Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while presiding for a couple of hours just now I listened to some very powerful and eloquent debate organized by the Presiding Officer--I thank him for doing so--regarding the migrant unaccompanied children who are coming across our border. Those remarks moved and inspired me. They were followed afterward by an effort by Senators Shaheen and others to bring to the floor a measure on energy efficiency.

The connection between the two may not seem immediately apparent. But, in fact, I was struck by the irony of an effort by some of our colleagues to eliminate and repeal, in effect, a measure called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. It is actually named the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, very symbolically and significantly named after a leader who sought to abolish the slave trade.

Our colleagues who seek to repeal, in effect, that measure are calling its provisions a ``loophole'' because it provides for screening of migrant children, such as those who are reaching our border, who are not from the immediate bordering countries. They are from other Central American countries. They are seeking to apply to them the same procedures or lack of procedures, lack of screening, lack of individual consideration that apply to migrant children from Canada and Mexico on the theory that those provisions are a ``loophole'' in our law. In fact, those screening procedures are the very intent and substance of our law. They are meant to provide individual, careful, fair consideration of each child.

On a day when consideration of the energy efficiency bill named for Senators Shaheen and Portman was blocked from consideration, colleagues are considering a measure and advocating a measure that is completely unnecessary. The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill is vitally necessary. The repeal of the Trafficking Victims Protection and Reauthorization Act of 2008 is entirely unnecessary, in fact unhelpful and downright harmful.

The question of what to do about the flow of migrant children to our border is one of profound importance for our Chamber and our country to face in the coming days and weeks.

I recently visited the border in a trip organized, thankfully, by Senator Hirono and joined by Senator Murkowski. We met Senator Cornyn while we were there. We went to various of the facilities to see for ourselves and speak with the children who were coming to our borders, the professionals who were seeking to care for them, the Border Patrol agents endeavoring to enforce the law, all of whom are involved in this situation on the ground.

That experience has formed--I hesitate to say transformed, but it has certainly changed my view of this problem, because we speak in this body about these unaccompanied minors, as they are called, as though they are an interchangeable mass. They are massive in numbers, but each is an individual. Each has a story to tell. Each is different.

They have in common, most of them, stories of horror and terror, vicious persecution, cruelty and brutality, rape, murder, and forced prostitution in the countries they are seeking to escape. This brutality is spawned by gang

warfare, the result of conflict among gangs trading in drugs; cartels and organized crime that have put children in the middle of their murderous activities.

As others during that eloquent colloquy organized by the Presiding Officer observed, much of that drug trade has moved from Colombia to Central America. It is fueled by demand, the same demand that fuels the Colombian gang warfare, from the United States. The demand comes from this country, the demand for those illicit drugs.

Those children, caught in the horrific violence plaguing their home, have fled to this country seeking safety and security. Many of them are also seeking their parents, because the majority have one or more parent in this country already. The vast majority have a close relative, if not a parent, an aunt or uncle. So their journey seeks to reunify them with their families, as well as to escape the grisly, grinding horror of their existence in those homelands they have left. Those journeys are plagued by the harshest, most inhumane of conditions: deserts, swamps and, most dangerously, the traffickers.

The smugglers who exploit them put them in stash houses, take them hostage, hold them for ransom, threaten their lives, and often rape and murder them, preventing them from reaching this country. These faces are of the children I saw, with fear in their eyes, fear of all adults, because most of the adults in their lives have been a threat, not a protector; fear in their eyes about the Border Patrol agents who are there when they arrive at the loading dock at the McAllen border facility. It is a loading dock where produce or goods might be dumped or left to be shipped elsewhere. They arrive at the loading dock and sit on a bench, fear in their eyes, apprehension in their voices.

They are then interviewed by the Border Patrol, who are wearing uniforms, looking like the authoritarian figures they are. In the lives of these children, the police are not a source of comfort, they are a source of danger because in their country the police are corrupt and a threat, not a protector.

They are not apprehended by the Border Patrol; they surrender to them. Border security is not the issue. Again, as some of my colleagues remarked earlier, these children are coming in to give themselves up in the hope of being taken into custody, fed, housed, and given some basic security and safety.

Their numbers are down--anywhere from 30 to 50 percent down in July as compared to June, so we were told by the Border Patrol agent. Whether that is a temporary phenomenon or a trend remains to be seen, but the numbers are down.

After this holding detention center, where they are kept in cement- floor cellblocks, segregated by age and gender, so densely packed that they can barely sit let alone lie down, and provided with foil blankets, they are sent to more permanent facilities, such as the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, where we also visited.

That facility has a dormitory, a health clinic, a school. Classes are conducted in tents, and the treatment is far more humane. They are given classes in English. They are eager--intensely eager--to learn English, and they are taught in classrooms in these tents where there is a blackboard and an American flag outside an artificial turf soccer field, where they are intensely eager to play soccer.

They stay there about 7 days to 3 weeks until they are moved to a home because many of them have relatives. Most of them have some family members in this country or another facility. They move from one temporary facility to a better one and then to a home.

In the second facility, they are in the custody of the HHS or the Office of Refugee Settlement, not the Border Patrol. It is a better facility, no question, but still rudimentary.

One of the most powerful moments of this trip was to watch these students--I would say about 20 of them in a class--show how they were learning English, show the words they have learned and tell us where they were from--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--and then to rise to show us Senators how they could recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We joined with them in reciting that pledge. I wish my colleagues--I wish every American could have been there at that moment. There was something basic, fundamental about us as Americans in that moment, about what we offer--hope, opportunity, freedom, and protection--to people who come here with that aspiration, that those children epitomized at that moment. Whether you agree or disagree on what should be done, whether you feel we ought to do something differently with these children, that moment evoked a fundamental value in our society.

Another moment did as well--when a busload arrived. As we were about to leave, the staff of that facility lined up on both sides of the children coming off the bus into the facility, clapping for them. The staff was clapping and cheering for these children arriving at the facility, after leaving the border crossing where they were under the custody of the Border Patrol agents. They were clapping and cheering for children who recently arrived in this country, and the children were beaming.

The staff and the professionals who care for these children are truly to be thanked. They are dedicated professionals--the Border Patrol agents who do their very best to make these kids feel at home under very adverse conditions; the HHS counselors and teachers who seek to interview them, give them some basic hope and comfort; all of the professionals in the Office of Refugee Resettlement who seek against the odds to provide them with a future.

The mayor of McAllen, who runs a small town on the border--which is where that border crossing is, where the McAllen facility is housed--I think many of us expected him to complain to us about the burden of this flood of children coming into his town, the expenditure of resources necessary to support the infrastructure, the burden on him and his fellow townspeople. To the contrary, the mayor of McAllen, Jim Darling, said to us that they welcome these children. They regard the border as part of their home. They have an interchange in culture and family.

He said to us, in effect--I don't remember whether they were his exact words--about welcoming these children: This is what we do. We are Americans. This is what we do. We are Americans--not asking for reimbursement for the expenses for his town, although it is a significant part of his budget. Comparable to the Federal Government, it would be in the billions. His budget is much smaller, so the proportion, obviously, is much less, but it is a major fiscal burden on McAllen.

Mayor Jim Darling impressed us and inspired us with his willingness to welcome these children--at least to care for them while the law is enforced. That is the point I want to emphasize to my colleagues tonight.

What is needed is not a repeal of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. What is needed is not to send these children back without screening or consideration. What is needed is not a wholesale closing of due process. It is enforcement of that law, resources to enforce that law, resources to provide the immigration judges and the advocates who are so desperately needed for these children. After all, they look at any authoritarian figure with fear, even the teachers, many of them, as well as the border agents who seek to elicit from them those stories about why they fled their home. They fear retaliation from anyone who might learn they are talking about the reasons they left. They need spokespeople for this process, and they need the individual consideration, child by child by child. That is what the law requires. That law should be enforced, not repealed.

Enforcement also means border security. It means better facilities while they are under care of the Department of HHS as well as the Border Patrol. It means that we support State officials if they provide State facilities. Those decisions about where, when, and how many should be made by State officials, but the Federal Government can support them.

That is why I thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership on the supplemental, as well as the Presiding Officer for his leadership in organizing the colloquy earlier today because raising awareness, as well as resources, is what is necessary to make sure we reunite these children with their families when, in fact, their request for asylum is justified child by child, justified by

the facts and the evidence, upheld by due process, by justice and by fairness--not demonizing, as may be done by calling out the National Guard or denouncing children who are doing nothing more--6-, 7-, 8-, 9- , 10-year-olds--than seeking safety and security.

Their courage, as well as their resilience, finally, was inspiring as well. Having crossed so many miles, against so many obstacles, in the face of so many threats, their smiles as they recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America is the picture I will have in advocating a bipartisan solution, long-term immigration reform, and a fair and just resolution to their fight as they seek freedom and security in our great Nation, the greatest country in the history of the world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 24, 2014; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, S. 2569, postcloture; and that at 1:45 p.m., all postcloture debate time be considered expired and the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, at 1:45 p.m. there will be a voice vote on the motion to proceed to the Bring Jobs Home Act. There will then be an immediate rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Pamela Harris to be a circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am very honored to follow my colleague from Hawaii and her eloquent and powerful remarks, as well as the Presiding Officer from New Mexico, who knows much firsthand about this issue and has really been a leader in this body for me and others. I thank the Presiding Officer for that leadership.

My view of this issue concerning the tens of thousands of young children making the difficult and dangerous journey to the United States from lands where they face violence and oppression is shaped by my meeting with some of them in my home State of Connecticut.

I had the opportunity to do so recently on a number of occasions, and it has deeply affected my own approach because what I have seen in them really inspires me. It inspires me because I understand better the reasons they have come here. The reasons they have come relate to the violence, the threat of torture, and the oppression they see in the lands they are leaving. They are coming here, many of them, for family reunification.

What struck me in speaking with these young children is they are coming here to reunify with relatives: their moms and dads, their aunts and uncles. They have come to be with members of their family and, of course, to seek education. They desperately want to go to school, and they want the opportunity simply for the freedom they see this country as epitomizing and embodying, the beacon of opportunity that drew so many of our forebears to this country, the lamp that is lit above the harbor of New York symbolically for all Americans, and the ideals this country embodies for the world. That is the reason people come and why our relatives, our own families came--one generation ago for me and perhaps more generations ago for others here.

So what we face is, in fact, a humanitarian crisis. It is a refugee crisis of children seeking asylum, family reunification, and escape from oppression, torture, and death in intolerable conditions in their home countries.

There is gang warfare that is a result of drug trading, pushed from Colombia to Central America to service better their customers in the United States. Their markets are here. This country provides the demand that fuels the trade--not only this country, of course, but all around the world.

But these children are the innocent victims of the warfare--gang warfare, market warfare that is fueled by a drug trade they have nothing to do with inciting or spurring. They are truly innocent victims.

The values this country embodies that drew them and drew our ancestors and our forebears to come are the values we must now remain true to serving. Among them is the ideal of due process and fairness to justice.

To say simply that we will deport all of them en masse, ask no questions, and put them on a bus really is a disservice to those values and ideals that this Nation embodies for the world--a source of our power in dealing with the world. Our power is not the result only of our air superiority, our great naval fleet, our brave warriors on the ground. It is truly the ideal that our military service and our military might serves to safeguard around the world.

Speaking of security, safety, and safeguarding our Nation, our border is secure, more secure than ever before--perhaps not perfectly secure-- and more has to be done for border security, which immigration reform would help to accomplish.

The President has utilized an unprecedented level of resources in terms of both boots on the ground and advanced technology. There is no evidence to indicate any breakdown in border security.

What we have on our border is not a situation involving huge numbers of immigrants slipping into this country surreptitiously; they are coming here openly, surrendering themselves to authorities or being immediately apprehended by law enforcement.

This situation is entirely consistent with a fully effective border security apparatus.

If the current situation were caused by lack of policies in the United States, we would expect to see a large number of immigrant children only in this country. After all, the United States' policies apply only to the United States' borders but, in fact, that is not what we see. There are children seeking asylum and refugee status in many other Western Hemisphere countries--including some of the poorest in the world--a documented 712 percent increase in asylum seekers from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala since 2009.

We have seen no increase in illegal immigration from Mexico, which also would be happening if it were simply lax border security. Any way you look at the situation, the facts simply do not support the theory that America's border is in crisis. It is Central America that is in crisis--El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras are the sources of this humanitarian crisis.

Rolling back the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act will not solve a border problem and it will not uphold the values and ideals of this Nation. The protections of this law in fact are central to ensuring the United States of America does not send innocent children into situations where they would be harmed and killed.

So I would oppose a wholesale rollback of this law. We have to make sure that we do what is right and get this situation right, because the stakes are so very high. No one in this Chamber wants to be responsible for sending one child to their death because we failed to consider the complexity and provide the humanity this situation demands.

Not only would rolling back the Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act do harm--and we must first do no harm--but it would also hurt law enforcement. This act helps enforcement and our law enforcement authorities to gain crucial actionable intelligence about trafficking. This law reflects the fact that I learned during my law enforcement career, one of the keys to putting criminals behind bars is working closely with victims. In fact, victims are essential, their cooperation is vital to making the law enforceable and making sure it is enforced.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act encourages victims of trafficking to turn themselves in and cooperate with Border Patrol agents, and provide U.S. law enforcement with the information they need. They are not interested in arresting children. They want to arrest the traffickers, the drug lords, the top of the chain. That is so very important for our colleagues to understand.

The surge in drug trafficking and drug-related violence that has turned so many communities into war zones is driven by those gangs in Central America that are in turn driving also the flood of young children to this country. We have this crisis in common with them. It is a humanitarian crisis and a law enforcement challenge. Let us move toward immigration reform which will help to address that crisis by increasing border security, by enabling millions of people now in the shadows to have a path to earned citizenship, to make sure our values and ideals are upheld by the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

I thank all my colleagues who spoke today, and most especially thank Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein for their decades of committed work on this issue. I look forward to working with them, the Presiding Officer, and

the majority leader, who has led this Chamber and this Nation so well on this issue.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am honored to follow those eloquent and powerful remarks by my friend and colleague from Illinois, and I am particularly impressed and moved by his comments on young people coming across the border that deserve better from this Nation--better in the care they receive when they are here, better in the due process and the justice this country gives them once they have arrived. But I am here to talk about the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court and to second in every single respect the remarks that Senator Durbin has just made.

I went to the site of a new Hobby Lobby store in the State of Connecticut, being built in Manchester--the second in Connecticut-- where its goods and services will be available to consumers in Connecticut. It is an impressive new structure. But it was not a groundbreaking or ribbon cutting. I went there to call on Hobby Lobby to do right for its employees and for its customers in the State of Connecticut.

I went there to make public a letter that I have written to the chief executive of Hobby Lobby, asking that he and his company respect the law, history, and policy of our State and also of the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made its decision interpreting the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act in giving this corporation--a for-profit entity--the right to tell its women employees that they have no access to certain kinds of contraceptive care approved by the FDA. That is a legal decision that cannot be overturned by my speaking on the floor of the Senate or in my writing to the CEO of Hobby Lobby. But it can be overturned by a law that changes that opinion--changes the opinion, in effect, by overruling it.

That is the purpose of the Not My Boss's Business Act, as well as the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act, and that is the reason I am going to vote for it because I feel that women should be making these decisions with their doctors, and that neither politicians nor business executives nor their corporate entities should be interfering and intruding in that decision.

We can debate whether corporations ought to have these rights under the law, whether they are entitled to use the law, in effect, to assert legal claims, whether to the First Amendment or to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This decision was a statutory one. We can disagree with it all we want. But the way to overturn it is to legally adopt a new statute here.

That is why I am so strongly supporting this change in the law that I hope will be adopted on a bipartisan basis, because there ought to be nothing partisan about women's health care, about preventing unnecessary abortion, as Senator Durbin has said so well, and about providing a form of health care that really is in the interests of families as well as women. It is in all of our interests.

I called on Hobby Lobby to put aside the technical distinctions that it can assert and the legal principles that it may invoke because it is a self-funded plan under the law, but simply do the right thing and follow Connecticut's law, policy, and history.

Connecticut has a law. It is a State statute that was adopted in 1999. I vigorously advocated for it. It requires that contraceptive care be covered by insurance plans--any contraceptive method approved by the FDA. That is the law of Connecticut--well established, long accepted, and strongly supported, and Hobby Lobby is flouting it. Maybe in letter it has a leg to stand on, but in spirit it is thumbing its nose at the people of the State of Connecticut. My message to Hobby Lobby is, if you want Connecticut customers, respect Connecticut's law.

Now, this principle of privacy--of women following their conscience and their conviction, making these decisions on their own, one way or the other, to use contraceptives or not, after consulting with their doctor or other medical experts and their family, their clergy, personal advisors--this principle of personal privacy is enshrined not only in Connecticut law but in our history. In fact, Connecticut has led the Nation in asserting and respecting the right of privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a prohibition on the sale of contraceptives, arose in Connecticut, argued by a great renowned Connecticut lawyer Catherine Roraback.

The right of privacy, as one of our Supreme Court Justices said, is essentially and fundamentally the right to be let alone. It is the right to be let alone from unwarranted government interference and intrusion. This interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by the Supreme Court contravenes that basic principle embodied and enshrined in Connecticut history as well as law.

I call on Hobby Lobby to respect that law and our policy of respecting that right of privacy that is embedded and respected in the way that law enforcement as well as our statutes and our courts interpret their role in Connecticut, and their authorities and their powers. The fundamental principle here is that religious liberty should be respected.

It is the religious liberty of those executives at Hobby Lobby, its owners and private corporation shareholders, for-profit entity owners. They deserve respect for their religious liberty. But religious liberty is about the right to practice your religion; it is not the right to impose your religion on someone else. This country was founded on that fundamental principle of religious liberty and the right of privacy, the right to be let alone from unnecessary and unwarranted interference. It is the right of privacy and religious liberty that is at stake here in this activist, erroneous Supreme Court decision, which we have the power to overturn here, and to restore religious freedom, truly restore the liberty of conscience and conviction that is so fundamental to American life and American exceptionalism.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 461, S. 517.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

I now ask for a second reading en bloc and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 850 with the time until 10:15 a.m. controlled as follows: 10 minutes for Senator Grassley, 10 minutes for Senator Cornyn, 10 minutes for Senator Shaheen, and any remaining time under the control of Senator McCaskill; further, that at 10:15 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination; and that if cloture is invoked, the time until 12:20 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and at 12:20 p.m., all postcloture time be expired, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that upon disposition of the White nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the time from 2 p.m. until 2:10 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that at 2:10 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2578.

Mr. President, this agreement sets up as many as three rollcall votes tomorrow: at 10:15 a.m. a cloture vote on the White nomination; at 12:20 p.m. a vote on confirmation of the White nomination, if cloture is invoked; and at 2:10 p.m. a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2578, Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, the matter before this Chamber is the sportsmen's bill. Most of us, including myself, support and encourage sportsmen and sportsmanship. This bill has many laudable provisions. Among other provisions, it expands opportunities for sportsmen to use guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law.

I voted in favor of this bill, in effect, when the issue was clotured almost 2 years ago because I support sportsmen and think that Federal law should, in fact, encourage them. I voted against cloture just a few days ago and I oppose this bill now because since that first vote, this Nation has experienced the horrific and unspeakable horror of Sandy Hook, coming after decades of horror and unspeakable violence resulting from the illegal use of guns and the illegal purchase of guns in this Nation. There are too many guns illegally in the possession of criminals and other people dangerous to themselves or others.

I have worked on this issue for decades, first as attorney general and now as a Senator. I cannot vote for this bill expanding the use of guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law, so long as this great institution has done nothing--absolutely nothing--to make America safer from the kind of carnage and killing that is epitomized by the terrible and unspeakable tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook.

I have spoken often about that tragedy. I have continued to meet with the loved ones of those 20 wonderful and beautiful children and 6 great educators. They are with me, as is the terrible tragedy of that day when I went to the firehouse where they learned for the first time that their loved ones would not be coming home. But I have stood also with loved ones from urban areas of Hartford, New Haven, and elsewhere from all other the country--victims of gun violence who perished unnecessarily and avoidably.

They are the survivors of this continuing carnage that just this past weekend took tens of victims from around the country, including many in Chicago--as has been described so eloquently by Senator Durbin--and two alone in the east side of Bridgeport, CT, just this past weekend.

I have stood with the family of Lori Jackson, her mom and dad. She was a young woman with two small children--twins--murdered by her estranged husband when he was under a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, literally the day before a permanent one would go into effect and he would have been barred under current law from possessing or buying a firearm of exactly the kind he used to kill her.

Lori Jackson's mom was almost killed. A bullet went through her jaw and part of her head. Another went through her arm. As she stood with me, she was still bandaged from that wound. They stood with me because they want to save others from the terrible tragic fate that befell her that early morning as she sought refuge in their home--her parent's home--knowing her estranged husband was treacherously, dangerously, perilously, searching for her.

But the law could not protect her. Federal law was powerless to do it because of a loophole that, in effect, exempted temporary restraining orders from the same protection that is provided to permanent restraining orders. Yet we know from her experience and from so many others that the initial period--those 10 days to 2 weeks when there is a temporary order--are the most dangerous and perilous times to women and others who are threatened by their intimate partners, spouses or former spouses. It is the most dangerous time because it is when the intimate partner, often the estranged husband, learns that she is leaving. It is over. She is seeking a divorce. She is taking the kids because it has become too dangerous. The threats have become too real and immediate.

That was Lori Jackson's situation. I have offered a bill to close the loophole that rendered Federal law useless to her. I called it the Lori Jackson bill. I am offering an amendment that is identical to that legislation I introduced with my great colleague and friend Senator Murphy, who has been a teammate in this effort against gun violence.

The Lori Jackson bill has nine other cosponsors: Senators Durbin, Murray, Boxer, Hirono, Warren, Markey, Baldwin, Menendez, and Kaine. The identical amendment that I propose today is supported by Senators Murphy, Durbin, Markey, Warren, Markey, Feinstein, Hirono, and Boxer.

Lori Jackson was so brave. There is really no other word for it. She was brave, courageous, resolute, and strong--trying to escape the cycle of domestic violence which is a scourge across this country. We must continue the effort to fight domestic violence. But we know that a woman who is a victim of domestic violence is five times more likely to die if there is a gun in the house.

In her name and her memory, so that her legacy will be one of hope and courage, I offer this amendment to the sportsmen's bill. Let us do something to make the Lori Jacksons of America safer from gun violence, if we are going to expand the use and opportunity for guns on Federal property or under Federal law. Because it is Federal law that failed to protect them now--a simple loophole, that a modest change can close. Let's do it in her name and in the name of Jasmine Leonard, who also had a temporary protection order against her husband and who died at his hand; Chyna Joy Young, who celebrated her 18th birthday just days before she was shot and killed by her estranged boyfriend; Barbara Diane Dye, who was granted a temporary restraining order and then fled to safety in Texas, returning only for a hearing on the permanent restraining order when her husband cornered her in a parking lot, and shot her repeatedly with a .357 Magnum revolver, killing her--and in the name of all of the other victims of domestic violence whom we can protect with this sensible, commonsense, modest measure that offers them some protection. I know that this amendment and the others that I supported offered by my colleagues such as that of Senator Durbin, who has been such a steadfast champion, and Senator Feinstein, who likewise spearheaded this cause well before I came here, while I was attorney general working in the State of Connecticut on this cause.

I know that this measure will not alone solve the problems of gun violence in this country. But it is a step. It will save some women and men who may be victims of domestic violence. It is to be regarded as a companion to legislation proposed by Senator Klobuchar--very important legislation that I support as well, to prevent stalkers from accessing firearms. These kinds of measures are steps in the right direction. We should take those steps, put them first, and give safety the priority it deserves before we create more opportunities, and expand more access to Federal land for the use of guns. Gun safety should come first. We can send that message but also very practically and really help save lives, injuries, and dollars.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, for his very eloquent and powerful remarks on the need to address gun violence in this country and to do it as part of our consideration of the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. I look forward to joining with him in the coming days--in fact, perhaps in the coming hours--in offering commonsense, sensible measures that will give us the opportunity to help stop gun violence in this country, addressing domestic violence as well, which so often leads to gun violence. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic violence when there is a gun in the home. The Senator from Illinois also addressed straw purchases and issues relating to drug trafficking. We have raised those and other issues in the past but have not yet successfully passed legislation in the Senate, not even addressed it in depth.

So I hope we will have the opportunity in these next couple of days to consider these kinds of measures, because the scourge of gun violence is continuing in our neighborhoods and on our streets, just as it took the lives of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators in Newtown, CT, almost a year and a half ago, and 2 more people on Sunday on the east side of Bridgeport alone, and tens of thousands of others. It continues to cause death and injury and costs in lost lives and dollars throughout this country. We have an obligation as part of this measure to do better than we have in dealing with this tremendous, horrific, and unspeakable problem. It affects so many innocent children, particularly the children who are affected in urban neighborhoods where there are driveby shootings; in rural neighborhoods all across the country; in our cities and on our streets and in our schools.

We have an obligation to do better and to put priorities first when it comes to the use of guns. I understand the reasons for expanding or providing more opportunities in this bill that may involve firearms, but first things first. Let's cure the safety of the country. Let's consider commonsense, sensible measures on gun control before we expand the use of guns and firearms in this country.

Veterans' Health Care

I am here as well to address the separate, unrelated issue of doing better to care for our veterans. The Veterans Access to Care Through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 is now in conference. I am on that conference committee. This body passed that bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 93 to 3 on June 11. It is a comprehensive bill to start addressing the problems that came to our attention so dramatically. There were reports of deadly delays, destruction of documents, manipulation of data, and falsification of records, as well as tragic reports of unacceptable wait times that were concealed at VA health care facilities. Books were cooked and criminal wrongdoing was covered up. That is the reason I have called for a criminal investigation, and one has now begun. I hope it will produce accountability from the health care system of the VA.

More fundamentally, we have an obligation in the Senate and in the Congress to address the underlying issues that led to those deadly wait times and delays, the cooking of books and covering it up that has so dramatically undermined trust and confidence in the VA health care system. If anything, since June 11, the problem seems to have worsened. In fact, comparing May to July, the recently released figures of July 3--just last week--the numbers of medical appointments delayed for longer than 30 days has tripled in Connecticut and doubled nationwide. Nationwide, that number has gone from 242,069--roughly a quarter of a million veterans whose appointments were postponed by 30 days or more-- to 636,436. That is the number of veterans waiting longer than 30 days for an appointment. In Connecticut, the comparable numbers are 998 to 2,727--a tripling of the appointments delayed for longer than 30 days. In other parts of the country at other clinics and facilities, those numbers quadrupled.

The possible good news is that maybe--just maybe--the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of those numbers of appointments longer than 30 days delayed means the numbers are more accurate and truthful. We don't know. I have demanded an explanation. I have written to the Acting Secretary of the VA, Sloan Gibson, calling for a public explanation for these numbers and the very alarming and astonishing trends, drastic and dramatic increases in those numbers of appointments suffering from delays.

Justice Brandeis once said:

Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and

industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of

disinfectants.

These chronic failings at the VA demand a better explanation. Veterans deserve to know if things have gotten worse or is the reporting just better. All of us--the public whose taxpayer monies fund the VA--deserve the same kind of explanation. There should be a criminal investigation if there has been obstruction of justice and destruction of documents and falsification of records which involve Federal criminal wrongdoing.

The act we now have in conference committee will help address many of these problems looking forward, moving ahead, by providing more access to private doctors and private hospitals outside the VA system to minimize and reduce and perhaps even eliminate those unacceptable waiting times of longer than 30 days for an appointment. It will provide more doctors--more than $500 million for that purpose alone. It will impose accountability by enabling easier firing and seeking to, in effect, claw back, or at best stop, some of the financial incentives that may have driven the false reporting.

In those ways and a variety of others, this bill will help us move forward and achieve progress.

No one should be under any illusion that this bill alone will solve all the problems. It is not a panacea. It is not a permanent solution to the VA's problems. We need, for starters, a new leader. The VA has no permanent Secretary. The confirmation of a new one is imperative. But tough questions are absolutely essential to determine whether the President's nominee should be the one to lead this agency, and I am certainly hoping he will be.

The Veterans' Affairs conference committee met on June 24. I emphasized the importance at that hearing of honoring the commitment of our men and women in uniform by addressing the VA challenges with adequate funding and essential legislation. I am hopeful we will move quickly and effectively after that first June 24 meeting now to present to both Houses a final version of this bill so we can truly address the problems our veterans deserve to have solved and the VA has an obligation to eliminate. We need to assure that the differences between the two bodies are resolved and send this bill to the President for his signature. A country that really values its veterans, truly honors their service, should not subject them to waiting delays, secret waiting lists, and false records. This broad, bipartisan, historic bill to ensure that delays in treatment are eliminated and bad actors at the VA health centers are held accountable is a critical step to keep faith with our veterans and let us move forward quickly and responsibly with this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.