Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business until 11:15 a.m.

Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about Veterans Day, which is just 2 days away.

On Saturday, November 11, Americans will pause to honor the courage and sacrifice of America's veterans. More than 40 million Americans have served our Nation in uniform, in battles from Bunker Hill to Baghdad, and beyond.

Mr. President, as this Veterans Day approaches, I have been thinking about the words of one of those brave patriots. He is the son and grandson of military leaders. When his time came, he too went to war and suffered horrific deprivation and excruciating injuries.

Years later, he said: ``Few veterans cherish a romantic remembrance of war.'' When wars are fought, he said, ``a million tragedies ensue.''

``War is wretched beyond description,'' he added, ``and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality.''

Those are the words of a man whom I am privileged to call a colleague and a friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, John McCain. We owe him and all of our Nation's veterans and their families our profound gratitude and respect for their courage, sacrifices, and

the hardships they endured for all of us.

Senator McCain endured more than 5\1/2\ years of torture as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict. When he finally came home, John McCain found another way to serve our Nation with honor. We thank him for that.

Mr. President, this week, the Congress dedicated a commemorative chair to honor all Americans ever held as prisoners of war and to honor the more than 83,000 servicemembers who remain missing in action.

The antique, empty chair will stand in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol as a solemn reminder of the servicemembers who were missing for years in captivity and those who remain missing today.

Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate this Veterans Day, I want to tell you about another veteran, another patriot, who was also a prisoner of war. His war was World War II.

Like Senator McCain, he survived, came home, married, raised a family, and spent decades in public service. His name is Richard Lockhart. Everybody calls him Dick Lockhart. He is 93 years old, almost 94. He is a lobbyist in Springfield, IL, the capital of my State and my hometown.

Dick Lockhart does not represent the big, monied interests. He represents the little guys--the nonprofit groups, the public workers, the mental health providers and the families who need them, among others.

He is the senior practicing lobbyist in Illinois, maybe in all of America. He will be giving up that title soon because, on December 31, Dick Lockhart is retiring at the age of 93 from the firm he founded 60 years ago. He is not stepping down because he is tired. He still works 7 days a week, most weeks. He is still physically strong and is as sharp as a tack mentally. No, Dick Lockhart is retiring because there are other things to do, he says. He wants to travel more and write the book that he has always wanted to write and explain to ordinary citizens how to make their government work better.

Dick's life would make a fascinating book, itself.

Born in Ohio in 1924 as an only child, his family moved to Indiana when he was young. The Great Depression hit the Lockhart family hard. Dick's dad lost his job. Sometimes the electricity was shut off at home for nonpayment. The family never owned a car, never took a vacation, and never ate a meal in a restaurant. Dick delivered newspapers and worked as a soda jerk during high school to help pay for expenses.

He was a student at Purdue University when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Exactly 1 year later, on December 7, 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Army infantry.

He was assigned to the Army's 106th Division, the Golden Lions. In October of 1944, the 106th shipped out to England. In early December they arrived in a quiet area of southeastern Belgium, near the German border. Military higher-ups assured the men of the 106th to expect an uneventful few weeks and that Germany would probably surrender before Christmas.

History had another plan.

In the predawn hours of December 16, German forces launched their last major offensive of the war, the Battle of the Bulge. The U.S. forces were outnumbered. Lockhart's regiment, the 423rd, fought for days. Finally--out of food, out of water, and out of ammunition--they surrendered.

In all, some 8,000 U.S. soldiers were captured at the Battle of the Bulge.

They were packed into railroad boxcars, crammed in so tightly that soldiers had to take turns sitting and standing. After 2 days of being in those boxcars, they arrived at a prisoner-of-war camp in Germany, known as Stalag IX-B.

Camp life was brutal. Medical care was nonexistent. Men died every day. Meals consisted of only thin ``grass soup.'' On one bitterly cold day, Dick Lockhart was beaten savagely by a German prison guard. Decades later, he still experiences back pain from that beating.

One memory still haunts him.

One day, the prison guards demanded that any Jewish prisoners of war identify themselves. For several hours, no one stepped forward. After more threats, Jewish American soldiers began to step forward, apparently thinking that their U.S. citizenship would protect them. They were wrong. They were shipped off to a notorious hard-labor camp in another part of Germany.

On January 20, 1945, Dick Lockhart turned 21 while a prisoner of war in Stalag IX-B.

On April 2, 1945, American soldiers liberated the camp, Dick Lockhart, and the other prisoners. The Army sent Dick Lockhart home on a 60-day furlough with instructions to get some rest and to gain back some of the weight that he had lost in the prisoner-of-war camp.

He arrived home in Fort Wayne. He knocked at the door and was stunned to see a stranger open it. Months before, his parents had received a cable that read that their only child was missing in the war and was presumed dead. His mother, overcome with grief, went to Ohio to stay with her family. His father moved away to look for another factory job. Fortunately, they left forwarding addresses, and Dick found them soon and was reunited with his parents.

A month later, while Dick was still on leave, Germany surrendered. The war in Europe was finally over.

Dick had always loved Chicago. So he decided to use his GI bill to go to Northwestern University. He became involved in reform politics in Chicago--a battle of a different sort. He married and had two children, a son and a daughter.

In 1958 he founded his own lobbying firm to try to advance democracy through good policies and laws rather than through tanks and bombs.

He is honest, hard-working, modest, empathetic, and always an optimist. He has earned the respect of both sides of the aisle for decades of ethical and professional service in the Illinois General Assembly. Laws he has helped to pass have made life better for countless people in my home State. In recognition of that fact, the Illinois General Assembly recently voted to celebrate December 31, which will be Dick's last day on the job, as Richard ``Dick'' Lockhart Day in the State of Illinois--a well-deserved honor.

Five weeks after Dick Lockhart and others were captured, American forces won the Battle of the Bulge, liberated Belgium, and sent the German occupying troops back to Germany.

Two years ago, as part of the 70th anniversary of that event, Dick Lockhart returned to Belgium. The children and grandchildren of the Belgians who had been liberated from Nazi occupation greeted him like a hero. He was honored by the nation's King and Queen in a castle--royal treatment that he and all of the American soldiers richly deserved.

When Dick speaks about his experience as a soldier, he is never the hero of any story. He reserves that role for the young men who didn't come home.

He says: ``There is an inscription in a World War II cemetery that reads, `When you go home, tell them of us and say that for your tomorrow, we gave our today.' ''

At the risk of contradicting my old friend, I have to say that Dick Lockhart is, indeed, an American hero.

This Veterans Day, we say to him and to all of the American veterans: Thank you for your service. Thank you for our freedom. Thank you for all of the tomorrows you purchased for us with your courage and sacrifice.

healthcare

Mr. President, in 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act with one main goal in mind--to help more Americans get quality, affordable health insurance. And it worked.

Since the law took effect, more than 20 million previously uninsured Americans have gained health coverage, including 1 million in Illinois.

For the first time ever, our Nation's uninsured rate is below 10 percent. Insurers can no longer deny coverage due to a preexisting condition, charge sky-high premiums for being a woman or having a health history, or impose annual or lifetime caps on your benefits.

Young people can stay on their parents' plans until age 26, and we extended the life of Medicare by a decade. These are real improvements that are saving lives.

Was the law perfect? No. But did it accomplish its primary goal of ensuring that more Americans could obtain healthcare--regardless of their income, gender, or medical history? Yes, it did.

None of that has mattered to President Trump, who has spent the past 10 months orchestrating a deliberate campaign to sabotage healthcare for tens of millions of American families.

From his first day in office, President Trump directed Federal agencies not to enforce the law. He cut the open enrollment sign-up period in half. He yanked advertisements and slashed outreach and enrollment assistance funding.

And he terminated the cost-sharing reduction subsidies that keep costs down for 7 million Americans. As a result, individual market premiums will increase 20 percent next year alone.

President Trump has done everything within his power to sabotage and undermine this law.

Despite President Trump's repeated attempts at repeal and sabotage, the Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land, and that means that quality, affordable healthcare options are available.

And we are right in the midst of Open Enrollment. Starting last week--on November 1--Americans who purchased their health plans in the individual marketplace began signing up for health insurance that covers them next year, in 2018. But you only have 6 weeks to sign up. Open enrollment began November 1, and ends on December 15.

This is your opportunity to buy insurance that covers important health benefits--hospitalizations, prescription drugs, doctor visits, maternity/newborn care, mental health and substance abuse treatment.

And there is financial assistance to help you buy these plans. In fact, 8 out of 10 people who purchase health insurance in the individual market are eligible to receive tax credits that help make that insurance more affordable.

In Illinois, about 350,000 people purchase their health insurance in the individual market, and nearly 300,000 of them are eligible for tax credits that will ensure their health plan premiums are below $100 per month.

So, despite the frenzy in Washington over healthcare: health insurance under the ACA is open for business, and the time to sign up is now. Visit www.healthcare.gov or call 1-800-318-2596. I would encourage everyone to sign up early. Don't wait unitl the last minute.

Speaking of waiting until the last minute, I remain dismayed that this Republican-controlled Congress has failed to reauthorize two incredibly important Federal healthcare programs--the Children's Health Insurance Program and the community health centers program.

Nationwide, 27 million people receive care from community health centers. And 9 million children and pregnant women get their healthcare through the CHIP program, including more than 330,000 kids in Illinois.

Because of congressional inaction, funding for these two programs expired over a month ago, on October 1. And what have Republican leaders in the Senate done over the past month, while funding has lapsed for children, pregnant women, and our Nation's health clinics?

Well, they passed a budget resolution making it easier to give huge tax cuts to wealthy individuals and big businesses. That is right. While States and health centers are struggling to figure out how to keep their programs operating, while families are worrying about when their health coverage may run out, congressional Republicans are focused on tax breaks for the rich.

Facing this funding uncertainty, States and community health centers are trying to figure out how to keep their programs and clinics operating. Ten States--plus the District of Columbia--will run out of CHIP funding in the next month or so.

For example, later this month, the State of Colorado is planning to send health coverage termination letters to lower income families. The letter reads, in part: ``You are receiving this letter because members of your household are enrolled in the [Children's Health Insurance Program] . . . If Congress does not renew federal funding, CHIP in Colorado will end on January 31, 2018 . . . there is no guarantee that they will.''

Imagine how terrifying it would be to receive this letter, to learn that your child is about to lose their health insurance coverage because Congress is preoccupied with tax breaks for the rich.

It is beyond unacceptable that congressional Republicans abdicated their responsibility to reauthorize these critical health programs.

If we truly want to help the communities and people we serve, let's quickly reauthorize funding for children's health care and for community health centers.

And remember, if you need health insurance next year, you have until December 15 to sign up. Don't miss your chance.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, on Monday, I was in Crystal Lake, IL, in the 6th Congressional District. I was joined by realtors and local elected officials to talk about how the GOP tax plan would hurt families in my home State of Illinois. The families in the 6th Congressional District would be hit especially hard since they are in the 12th highest district in terms of the benefit received from the State and local tax deduction--a deduction that is gutted in the Republican House tax plan.

Republicans released this plan last Thursday, have been marking it up in committee this week, with the plan to have it on the House floor next week.

It is already clear that this partisan plan does nothing more than double-down on some of the most damaging ideas from the framework congressional Republicans and the White House released in September-- and the bill gets worse the closer you look.

The House Republican bill would bankroll massive tax cuts for the wealthy few and the largest corporations on the backs of hard-working families in Illinois and across the country.

The bill eliminates some of the most vital tax breaks for people in Illinois--making it so that struggling seniors no longer will be able to deduct costly out-of-pocket medical expenses and that the 1.5 million Illinoisans with Federal student loan debt will no longer be able to deduct the interest paid on those loans.

Congressional Republicans didn't stop at eliminating deductions for medical expenses and student loan interest.

Republicans want to take away one of the most valuable deductions for working families in this State--the State and local tax deduction.

Eliminating this deduction to fund a massive tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy was a centerpiece of the Framework Republicans released earlier this year--a move that would raise taxes on one-third of all taxpayers.

After strong opposition within their ranks for eliminating the State and local tax deduction, the House Republican plan released last week proposes a ``compromise'' to obtain the support of congressional Republicans that represent States like Illinois.

This so-called compromise eliminates the tax deduction for State and local income taxes, and caps the deduction for property taxes, so instead of eliminating the deduction altogether, they just gut it. If you ask me, that is no compromise at all.

The result is still the same: middle-income families would still be double taxed when it comes to income, sales, and some property taxes-- once by the Federal Government and again by the State.

This would make it more expensive for families to fund services at the local level like the local schools, police and fire departments, and local roads and bridges.

Make no mistake, in Illinois--the State with the fifth highest number of taxpayers claiming the State and local tax deduction--would be hit especially hard. Nearly 2 million Illinoisans--roughly one-third of taxpayers in the State--claimed more than $24 billion in State and local tax deductions in 2015 alone.

If Republicans are successful in eliminating or gutting this deduction, it will mean a tax hike for working families across Illinois.

If completely eliminated, a family of four living in a place like Crystal Lake making around $76,000 per year would pay more than $1,400 more in taxes each year.

And what do Republicans do with the money from raising taxes on one- third of middle-income families in Illinois? They give the ultrawealthy and the largest corporations a tax cut.

That is just plain wrong.

I urge House Republicans to oppose any tax plan that would raise taxes on middle-income families by gutting the State and local tax deduction in order to give cuts to the largest corporations and richest 1 percent.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to thank Judge Ann Claire Williams for her extraordinary service to our country. After serving nearly two decades on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Judge Williams announced she would be retiring from the judiciary later this year.

Ann Claire Williams is a trailblazer. She is the first African American to serve on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--an accomplishment that one judge called: ``the desegregation of the 7th Circuit.'' This was just another in a series of firsts for Judge Williams. She was one of the first two African-American women to clerk for judges on the Seventh Circuit. In 1985, Judge Williams became the first African American woman to become a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of Illinois. She served as chair of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the United States Judicial Conference--making her the first African American chair of a Judicial Conference committee. Judge Williams also became the first African American president of the Federal Judges Association. Simply put, almost every step of her career has broken new ground.

Born in Detroit, MI, Ann Claire Williams began her career as a third grade music teacher after graduating from Wayne State University with a bachelor's degree in elementary education and master's degree from the University of Michigan in guidance and counseling. Inspired by the television show ``Perry Mason'' the only lawyer she knew growing up-- and a competitive spirit, Ann decided to attend law school. She chose the University of Notre Dame and the rest is history--or more appropriately, the rest of her career made history.

Judge Williams has been the recipient of numerous honors and awards. Here are just a few: Chicago Lawyer 2000 Person of the Year; the Arabella Babb Mansfield Award from the National Association of Women Lawyers; the National Bar Association's Gertrude E. Rush Award; the American Bar Association's Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award; Chicago Inn of Court's Joel M. Flaum Award; American Judicature Society's Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award; the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago's Pioneer Award; the Leadership Institute for Women of Color Attorneys, Inc.'s Breaking the Glass Ceiling Award; and was recognized by Newsweek Daily Beast as one of 2012's 150 Fearless Women in the World.

Judge Williams has always been proud of breaking barriers and her history of firsts, but she doesn't want to be the last. Throughout her career, she has been committed to training young lawyers. As a founding member of the Black Women Lawyers in Chicago, Judge Williams uses her story to inspire the next generation--and makes clear through her experiences that young women today can follow the path she paved to reach the top of their fields. She also serves as chairwoman of the Just The Beginning Foundation to help guide more minority law students into the legal profession. Under Judge Williams' leadership, the organization has grown to include programs for students in high school and middle school across the country. For all her achievements, it is her commitment to the future that is truly inspiring.

Recently, Judge Williams said.

You want to be nourished by people that understand your

story and your experience. But once you're nourished that

means you have to go out and deal with the broader world.

Well, Judge Williams has done just that. She serves on the board of Equal Justice Works, a nonprofit dedicated to creating a just society by training lawyers committed to working in the public interest, and despite her busy schedule, she has made time to travel to Ghana, Rwanda, Liberia, and Uganda to train judges and attorneys.

Judge Williams' career is groundbreaking, and she is a role model for countless young women of color--and an inspiration to the rest of us. I am proud to call her a friend.

I want to congratulate Judge Williams on an outstanding career and thank her for all she has done--and all she will continue to do. The country is grateful for her service. I wish her and her family all the best in her next chapter.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Steven Engel to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

On many occasions, President Donald Trump has made clear that he does not appropriately respect the rule of law in America. We have seen this many times over the last few years, from his bigoted and disdainful comments about Federal judges, to his firing of FBI Director Comey because of what the President called ``this Russia thing,'' to his shameful pardon of Joe Arpaio, a man convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to stop violating the Constitution, to his efforts last week to badger the FBI and Federal prosecutors into doing his bidding.

As Republican Senator Bob Corker said last Friday:

President Trump's pressuring of the Justice Department and

FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for

punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate

and not only undermine our justice system but erode the

American people's confidence in our institutions.

If my Republican colleagues want to restore confidence in our institutions of justice, they can start by making sure that only someone truly independent of Donald Trump serves in the vital position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Office of Legal Counsel, or OLC, is not well known, but it is a critical part of the Federal government. OLC exercises statutory authority to provide legal advice that is binding on the executive branch. In addition to giving legal advice to the President and executive branch officials, OLC reviews all proposed Executive orders and Attorney General orders for form and legality. Essentially, OLC serves as a check to make sure that the President and his administration are faithfully executing the laws.

There have been shameful moments in our history when OLC's leaders have lacked the independence and judgment to stand up for the rule of law. For example, in 2002, under Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, OLC produced the infamous torture memo that approved the CIA's use of torture techniques like waterboarding. When this memo became public in 2004, the Justice Department was forced to withdraw it. Jack Goldsmith, a prominent conservative legal scholar who was acting head of OLC at the time said he was ``astonished'' by the memo's ``deeply flawed'' and ``sloppily reasoned'' legal analysis.

Then, in May 2005, OLC had a new leader--Steven Bradbury--and he secretly issued three new torture memos approving the use of waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques. Then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey strongly objected, saying the United States would be ashamed when the memos came to light, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales overruled him.

Already, we have seen troubling signs at OLC under President Trump. In January, OLC signed off on President Trump's travel ban Executive order, a decision that was kept secret from then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates. According to Ms. Yates, this was the first time ever that OLC hid its actions from the Attorney General, which it did even though OLC reports to the Attorney General. This Executive order was blocked by multiple Federal courts before it was withdrawn. OLC issued an opinion on Inauguration Day to allow President Trump to employ family members in the White House. This was a reversal of OLC's longstanding position on antinepotism laws.

OLC is likely to face many critical legal issues in the coming months and years. We need OLC to serve as an independent check on this administration, especially since President Trump has shown an eagerness to denigrate the justice system and to criticize those whose views on the law differ from his own. Unfortunately, Steven Engel, the President's nominee to head OLC, has not demonstrated the independence and judgment that our country needs for this vital position.

Mr. Engel has been a law firm partner since 2009. Previously, he worked at OLC under President George W. Bush from 2006 to 2009, rising to the level of Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Engel admitted that, while he was at OLC, he ``reviewed and commented upon'' a July 2007 memo to the CIA Acting General Counsel which concluded that six CIA enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. These techniques included, for example, extended sleep deprivation by shackling detainees in a standing position while wearing a diaper for days at a time. The OLC opinion said that these techniques did not constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that this 2007 memo was inconsistent with the plain meaning and commonly held understandings of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The OLC opinion was withdrawn in 2009.

While at OLC, Mr. Engel also helped draft legislation that would become the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This law included a provision that suspended habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a provision that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in the Boumediene case.

Additionally, Mr. Engel worked on President Trump's transition and Justice Department landing team, but, he would not tell the Judiciary Committee what matters he worked on, which is troubling.

I asked Mr. Engel to provide reassurance that, if he is confirmed, OLC will operate independently from President Trump. His response? He said he was deeply committed to the independence of OLC and said, ``I demonstrated that commitment in my prior service in the Office, as well as in my activities in private practice and my volunteer work for the Trump transition team.'' It is hard for me to understand how Mr. Engel's work for the Trump transition--work that he would not even discuss with the committee--is supposed to reassure us about his independence from President Trump. To the contrary, I fear that by refusing to discuss his transition work, Mr. Engel has already started covering for Mr. Trump.

Perhaps the most telling response Mr. Engel provided when it comes to demonstrating independence from President Trump is this. I asked him this question in writing:

According to news reports, in a January 27th dinner,

President Trump asked then-FBI Director James Comey if Comey

would pledge his loyalty to President Trump. Do you believe

it is appropriate for a President to ask a Director of the

FBI to pledge loyalty to the President?

His response? ``I do not have any knowledge concerning the communications between President Trump and former FBI Director Comey.'' This is not a hard question. I wasn't asking Mr. Engel about the specific conversation between President Trump and the FBI Director. Here is the easy answer that he should have given: It is wrong and unethical for a President to ask an FBI Director--or any Justice Department or FBI official--to make a personal loyalty pledge. If Mr. Engel can't get the easy questions right, what will he say when challenging questions come before OLC?

For example, what if President Trump asks OLC to revise the 1974 OLC memo concluding that a President cannot pardon himself? Would Mr. Engel cave to the President's whims? Or what if President Trump asks OLC to justify some pretext for the firing of Special Counsel Mueller? Are my Republican colleagues confident that Mr. Engel would stand strong?

Here is the bottom line. Many of my Republican colleagues talk and tweet about their concerns when President Trump disrespects the rule of law, but talk and tweets are cheap. If they are truly concerned about President Trump's actions, they need to vote in a way that serves as a meaningful check on President Trump. Our Nation needs the Office of Legal Counsel to serve as a check on the President's worst impulses. We need them to stand strong when the President berates the Justice Department and urges it to ignore legal norms and processes.

I am concerned that Mr. Engel has not demonstrated the independence and judgment we need from the head of this critical office. Therefore, I cannot support his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, let me first say at the outset that many of us have extended well wishes to our colleague, Senator Paul, who was injured over the weekend. We wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he returns soon. He is an important part of the Senate and an important colleague to those of us on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, yesterday there was another gun massacre and horrible circumstances. I know the Presiding Officer came to the floor earlier today to say a word about his feelings and the feelings of his family. They are shared by all of us. It is heartbreaking to think that some person so demented, so unusual would come into a worship setting and kill innocent people.

Yesterday, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, at least 26 people were killed and 20 others were wounded when a gunman opened fire in the sanctuary of the First Baptist Church. The reported shooter, Devin Kelley, used an assault rifle to commit this mass murder. The victims range in age from 18 months to 77 years. About a dozen of those who were killed were children, including the daughter of the church's pastor. This is heartbreaking. Our nation grieves for the victims and their loved ones.

The shooter reportedly drove up to the church wearing a bulletproof vest and tactical gear, and he began firing in the parking lot before entering the church. At some point, a local resident who lived near the church began firing back. The shooter then drove off, with two residents in pursuit, eventually crashing his car. He was found dead from a gunshot wound, which may have been self-inflicted.

President Trump and others have said that this exchange of fire with citizens responding saved lives and shows that the policy response to the shooting should be to arm more good guys with guns. Let us not forget that 46 people were shot before these citizens came on the scene.

This reported shooter, 26 years old, had served in the U.S. Air Force from 2010 until 2014, working on logistics readiness. In 2012 he was court-martialed for two counts of assault on his then-wife and child. He was sentenced to confinement for 12 months. He received a bad conduct discharge in 2014. He remarried in 2014, and had worked as an unarmed security guard at a water park. He reportedly bought four guns, one each year from 2014 to 2017, and three of those weapons--the assault rifle that he used in this crime and two handguns--were found at the scene.

Local law enforcement said that the shooter was likely motivated by a domestic situation. His wife's grandmother was one of the victims.

There are so many things that come to mind. First and foremost is the grief and sorrow we all feel for the families who were affected. It is so sad that when people go to church on Sunday, they are not safe from gun violence and gun massacres, which are occurring way too frequently across the United States. Just over two years ago, nine people were killed by a gunman in the Charleston Emanuel AME Church. And just last month we saw the worst mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas, with 58 people murdered and over 500 wounded. In Chicago, at least 29 people were shot, five fatally, over this past weekend.

There are things that we need to do, and that only we can do in Congress, to make the laws better and safer.

I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the fact that there are men and women in my family, friends, and people I represent across Illinois who own guns and use them safely and responsibly. We have sportsmen and hunters in my family. We have people who buy guns for sporting purposes and for self-defense. They store the guns carefully and safely. They take very seriously that they are dealing with a deadly weapon. They don't want anyone innocent to be hurt. I respect that very much. I think we all should. But I also call on them now. They need to lead us into a more sensible policy when it comes to gun safety.

Owners of firearms, overwhelmingly, when asked, believe we should have comprehensive background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. Overwhelmingly, a majority of gun owners feel that way, as most Americans feel. Why can't we do that? We certainly know it is within our power.

In my State of Illinois, in the city of Chicago, we are approaching 600 homicides this year--600--most of them from gunfire. It is heartbreaking. That doesn't include those who were injured by being shot as well. Where are these guns coming from? There are no gun stores in the city of Chicago. That is true. But when it comes to purchasing guns, it makes no difference. The suburbs have plenty of gun dealers. Of course, there are gun shows in neighboring States, like Indiana. We also know gun stores in the suburbs of Chicago supply 25 percent of the identified crime guns. We know many of those are sold in what is known as a straw purchase. They are sold to someone who buys a gun for someone who is not legally qualified. It is a girlfriend or someone who buys a gun because she has no criminal record so her boyfriend can use it--misuse it--and kill innocent people. Can't we toughen that law and make sure there are real penalties for straw purchases? That is not going to slow down any legitimate gun owner or anyone who wants to use a gun in a responsible fashion. That is one thing we can do.

Then there is the gun show loophole. We know, with Columbine and other places, that it was a gun show loophole that opened the way for the purchase of guns that killed innocent people. Let's do something about that. We should. If we are serious, we should.

We also know that the 1996 Lautenberg amendment prohibits convicted domestic abusers from buying or using guns. That applies, as well, to military personnel. Questions need to be asked and answered about this shooter in Texas and what happened after he was court-martialed for domestic abuse in the Air Force in 2012. How did he purchase a gun after that, in violation of the Lautenberg amendment?

We need to also ask why in the world anyone needs to own an assault weapon. I understand people buy rifles and shotguns and even handguns for sporting and self-defense. But why does anyone need to own a military-style weapon--one that can be converted, as we found in Las Vegas, to a weapon that discharges 100 rounds in 7 seconds?

That is totally unnecessary for any legitimate legal purpose. It is available, perhaps, for military use, perhaps, for law enforcement but not for the ordinary American citizen who would purchase and own a gun for legitimate purposes.

Next, we need to make sure that we understand why gun violence is growing in America. The number of people who have been killed or injured just grows by the year. It is getting worse. According to a CDC report issued just last week, gun deaths increased for the second year in a row last year. There were more than 38,000 gun deaths in 2016, up from 36,000 in 2015 and from 33,500 the year before that. We are experiencing a public health crisis of gun violence in America, according to the American Medical Association.

Of course, there is no single law or policy that would prevent every shooting death, just as there is no single law or policy that would prevent every drug overdose death. But we have to start working together, on a bipartisan basis, to bring these shooting numbers down.

We need to also talk about the issue of mental health, raised by the President in response to this tragedy in Texas. The President said:

This isn't a guns situation. . . . I think that mental

health is your problem here.

Despite the fact that most violence in the United States has nothing to do with mental illness, many are arguing that mental health is really the issue. What have we done in the Senate when it comes to mental health and guns this year? Senate Republicans used the CRA to repeal a regulation that directed the Social Security Administration to share mental illness information with the background check compilation of information. There was advocacy for massive cuts to Medicaid, which would throw millions of people with mental health needs off coverage. There was an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would have allowed insurers to refuse coverage of essential health benefits, including mental health treatment. And there was a refusal to provide additional Federal funding to help provide mental health care. We don't have a very good record this year in the Senate when it comes to taking mental illness seriously, and we should.

I will also introduce a bill that I am working on to encourage more crime-gun tracing in light of last week's crime-gun trace report from the Chicago Police Department.

We focus on terrorism and what it does to our country, and we should. That is our responsibility. Anyone who would do harm to innocent Americans--as in 9/11, killing 3,000 in that particular instance--needs to be taken extremely seriously by all of us in Congress and in the White House. Foreign sources of terrorism need to be carefully watched when it comes to our border security, when it comes to background checks, and the like. But let's be honest. More Americans are dying from Americans killing Americans with guns than by terrorist activity. It is just as much a death as any foreign terrorist threat would be, and we need to consider it just as seriously as we do when it comes to the issues of terrorism and safety for the people of America.

Why doesn't the Congress take this up? Why don't we even have a debate? I am on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have not had a single bill this year that addresses gun safety--not one--despite the gun violence that takes place every day and despite tragedies like this tragedy over the weekend in Sutherland Springs, TX.

Every time a terrible shooting occurs, Republican leaders in Congress say now is not the time to act. And then Congress never acts.

Congress still has not acted to close the 72-hour background check loophole that allowed the Charleston church shooter to buy his gun in 2015.

Congress has done nothing to address the bump stocks that enabled the Las Vegas shooter to turn a concert into a war zone.

Congress still hasn't even addressed the gun show loophole that allowed the Columbine shooters to commit that massacre back in 1999.

Will Congress act in response to this latest tragedy? Will the Republicans who control Congress finally stand up to the gun lobby and put legislation on the floor to bring down the number of gun deaths? Or will the Republican-controlled Congress ignore this public health crisis once again?

The Republicans in Congress are rushing to pass massive changes to our tax code in a matter of weeks, and yet they refuse to do anything to prevent the next mass shooting. If the Republicans treated this gun violence epidemic with a fraction of the urgency they are showing when it comes to cutting taxes for the wealthiest one percent and the largest corporations, we could save many lives.

I pray for the victims of gun violence in this nation, but I also pray that my colleagues will act to reduce this gun violence epidemic.