected officials, local organizations, and other stakeholders.

This legislation will significantly expand outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of Los Angeles County, one of the most densely populated and park-poor areas in California.

In fact, 47% of Californians--that's six percent of the U.S. population--live within two hours of the proposed expansion area. Enlarging the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will provide these communities with increased access to public lands and a boost to the local economy.

The proposed expansion will also protect valuable habitat for endangered wildlife, such as the California red-legged frog. Other species protected include mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, badgers, coyotes, and deer.

Notably, the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act would only allow the Department of the Interior to acquire non-Federal land within the new boundaries through exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers. This legislation will not create any additional liability or restrictions for private property owners.

This bill enjoys the support of more than 50 local municipalities, community groups, and elected officials. It is the product of true public engagement in the legislative process.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Adam Schiff, for introducing this legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act. This legislation expands the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to provide surrounding communities much-needed additional access to nature while maintaining private property rights and existing local land use authorities.

This bill adds an additional 191,000 acres, known as the Rim of the Valley Unit, to better protect natural resources and habitats, and provide members of the local community with improved recreational and educational opportunities.

This proposed expansion comes at the recommendation of the National Park Service after a six-year special resource study of the area. The study was directed by Congress in the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act, passed in 2008. The National Park Service's recommendation takes into account over 2,000 comments received from the public, elected officials, local organizations, and other stakeholders.

This legislation will significantly expand outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of Los Angeles County, one of the most densely populated and park-poor areas in California.

In fact, 47% of Californians--that's six percent of the U.S. population--live within two hours of the proposed expansion area. Enlarging the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will provide these communities with increased access to public lands and a boost to the local economy.

The proposed expansion will also protect valuable habitat for endangered wildlife, such as the California red-legged frog. Other species protected include mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, badgers, coyotes, and deer.

Notably, the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act would only allow the Department of the Interior to acquire non-Federal land within the new boundaries through exchange, donation, or purchase from willing sellers. This legislation will not create any additional liability or restrictions for private property owners.

This bill enjoys the support of more than 50 local municipalities, community groups, and elected officials. It is the product of true public engagement in the legislative process.

I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Adam Schiff, for introducing this legislation in the House.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Rim of the Valley Corridor Preservation Act.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act of 2017.

First, I would like to thank Senators Blumenthal, Murphy, Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, Cortez Masto, Van Hollen, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Markey, Casey, Reed, Hassan, Merkley, Carper, Cardin, Coons, Franken, Harris, Booker, Whitehouse, Hirono, Sanders, Warren, Cantwell, McCaskill, Nelson, Murray, Udall, Kaine, Warner, Bennet, Schatz, Wyden, Brown, Duckworth, Menendez, and Baldwin for cosponsoring this legislation. Their support for this bill is deeply appreciated.

Just days ago, in Las Vegas, NV, we experienced the worst mass shooting--in terms of the number of victims--in our Nation's history.

There are now at least 58 dead and nearly 500 wounded as a result of that attack. The grief and pain of so many victims and their loved ones is overwhelming and all too familiar to gun violence victims and survivors all across America.

What makes this mass shooting particularly devastating is that the shooting was done by a single gunman. Within minutes, the gunman exacted devastating firepower on hundreds of people, terrorizing concertgoers and an entire community.

How was this possible?

While facts are still being uncovered, we know that this particular gunman had amassed a vast arsenal. He had at least 23 firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his hotel room among which were 12 semiautomatic rifles enhanced with ``bump-stock'' devices.

These bump-stock devices are typically used to turn semiautomatic rifles into functional machine guns, capable of shooting hundreds of bullets per minute.

A semiautomatic rifle's rate of fire is usually 45 to 60 rounds per minute. With a bump-stock device attached, these semiautomatic weapons can fire up to 700 rounds per minute. Bump-stock devices are readily accessible. They can be purchased online or at a store by anyone for merely $100.

Anyone who has seen YouTube video clips of semiautomatic rifles outfitted with these devices knows just how devastating they are.

The number of bullets that can be sprayed into a crowd within minutes is staggering.

Because they are so dangerous, automatic machine-gun-like weapons have been categorically banned in America since 1986 under the National Firearms Act.

This law was a direct response to the Prohibition Era's mobster crimes during which machine guns were used to kill their victims at a deadly rate.

One seminal event during this period was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929.

That tragic day was marked by the murder of seven men in a garage on the North Side of Chicago. The massacre was the culmination of a feud between an Irish American gang and another gang led by Al Capone. Organized crime was rampant during that era, and fully automatic weapons were the weapons of choice for gangsters. Indeed, the men who committed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre used Thompson submachine guns, known as ``Tommy guns,'' to mow down their victims.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, which remains in infamy, clearly demonstrated that elected leaders must do something about this violence and get these fully automatic guns out of the hands of killers.

As a result, the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934. When originally passed, it heavily regulated machine guns, imposing a tax on the making and transferring of machine guns and other lethal weapons. It also imposed a special occupational tax on those engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act.

It also required the registration of all machine guns and other guns regulated under the National Firearms Act with the Treasury Secretary.

Later, in 1986, the National Firearms Act was amended to ban all future automatic weapons from private possession, except for those legally owned and registered as of May 19, 1986.

Therefore, today, automatic weapons are generally banned for civilian use--and rightfully so. They are absolutely lethal weapons of war and have no business being in our homes, our schools, our businesses, and our streets.

Notwithstanding this outright ban, there is a loophole in the law that allows bump-stock devices to configure legal semiautomatic weapons so that they can function like a fully automatic weapon. This loophole must be closed.

If automatic weapons are banned, these devices should be banned. There is no functional difference between automatic weapons and a bump- stock enhanced semiautomatic weapon. Such devices are simply not needed to hunt

or to use in a private home for self-defense.

Like we saw in Las Vegas, these bump-stock devices allow those with a motive to kill to use fully legal firearms to wreak havoc and kill large numbers of people within minutes.

The bill I have introduced is straightforward. It closes the loophole that allows civilians to purchase and use devices that convert semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. Specifically, it bans the sale, transfer, importation, manufacturing, or possession of bump fire devices, trigger cranks, or anything that accelerates a semiautomatic rifle's rate of fire.

The bill further provides an exception to this ban, by allowing for the lawful possession of these devices by law enforcement and the government.

Those who violate the ban would be subject to the same penalty available to those who illegally possess a machine gun under current law.

Closing this loophole should not be a partisan issue. Anyone who has seen footage from the shooting in Las Vegas should recognize that weapons that are altered to emulate automatic gunfire should not be permitted in our communities.

In my view, this bill is a modest proposal. It was one that was included in the Assault Weapons Ban legislation that I proposed 4 years ago, which we failed to pass in 2013.

Tragically, had that legislation been enacted in 2013, it could have perhaps saved lives in Las Vegas.

Indeed, when the police dispatcher was first contacted in Las Vegas at 10:09 PM local time, it took 11 minutes until the last shots were fired and the suspect was neutralized.

Think of that for a moment. If automatic gunfire had been impossible for the gunman, less shots would have sprayed through Las Vegas that night, and less people may have died. That is extraordinarily sobering.

I recall standing here on this floor nearly 4 years ago, urging my colleagues to adopt the assault weapons ban, pleading that it could possibly save lives.

That was on the heels of one of the darkest days in American history, when 20 beautiful children and 6 educators had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is an absolute travesty that Congress refused to act back then.

It is my strongest belief that when our Nation is faced with dire situations--like sickness, or job stagnation, or human trafficking--it is our job, our solemn oath as lawmakers, to try to solve these problems.

We utterly forsake that solemn oath when we simply do nothing; when we yield to cynicism or to a single lobbying faction.

If we do not act today, we are failing the American people. We are failing our communities. We are failing responsible gun owners.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. We must act. Now is the time.

Mr. President, today the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, and Barry C. Barish for ``decisive contributions'' to the observation of gravitational waves. This landmark discovery marks a giant leap forward in human knowledge, and I salute these Americans on their honor.

Over 100 years ago, Albert Einstein predicted that massive objects and energy could distort space-time. In order to detect these ``ripples'' in the fabric of space and time, known as gravitational waves, scientists worked over many years to develop the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory, or LIGO.

On September 14, 2015, scientists working at LIGO detected a ``chirp''--a ripple in space-time. What was observed because of LIGO was the result of two massive black holes merging together over 1.3 billion light years away. This breakthrough discovery means that we now have an entirely new way of observing the universe.

This achievement would not have been possible without the leadership of Dr. Weiss, Dr. Thorne, and Dr. Barish, along with the countless scientists who helped with the project, including the National Science Foundation.

Two of the distinguished recipients hail from my home State. Dr. Thorne and Dr. Barish are professors at the California Institute of Technology, and I am proud of the role that Cal Tech played in making this discovery possible. I also recognize Dr. Weiss, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, for his achievement.

On behalf of all Californians, I commend these physicists on a well- deserved honor and for all that they have done to push our knowledge of the universe forward. Let us hope that this discovery will continue to expand the horizon of human knowledge and lead to new efforts in humanity's never-ending quest for enlightenment.

Again, I congratulate these three distinguished Americans and their families on this remarkable discovery and prestigious award.

Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the victims of the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas.

This mass shooting was the worst in our Nation's history. There are more than 50 dead and more than 500 wounded.

It should shock every American that one individual, with easy access to weapons and ammunition, can inflict such devastation.

Sadly, it was only a little more than a year ago that we also experienced what had then been the worst mass shooting in our Nation's history. That was when 49 people who were enjoying an evening of dancing with friends and loved ones were massacred in Orlando.

Just 6 months before that, 14 people were killed and more than 20 injured in San Bernardino.

Two years ago, on October 1, 2015, an assistant professor and eight students were murdered at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, OR.

In 2013, 12 people were fatally shot at the Navy Yard, less than 2 miles from where I stand today.

On December 14, 2012, 20 children had their lives taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

These massacres have not and will not stop unless we do something. I believe we must acknowledge that these shootings are possible because of our Nation's weak gun laws.

Our laws permit criminal and domestic abusers to easily obtain weapons at gunshows and on the internet without a basic background check.

We know background checks work. States that require background checks on private handgun sales see fewer women killed by their partners and fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns.

It is time we expand background checks to cover sales at gunshows and on the Internet.

We are still learning about what happened in Las Vegas, but we do know that the shooter had more than 10 rifles in his hotel room and that he may have used an assault weapon.

Today in the United States, military-style assault weapons may be sold legally to civilians. Assault weapons are not needed for either hunting or self-defense.

They are weapons of war designed to kill large numbers of people in close quarters.

This is not sustainable--and the public agrees. Just last year, a poll showed that 57 percent of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons.

In fact, from 1994 and 2004, we had laws that prohibited anyone from getting an assault weapon. I believed then and I believe now that those laws made all of us safer.

Unfortunately, right when the positive effects of those laws were taking effect, they were allowed to expire. Now, time and again, we have felt the costs of our inaction.

It is time that we finally take steps to ensure that other communities do not experience the pain that Sandy Hook, Washington, San Bernardino, Roseburg, Orlando, and now Las Vegas have gone through.

I hope my colleagues will join me in remembering the victims of this attack and will support legislation to prevent any of us from once again having to rise to remember what will be another worst mass shooting in our Nation's history.