senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the only amendments in order be two germane amendments per side; that debate on the bill be limited to one hour and amendments limited to 30 minutes each, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote in relation to the amendments; that upon the disposition of the amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the senate vote on passage; and finally that amendments and passage be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, all with no intervening action or debate. ms. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: reserving the right to object, mr. president. mr. president, i am here on the floor today to speak my peace

about the violence against women act. and i speak to this body not just as a senator, but i speak to this body as a survivor of rape. and as the survivor of domestic violence. for months -- for months, the senior senator from california and i worked together on a piece of legislation that would reauthorize the violence against women act, a bipartisan effort, an effort that brought the senator and i together in an effort to reauthorize the bill with as much support in this body as possible. now, we were working together in

good faith. to make our way through the issues that affect so many women in abusive situations, partners in abusive situations, domestic violence situations where children are involved to find a common path forward to have this bill reauthorized, again with as much possible support in this body, at a time when america views us as so politically divided. what could bring us together? the issue of violence. directed at women and children and survivors of sexual assault. that should bring us together.

months of bipartisan effort. a pressure was be given to immediately introduce the house bill, the house-passed version of violence against women act. we were moving ahead with steady progress in a number of these areas, but, again, political pressure to introduce the house-passed version of the bill. not one that we could come together with on the floor of this senate. one that even the democrats in their release, in their press gaggle addressing the house version of violence against women act, they said would never make it through the senate. why on earth would we introduce a piece of legislation that will not make it through this body? shouldn't we be working together to find a path forward? we should continue to work on

that. and i hope sincerely that by the end of this year, we can come together as republicans and democrats and not present a republican version or a democratic version, but produce a version that will pass this body and protect those that are in a very vulnerable state. i have been in that vulnerable state before, and i appreciated the assistance that was given to me by folks that were funded by this piece of legislation. so with that, mr. president, i object. mrs. feinstein: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california has the floor. mrs. feinstein: i was just going to ask if the senator, senator ernst, would yield for a moment. i know that we had some good discussions and then they broke off. i am very happy to continue to work on this. i felt it was important to enter

the house bill because of those three very important provisions that i just went over, which are in essence the three improvements op the bill, if you will. and i have no problem sitting down now and we can discuss it, and if we could find a way that we can agree, i think that would be just fine. but in the interests of time, and because there have been a substantial period of time, i just decided to introduce it. the three issues are tribal sovereignty, the lgbt people, and the gun provisions, and those are the three new house provisions. so i can still -- senator ernst and i would be very happy to do this, sit down and discuss them, if you would like. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: i truly do appreciate the senior senator from

california's remarks. i truly have enjoyed working on this piece of legislation with you. there were three markers that were laid down within the house version of the bill as outlined previously, but there was no consensus there. it was you either accept these provisions or we don't work together. we need to keep finding a way to bring us to consensus on a bill that will move through this body, and i am happy to continue working on legislation with you. i think that by the end of this year, we should find something that will work to reauthorize this very, very important piece of legislation, and i appreciate your leadership on this very much and truly have enjoyed working with you. mrs. feinstein: mr. president. the presiding officer: the gentlewoman from california.

mrs. feinstein: in response to the senator, i'm very happy to accept the invitation. we can sit down and continue to work on this, but i would -- i would point out that these three provisions have tremendous support -- the tribal sovereignty, the protections for the lgbt community, and the spouse protection when the spouse has a weapon. so those are -- are rather difficult, i think, over here. they were not in the house, but who knows? maybe we can work something out. i'm happy to try. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, the violence against women act turned 25 years old this year, and as many of us are aware, this law provides desperately needed resources to tackle domestic and sexual abuse in our

communities. and, folks, it needs to be reauthorized. i wasn't in the senate the last time this bill was passed. that was in 2013. and i wanted to be part of the process of getting the bill done this time around. as a woman, as a survivor, and as someone who volunteered at a women's shelter in college, i understand just how awful violence against women can be in terms of physical and mental well-being. in terms of self image. in terms of our families, and in terms of the security of the whole of society.

for months, the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee and i worked to develop a bipartisan proposal that i really thought we could get across the finish line. because, folks, as that old schoolhouse rock video would say, without passing the house, the senate, and getting a signature from the president, all you have is a bill, just a bill. not a law. and no survivors are helped by a bill. but here we are today after months of work and mountains of effort that went into working toward a bipartisan bill, and at some point, someone pressed the big red button of partisan politics, and the democrats refused to work together any

longer, walking away from the real progress that we had made. not only did they walk away from the negotiating table, but they did so by dropping a bill that is going nowhere, as they have acknowledged. the senate democrats' bill is a nonstarter. it won't pass the senate. it won't get the president's signature. and most importantly, it won't actually help the survivors that need it. these politics are bad. we should be helping survivors, not engaging in the kind of partisan antics that will never produce real results. we've seen this before. the democrats will say that republican women can't speak for women because we don't agree point by point with their leftist agenda, and these are worn-out tactics, my friends.

however, despite the feinstein's decision to walk away and put politics ahead of survivors, i'm leading our effort to continue getting a bill done that focuses on providing the resources and support survivors across the country need. for women and children, in urban and rural areas like mine. my goal has always been to empower survivors, to punish abusers, and to enhance the overall purpose behind this very important law. that's why this week i plan to put forward a bill that puts survivors first. we have included a number of issues senate democrats fail to address. for example -- and this should be so simple, folks -- we are

holistically addressing fema genital mutilation. we tripled the amount of funding that is available for education and sexual assault prevention. we also focused more on enhancing the penalties for abusers. and as a matter of fact, one of the most objectionable and unacceptable items in the senate democrat bill is that they allow accused abusers to go outside of the justice system and negotiate directly with their victim, with their victim, those women, those abused survivors that have already been manipulated and

beat down. it allows those abusers to negotiate directly with their victims. that is, of course, as long as the victim consents, as if an abusive relationship ever involved consent. outside of the justice system, folks. outside of the justice system. folks, it's unimaginable that we would allow or fund such an abusive system or abusive situation and allow abusers to escape justice. i think abusers should face justice, and i'm not sure why our senate democrat colleagues don't agree. mr. president, coming from a rural area of our country, i

made sure we prioritize world resources in our bill. we are offering increased funding for housing assistance so that women and children can be safe from their abusers. when you live in an area like mine, rural montgomery county, red oak, iowa, the nearest shelter is an hour away. you have virtually cut off a woman and her children from any job that she might have had, any family that she might have had. it really truly takes them out of their life. by offering these housing resources through voucher

programs, our bill enables them to rent an apartment or home in their home community. imagine what we could do in this body if we worked with a single purpose instead of a dozen different motives. this entire body pulling together with a single purpose. focused on assisting those survivors. i welcome the support of all my colleagues for my bill, democrats and republicans, and i hope we can all join together in this effort. how many more violent abusers could we put behind bars to keep survivors safe? how many more people would be alive today? i want to thank my colleagues for joining me today to speak on the importance of the violence

against women act. and i want to send a message to the countless survivors across this country. we are with you. we hear you. and we are working for you. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd like to begin by thanking our friend and colleague from iowa, senator ernst, for her leadership on the reauthorization and indeed, i think the important should poind be made to strengthen the violence against women act. we don't have to settle for the house bill. we can have a better bill for victims of domestic violence. but, unfortunately, like so much important work, we seem to constantly get diverted and distracted and dragged down by the partisanship that seems to dominate in washington,d.c.,

these days. for many month our colleague from iowa has been working closely with senator feinstein, the senator from california, to try to figure a way to reauthorize this critical law. in the meantime, though, not on one occasion, but on two occasions we have offered a continuing resolution that would extend the current reauthorization, and our democratic colleagues have shut that down. and so we are in uncharted territory where we don't currently have an authorization for the violence against women act. so i share our colleague's disappointment when our democratic colleagues walked away from the negotiating table and chose to introduce a replica of the house's partisan bill, which, as you've heard, does not have the support to pass in the senate. let me say one thing that should be abundantly clear, but sometimes i think it gets lost. we all agree, we all agree that

more must be done to prevent violence and respond to it. it's fair to say we have different opinions on what those pathways look like, but one thing should not be up for debate. whether or not we reauthorize the violence against women act, that is something we need to do. but the fact is we we don't havo settle for the house bill. we can do better. our democratic colleagues took an interesting approach in interviewing a bill that the majority of people in this chamber will not support, and they know that. sadly, that's part of the point. they know they have a bill that does not enjoy consensus support because they'd rather make the political point and argument that somehow some of us on this side don't believe in supporting victims of domestic violence, which is absolutely a falsehood. it's a lie.

during a press conference, the senator from hawaii even conceded five times that the house bill is going nowhere, but that's the path our democratic colleagues have chosen rather than work in a bipartisan fashion to build a consensus package that could actually become law, they decided to head down a partisan path led by the house bill which came to us seven months ago. so clearly some of our colleagues here in the senate are not interested in actually making laws. they're in it for the headlines, for the politics. so in the face of this ridiculous and unacceptable jockeying, i'm glad that today senator ernst will introduce a consensus alternative to the bill offered by her colleagues and i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation. this bill introduced by the senator from iowa will send more funding and more resources to,

in the violence against women act than the democrat bill. it's actually better and it will authorize the program for twice as long. it will give the department of justice the stability needed to plan for the future without being jerked around by partisan games. but this bill includes a lot more than just funding. it also addresses a number of horrific crimes that are being committed against women and girls in our country. sex trafficking, for example, is currently not always recognized as a form of sexual assault, and it is. but this bill would make that clear. it would also enhance the maximum criminal penalties for sexual abuse of minors and other vulnerable groups. it will, as you heard, take aim at heinous crimes like mutilation and address crimes in rural areas and on tribal lands. this legislation includes provisions from a number of bipartisan bills that have been

introduced in the senate to both improve resources for victims and target specific types of abuse. one example is a bill i introduced with the senator from california, my friend, senator feinstein, called the heals act that would remove some of the hurdles that exist between victims of domestic violence and their access to safe housing. that's in our bill. this provision would also include greater flexibility for transitional housing programs so that survivors can get back on their feet without the fear of losing the roof over their head. this bill includes language introduced by senators murkowski and cortez masto to combat the epidemic of murdered and missing native women and girls. it will allow for better law enforcement coordination and provide local and tribal law enforcement with more resources to address these crimes. it's critical that we all call attention to these despicable acts of violence and

unequivocally reject them without regard to partisanship or party. another challenge we face is technology outpacing our ability to counter certain types of exploitation, abusive images and videos proliferate online, for example. this is a relatively new challenge, but it's real and it's omnipresent. this legislation will empower victims of this type of abuse to remove the content from the internet by using copyright take-down authority. it also establishes an innovation fund for the office on violence against women to address emerging trends so victims get the support they need as quickly as possible. so if you compare this legislation to the bill passing the house and introduced by our democratic colleagues here, there is no question our investigation does more -- our version does more to support advisors of domestic violence and sexual assault. it provides more funding over a

longer period of time and it targets despicable crimes that are being committed across the country that aren't even covered by the house bill. so let me close and thank our friend from iowa for continuing to fight for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and for leading the effort to reauthorize the violence against women act. a bill that never should have lapsed despite two attempts to continue it that our democratic colleagues objected to. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to working with all of our colleagues to advance it. so i hope our colleagues will return to the negotiation table and work with us so we can send a long-term reauthorization of the violence against women act to the president's desk for his signature. the presiding officer: the senator from in north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to join my

colleagues in calling for the reauthorization of the violence against women act or vawa. it is foundational to addressing domestic violence and sexual assault and supporting survivors in recovery. it expired earlier this year and it is critical that the services and tools offered through the law are reauthorized so we can continue to help and empower survivors. additionally, it is important that we make it known that crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking are not tolerated. senator ernst will be introducing this legislation which i am cosponsoring to reauthorize the violence against women act. this bill includes key tribal provisions such as expanding tribal criminal jurisdiction, upholding tribal sovereignty while amending the 2013 vawa and providing increased funding for indian tribes to address violence committed against indians on their lands.

a department of justice report found that more than four in five american indian, alaskaan, native american women experience violence in their lifetime and native women are significantly likely to experience violence by a partner. under the vawa bill indian tribes will be able to train more lawyers and court judges further strengthening the tribal criminal justice system. they'll have academies to increase -- access to increased data and report on missing and murdered indians and require congress to get reports to thoroughly track and better determine trends of violence committed on indian lands. the committee on indian affairs held hearings on violence against indians and missing and murdered native americans. as chairman of the committee, i introduced legislation that would increase resources to

indian victims of crime. the senate majority vawa includes my survive act which would provide indian tribes with a 5% tribal set-aside of the crime victims fund. prior to our work on this initiative, tribes were accessing less than 1% of this important funding. as a member of the appropriations committee, i've included a tribal set-aside in the three previous fiscal years, criminal, justice, science packages which underscores the importance of passing authorizing language. this will bill includes savannah's act, a bill i am cosponsoring named for savannah, a pregnant women from the spirit lake nation in my home state who went missing and was found murdered eight days later. savannah's tragic death did not go unnoticed and has helped to raise awareness about missing

native american women. the act will help us address missing american women by directing the attorney general to review, revise and develop law enforcement and criminal justice guidelines including access to federal criminal databases, holding tribal consultations with indian tribes, tribal organizations and urban indian organizations when the department of justice develops and implements guidelines requiring training and technical assistance to indian tribes participating in the guidelines implementation process and mandating data collection and reporting by the department of justice. the senate majority vawa includes these important tribal bills and i'm proud to be a cosponsor of senator ernst's bill. there are many great provisions in this vawa bill and i hope my colleagues on the other side will give it serious consideration. we must act to reauthorize vawa

to provide survivors with the assistance they need to recover. it sends important messages to crimes of sexual assault, dating violence are not tolerated in this country and we will continue to support survivors. thank you, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to join my colleagues here on the importance of the vawa reauthorization, and in particular i want to thank senator ernst for her months, months of hard work that she has put into this bill that we are introducing today. i'm a proud cosponsor of that bill. but you saw in her remarks earlier, her passion, her energy, her focus on rural america, which is very important to me and my great state of alaska. and i am hopeful, as all of my colleagues here, including our friend from california, senator feinstein, that we, the senate, are going to get to a

place where we can have a bipartisan bill that is going to reauthorize vawa. this is hugely important for america and it's hugely important for alaska. you know, mr. president, i come down on the floor every week and i talk about someone that's doing something great in my state. i like to brag about the great state of alaska. it's an amazing place. but i will tell you, there's one area where we're not so amazing. my state has the highest rates of be domestic violence of any state in america. it is horrendous, the numbers, the victims, the carnage that this leaves in alaska and throughout our country is something we should be able to come together and fix. and we can do this, mr. president. we can do this. i just want to talk about a provision in senator ernst's bill that is something that i've been working on with her, but importantly with many senators, including a lot of my democratic

colleagues. it's title 12 of the bill. it's called the choose respect title. this is a series of bills that i have introduced with senators gillibrand, senator harris, senator coons, my democratic colleagues, and it is focused on trying to change the culture and get more legal resources to victims, to survivors. why is that so important, mr. president? when you look at the studies that show what is the best way for a survivor to break out of the cycle of violence that they often find themselves in, one of the answers is to get them an attorney. it empowers them. it enables them to use the justice system to their advantage. and yet, here's the problem, mr. president. when you look at literally on a daily basis the lack of legal representation for victims and

survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault is endemic across the country. endemic. so a number of the elements of this bill, particularly under the choose respect title, are going to try and change this. last year we had legislation that i authored that was passed into law, signed by the president, called the power act, and that was about getting more legal resources for survivors. it was a good start but it doesn't do enough. this year in this bill, again a bill that i cosponsored earlier with senator harris from california, is that it focuses on this issue -- think about this. if you have an accused abuser, let's say an accused rapist and there's an indictment, under the sixth amendment of the u.s. constitution, that perpetrator gets a right to counsel. okay.

that's our constitution. that's fine. what does the victim get? what does the survivor get? right now nothing. nothing. and far too often that victim goes without any legal representation, and that is the beginning often of a cycle that they fall into. so one of the provisions of this would be, through state domestic violence counsels that the federal government would be helping to ensure a goal that once there is an indictment of a crime of violence, then the victim should also get an attorney. so, mr. president, these are just some of the elements of this bill. senator gillibrand and i have legislation that's part of this that's called the choose respect act which would have a public advocacy program that would try to get young men in particular to start changing our culture.

it's not just a problem in alaska, this is a problem throughout the country. so there are many things in this bill that are very bipartisan, and i certainly am committed to work with senator cornyn, senator hoeven, senator blackburn, senator fine fine sphien -- senator feinstein and senator ernst to get to the compromises to pass this bill. that's why we're all on the floor talking about this passionately. i think it's important because it's too important to miss this opportunity to pass legislation that is going to help some of the most vulnerable people in our country and my state and i'm certainly working with everybody here to make this happen. i yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: i ask that i can finish my remarks before the vote, and i ask that with the

zuckerman nomination that if invoked, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: i am here to stand with my colleagues to talk about the 2019 violence against women act. most women will tell you that they know of a female friend or acquaintance or relative who has experienced the horrors of sexual assault or domestic violence or even trafficking. through my work with shelters back home in tennessee, i've learned that the volunteers, the counselors, the advocates, the attorneys who support these victims are of the utmost importance. that is who the victim needs to see the minute they walk through that door into the arms of

somebody who says, how can we help you? this is a safe place. those are the people that come around them to empower them. and the one thing that i hear over and over in the wake of an attack, these victims need that type support. this is why in addition to providing funding for both prevention and education programs, this year's authorization will do some important things. it increases funding for the court-appointed special advocates by $3 million. it provides over $1 million per year for federal victim counselors and helps provide transitional housing to victims, which is something they desperately need. mr. president, they need it to

know -- they need to know they have a safe place. these resources -- and this is important. these resources are going to go directly into the hands of those providing these services and it will have a direct impact on the lives of these women when they need it most. just for a moment i'd like to highlight a portion of the reauthorization where i've spent a good bit of time working this year. it has to do with a particular violent sexual crime that is so grotesque most americans prefer not to even acknowledge it. they don't want to admit that this exists, but for the victims of female genital mutilation, the pain and humiliation are nearly unbearable.

you would think that federal prosecutors would be able to make short work out of such heinous charges, but due to a loophole in federal criminal law, scores of victims have watched their abusers walk free. the federal prohibition of female gentle mutilation act of 2019, a bill i sponsored earlier this year, is now a part of this year's violence against women act reauthorization. it will ban the practice of f.g.m. when this is done, prosecutions for mutilation and cutting will be able to continue under federal law. i would be remiss if i did not say that in a perfect world we would not have to worry about allocating resources for safe houses and for victim counseling.

we should not have to do this, but this is not a perfect world. so, yes indeed, we do have to step up and we do have to do this for the sake of thousands of women who will fall victim to sexual violence, trafficking, sexual abuse each year. so i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together, let's work on this, let's pass the 2019 violence against women act. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient he -- a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? if not, the yeas are 65, the nays are 30. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. noes. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider

calendar number 503. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it and the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination department of yrg, dan r. broillette of texas to be secretary. mr. mcconnell: i 13 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence --. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, last week my colleague, senator blumenthal, stood on the floor of this chamber to talk about the epidemic of gun violence in our country. gun violence is an issue that

hits close to home for my friend from connecticut. seven years ago his home state was the site of one of the most horrific acts of gun violence anyone can imagine. a young man armed with an assault rifle opened fire in sandy hook elementary school murdering 20 first graders and six adults. while he spoke on the floor of the senate, senator blumenthal was handed a note informing him that at that very moment an active shooter was on the loose at another school. this one in san clarita, california. this marked the 243rd instance of gun violence at a school in this country since the massacre at columbine high school in 1999. sadly, today school shootings have become almost routine and commonplace. it's gotten to the point that students are fearful but sadly

not surprised when a shooting occurs at their school. following an attack last year at santa fe high school in texas that killed eight students and two teachers, 17-year-old student paige curry was asked whether there was a part of her that couldn't believe this happened at her school. and her response was heartbreaking. she said, there wasn't. she said, it's been happening everywhere. i've always felt it would eventually happen here too. this is the country we now live in, a country where we have more guns than we have people, a country where mat shootings -- mass shootings, the shooting involving the death or injury of four or more victims -- occurs on average more than once, more than once every day. a country where school shootings occur frequently enough that students feel it will eventually happen at their own school. this is not a country any of us

should want to live in. yet, the united states senate, one of the few institutions that can actually do something to help prevent gun violence, does nothing. gun violence kills 100 people in our country every day. every day. that's 3,000 people a month and 36,000 people a year. this is a crisis, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't treating it like one. and maybe perhaps looking at the numbers -- 100 people dying every day -- that's too abstract. but how would the majority leader react if the entire population of sparta, kentucky, all 231 residents disappeared in less than three days? how would the chairman of the senate judiciary committee react if all 128 residents of livingston, south carolina, disappeared in a little over a day? how about my colleagues from texas? how would my colleagues from texas react if bartlets

residents were killed under a month? this is the scale of what's happening in our country. every single day, week, month and year. this is a crisis and it's past time senate republicans start treating it like one. here's what we can do right now. we can join the house in passing h.r. 8, a bill that will close loopholes in the background check system. more than 90% of the american public supports this bill. although it passed the house 266 days ago, almost a year ago, the majority leader here refuses to even bring the bill to the senate floor for a vote. we can also pass s. 66 which would reinstitute the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. i join senator feinstein and 34 of my colleagues in cosponsoring h this commonsense measure, but the republican majority refuses to hold a hearing or otherwise consider it. and we can finally pass an

extreme risk protection order bill that would allow police or family members to petition a court to remove firearms from people who may be a danger to themselves or others. and despite repeated promises after each mass shooting that will get a vote, the vote never comes. we all know none of these bills alone will end gun violence in our country, but they will help keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others. they will make those guns that remain available for sale far less lethal. in other words, the bills will make us safer. republicans refuse to take any of these commonsense steps. instead they cower before the n.r.a., an organization that curries favor with gun manufacturers and gun rights extremists by opposing seemingly every piece of gun safety legislation that is introduced. this, in spite of the fact that

a strong majority of the n.r.a.'s claimed five million members support stronger gun safety protections. we all remember the aftermath of the sandy hook massacre where it seemed for a brief moment that congress might pass a gun safety bill for the first time in a generation. senators manchin and toomey introduced the modest background check proposal that actually came to the senate floor for a vote. but what happened? the n.r.a. came out against the bill, and near every republican member of the senate fell in line to defeat it. the vote came in the aftermath of a shooting that took the lives of 20 innocent elementary school children, and my republican colleagues chose to side with the n.r.a. and its 50-plus million in campaign donations. today those first graders who were killed would be in the eighth grade, and yet we still haven't passed a background

check law. we've seen the n.r.a. block commonsense gun safety bills time and again, most recently president trump voiced support for strengthening background checks in the wake of mass shootings in el paso, dayton and gilroy. he tweeted that quote, republicans and democrats must come together and get strong background checks, end quote. days later he spoke on the phone with n.r.a. executive vice president and c.e.o. wayne lapierre and quickly changed his tune. suddenly our loophole ridden background check system became very, very strong, to quote the president, and he no longer saw a need for additional legislation. the president of the united states is often called the most powerful man in the world, yet in the face of opposition from the n.r.a., donald trump proved himself anything but. like so many people across the country, i am angry and frustrated that republicans in congress seem to care more about

satisfying the n.r.a. than taking commonsense steps to keep our communities safe. every day that republicans in congress refuse to act costs lives. in the six days following the november 14 shooting in which two people were killed and three others wounded at saugus high school, there have been at least four more mass shootings. on november 16, five were killed and one wounded in a murder-suicide in paradise hills, california. on november 17, four were killed and an additional six were wounded when gunmen opened fire at a backyard party in fresno, california. that same day four were injured when a gunman fired shots into a home outside cleveland, ohio. on november 18, one was killed and four injured in a shooting in newark, new jersey. these shootings happen quickly.

16 seconds in the case of the saugus high school shooting in santa clarita, hardly enough time to expect the proverbial good guy with a gun to protect innocent men, women and children caught in the line of fire. failing to take decisive action to confront gun violence in our country makes the senate complies sit in its continuation. instead of making more excuses for the senate's inaction, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should stop hiding behind the n.r.a. and join us in passing commonsense gun safety legislation that will save lives. as our country endures mass shooting after mass shooting, i have to ask, at what point do we say enough? when will my republican colleagues turn their backs on the n.r.a. leadership, listen to the 90% of the american people, and the rank and file n.r.a. members who join them and

pass gun safety laws? the cost of continued inaction is far too high. i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, wake up. what is it going to take? what is it going to take? mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today as the 2020 democratic presidential candidates prepare to debate this evening. we're sure to hear once again about their proposals for massive taxing and spending. top of the list is their $34 trillion medicare for all, which is really a

one-size-fits-all health care scheme for the people of our country. here's the key point. democrats will dramatically raise taxes on all americans. one candidate plans to increase taxes on working families by $26 trillion over the next ten years. that's new taxes, new taxes of $26 trillion. this candidate also proposes an additional $2 trillion on top of the $26 trillion by hiring an army of additional i.r.s. agents to crack down on hardworking americans who this one candidate -- a member of this body -- says can actually pay more and are not paying their full share. so americans will pay $28 trillion more in taxes over a decade. so, look ... do not be deceived, mr. president. these taxes will hit all americans.

democrats know they can't win this election on policy, specifically. their dangerous democrat socialist policies that they're going to be promoting in the debate tonight. so what are they doing? well, they're counting on their totally partisan impeachment process. we've been hearing all about it now for months, actually for years. democrats have been obsessed with impeaching, impeaching president trump since day one, the day he was elected. then you fast forward to his election in 201. the campaign to impeach president trump. starting from the day he was elected, it really took force the day he was sworn into office. democrats want to overturn the last election and they want to interfere with the upcoming election. election day 2020 is now less than a year away. still, democrats' impeachment

obsession continues to burn on. this is an unfair, bitterly partisan process. and i'll tell you, the americans that i talk to at home in wyoming, they see right through it. when i talk to my colleagues from around the country, their constituents at home as well as see right through it. recent polling shows that the public wants the voters, not house democrats, not speaker pelosi, to make their own call on election day. the democrats meanwhile seem to prefer impeachment than doing the work of the american people, the work all of us were elected to do. republicans prefer to work on the issues that we were elected to address -- jobs, the economy, our nation's security. and we're going to continue to work for the people who elected us. mr. president, on another matter, i come to the floor as we approach another government funding deadline. the fact is, it's already past

time to fund the government and especially our military. republicans have worked all year to complete the annual appropriations process and get it done on time. here's the problem. republicans can't pass the annual funding bills alone. we need cooperation from the democrats. we need the house democrats' cooperation and here in the senate you need to clear the 60-vote hurdle. so we need senate democrats to be involved in the process as well. but democrats prefer impeachment grandstanding rather than governing. that's what we're facing here today. so we're nearly two months into the fiscal year for fiscal year 2020, and we have yet to pass any of the 2020 funding bills. the government has been running under what's called a short-term continuing resolution. this current continuing resolution is set to expire thursday, tomorrow. we'll undoubtedly pass another

stopgap continuing resolution this week. but these are only a temporary fix. they're needed to keep the government's lights on, but at last year's funding levels. meanwhile, there's no end in sight to democrats' three-year-long impeachment obsession. their impeachment fever rages on. they are so consumed by this bitterly partisan process that they cannot focus on the priorities of the american people. too consumed to fix our aging roads and bridges. too obsessed to pass earthquake in's first -- to pass america's first trade deals. and too fixated to fund the government on time. above all, people expect us to fully fund defense, the defense of our nation. and yet the democrats continue to stonewall. republicans are fighting to fully fund the military. democrats are waging war on the

commander in chief. remember, both parties came to the table and completed a bipartisan budget deal this past summer. now, the deal meant that we could fund the government on time. the deal supported critical defense funding to keep our nation safe, and it included a major pay raise for our troops. so what happened? well, it's pretty clear. the democrats went back on their word and, in so doing, they broke faith with the american people and broke faith with our troops. those in harm's way today. so, look ... back at home in wyoming, a deal is a deal. your word means something. a handshake means something. you never go back on your word. certainly not when you've made promises to our men and women in uniform. nevertheless, the democrats have since poisoned the well with unreasonable partisan demands.

they are tying our americans' hands repeatedly blocking key defense votes. democrats filibuster, democrats impeach while neglecting the troops. u.s. forces meanwhile are facing heightened threats with last year's funding levels. the fact is that, while necessary, these continuing resolution take a real toll on our military. the current c.r. means a $22 billion cut from this summer's bipartisan budget deal when it comes to our troops. it's harming military readiness and harming military training. the c.r. has also delayed new weapons programs, and it has suspended existing weapons programs. these include hypersonic strike weapons, missile defense systems, and new fighters and ships. our adversaries, most notably iran and china and russia, they pose a grave, growing threat to our nation.

it hasn't stopped house and senate democrats from blocking both the defense authorization and funding bills. right now, they are blocking both. the national defense authorization act, which is the authorizing bill, has passed and been signed every year since 1961. that's when john kennedy was president of the united states, 1961. the ndaa has a long history of strong, bipartisan support. yet right now house democrats are delaying final passage of our national defense authorization act. and, again, they are blocking in the house the spending bill for our military, even though this gives our troops a well-earned pay race. mr. president, like you, i frequently visit our troops overseas. i did so last month. we have a number of wyoming national guard members deployed around the world, and it's always an honor to spend time with them. most recently i visited wyoming

i would troops visited in the middle east in kosovo. the wyoming guard is our state's largest deployment in a decade. as i noted at this year's american legion post 6 veteran day celebration in cheyenne, wyoming, i said, these troops will be away from home for thanksgiving, they will be away from home for christmas, they will be away from home for new year's as well. mr. president, look ... my dad and father law spent moment away. my father-in-law fought in both theaters during world war ii, also served in the korean war. the united states armed forces are on the front lines. they're defending our freedoms and doing it every single day. and they make it sacrifice 365 days a year, and they do it to protect us and protect our freedoms and protect our nation.

u.s. service members never quit, they don't complain, and we can't quit on them when they need us the most. our troops deserve our full support right now and clearly that support must be bipartisan. yet democrats remain too obsessed to do the work of the nation. people elected them to do a job, and those people elected are nowhere to be found. you want to think about it. democrats are fast-tracking impeachment and filibustering the defense funding bill. and how can they do that in good conscience? instead of funding certainty, we have an impeachment circus. mr. president, republicans are committed to work on policy priorities for the people who elected us. it's time for democrats to stop the stonewalling. let's give our troops the state-of-the-art tools that they need and the raise that they deserve and have earned. democrats need to get their

priorities in order. defense should be top of the list. it's past time to keep our promises to the military. it's past time to give the troops a well-deserved -- a well-earned and well-deserved pay raise. and it's past time to fund the defense of our nation and to fund our government. i thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the financial crisis facing the private sector multiemployer pension system calls for comprehensive reform and get it done soon. the crisis is severe and growing worse every day. would you believe, about 125 multiemployer plans are in so-called critical and declining

financial status, and these plans report that they will become insolvent over the next two decades. it's a lot of people without a retirement plan, if we don't act. several large plans, including the united mine workers pension fund and the large central states pension fund, predict these plans will become insolvent in the next few years. not a very comfortable environment for those retirees. this will leave more than 1.3 million participants without the pension benefits that they've been promised and, of course, worked for -- probably throughout their whole life. in just my state of iowa, the benefits of close to 10,000

participants of multiemployer plans are at risk if the system fails. so 10,000 iowans being affected by what we do or don't do obviously gets my attention. and that figure of 10,000 would represent over $70 million in benefits paid out annually that these individuals rely on in retirement. now, more broadly, another large group of multiemployer plans are in critical status. they report that no realistic combination of contribution increases or allowable benefit reductions, options available under the current law to address their financial condition, will enable these plans to emerge from their current poorly funded

financial condition. so it's very important that congress intervene to save these retirement plans. these plans cover millions more workers and retirees across the nation, and those workers and retirees face significant benefit cuts under existing law. now, we should also be concerned about the financial health of the federal insurance system that is intended to back up these retirement benefits. this federal insurance system goes by the name of the pension benefit guaranty corporation. that corporation is a multiemployer pension program and may itself become insolvent if only one or possibly two

larger multiemployer plans become insolvent. and one of these plans, the united mine workers, just lost its last large contributing employer to bankruptcy. without reform, this federal guarantee system, the pbgc, reports that it will be insolvent no later than 2026. when that happens, the pbgc will not be able to pay either current or future retirees more than a very small fraction of the benefits that they've been promised. consequently, substantial reductions in retirement income are a very real possibility for the millions of workers and retirees who depend on benefits from these plans. we need to act very soon to

protect the hard-earned pension benefits of the workers who participate in these plans. as chairman of the senate finance committee, i'm on the floor today to join with chairman alexander of the health, education, labor, pension committee to release a responsible reform plan to address the immediate financial challenges of a number of plans in critical financial condition and also, at the same time, secure the multiemployer pension system over the long term. not s going to last a short period of time. as we looked at options for reforming the current system, we've relied on several important reform principles.

i'll go through these principles. first, a reform plan should provide balanced assistance to the most poorly funded plans. second principle, federal assistance to the failing plans should rely on as little taxpayer dollars as possible. third principle, reforms must promote long-term stability of the multiemployer pension system and the long-term solvency of the pbgc. to help the sickest plans recover their financial footing, our proposal creates a special partition option for multiemployer plans, and i want everybody to know that this is not some sort of new concept. in fact, quite simply, it

expands on the pbgc's existing authority. it's based on banking industry reforms that congress enacted after the great depression and at other times. the partition option permits employers to maintain a financially healthy multiemployer plan by carving out pension benefit liabilities owed to participants who have been orphaned by employers who have exited the plan without paying their full share of those liabilities. now by removing orphan liabilities, we allow the original plan to continue to provide benefits in a sustaining

manner by funding benefits with contributions from current participating employers. in fact, partitioning creates a healthy pension that continues to meet all of its obligations to retirees and a separate sick pension that requires attention and assistance from this federal guarantee system we call the pbgc. for this petition program to operate effectively and to address the plans that are in immediate danger, a limited amount of federal taxpayer funds will be needed to support the pbgc. we expect the necessary federal resources to comprise only a small, i should say very small

portion of the financial assistance provided to the multiemployer plans, and it is our intent, as we should be fiscally responsible, to offset those costs. we should also acknowledge the reality that action now, right now, means lower taxpayers' involvement. than if we wait for the pbgc to become insolvent, which would lead to a far larger commitment of taxpayers' funds in the not too distant future. congress needs to be ahead of the real catastrophe that we know is coming. over the long run the reforms that we are proposing will be sustained primarily by shared sacrifice funding reforms and a

new premium structure for all stakeholders of the multiemployer plans. because taxpayer dollars would be at risk if the sickest plans fail to move to fully funded status, the proposal also includes a number of plan governance reforms to strengthen the multiemployer plans to protect the taxpayers' contribution to the overall reforms and to shield taxpayers from future risk. while partitioning addresses one element needed for reforms, senator alexander and i proposed to go a step further to make significant changes to the management and the operation of all multiemployer pension plans

plans, and this is something that should have been done years ago so that trustees would have had to act in a responsible way so maybe we wouldn't be where we are today, but we want to make sure that doesn't happen in the future. so if we go that way, and we must go that way, that way moving forward, the entire multipension, employer pension system will be better funded and more transparent to participants, to sponsoring employers, and to government regulators. providing relief to critical and declining plans is contingent on making changes to the legal framework of the multiemployer pension system to ensure that all plans operate in what people would expect in a sound financial way in the future. to help finance the partition

relief and at the same time provide a stronger pbgc insurance guaranty to participants in the system, our reform proposal creates a new premium structure. that structure includes raising the flat rate premium to $80 per participant in a multiemployer plan, putting the multiemployer program on par with the single employer guaranty program. the new premium structure also broadens the base on which premiums are assessed to more accurately spread the cost of insuring benefits and to insure pbgc solvency. the new structure applies a co-payment to active workers and retirees.

however, because of the broader contribution base, the co-payments are significantly less than the amount of the typical benefit cut retirees face under current law if their plan should fail. other retirees -- i should say older retirees and disabled participants also will be protected. in addition, our reform package establishes a variable rate premium. this variable rate premium which parallels the variable rate premium that has long applied to single employer plans is tied to a plan's funding status to manage risks stemming from more poorly funded plans. the new premium structure not only helps to secure finances of the pbgc p -- but also funds an

increase in the benefit guaranty level for the vast majority of participants in the system. raising the guaranty benefit will greatly reduce the risk to retirees of significant reductions in retirement income which would otherwise occur if their multiemployer plan becomes insolvent. while the changes to the premium structure will fundamentally strengthen the financial status of the multiemployer pension system and at the same time the pbgc, the reforms that we're proposing makes other important structural changes to the multiemployer system to help ensure that the entire system moves to a well-funded status over the long haul.

to achieve this goal, -- we achieve this goal by addressing key flaws in the current legal framework governing multiemployer plans. current multiemployer plan rules do not serve the best interest of workers and retirees. you can tell that by how bad condition financially some of these plans are today, threatening the retirement of our workers that have paid into it for a lifetime. these rules have not been sufficient to keep plans in good financial health, and they tend to underestimate liabilities and results in sufficient contributions -- insufficient contributions to the plans. to ensure that benefit promise

offered in a multiemployer plan ultimately are met, our proposal strengthens the rules for measuring the value of promised benefit pension benefits and the amount of employer contributions necessary to pay them when the worker retires. now these changes would require plan trustees and actuaries to measure and project plan assets and liabilities in a more prudently and accurately -- more prudent and accurate way than has been required under present law. these changes also are designed to move plans toward full funding and at the same time protect the interest of plan participants and also the taxpayers that would otherwise be required to bail out.

our reform proposal also improves the so-called zone rules. plans will be required farther into the future when estimating their financial status, and plans will institute a form of stress testing to check whether a plan can remain financially sustainable through potential economic and democratic -- demographic stresses. depending on its health, plans will have to bolster the steps they take when signs of financial hardship arrives. that's a pretty commonsense approach. you also replace current withdrawal liability rules with a simpler, more transparent and consistent method for

determining employers' liability if it withdraws from the multiemployer pension plan. now we have to look to the future. in doing so, the proposal includes a new option for sponsors of multiemployer plans to establish a new hybrid pension plan that we're going to call a composite plan. we've heard a great deal of interest from smaller businesses and their workers about the benefits of a composite plan approach, including less costly operations and more certainty in the financing of these plans. so in closing, let me say that there are no perfect solutions, no perfect solutions to this problem that we call the multiemployer pension crisis.

but it's very true the long we wait, the harder it gets. what's more, our solution is far better in allowing the system to continue on its current path, collapsing, and far better than merely throwing federal money into plans without changing how they operate. the problem's never going to be solved by waiting or with taxpayers' money. the house has essentially advanced a pure, no-strings-attached bailout plan that will give taxpayer funds to plans in the hopes that they can somehow earn returns sufficient to keep them going. we rely a great deal on the congressional budget office around here for estimates of the futurend