Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to join these two eloquent colleagues who have each been champions for this cause as women speaking about the problem of sexual assault in our country--the epidemic of sexual assault that continues to be a scourge across our country. Most of my career in law enforcement, like my distinguished colleague from California, has been involved in making laws work for people and deterring exactly this kind of heinous lawbreaking. It is criminal. It is a crime, but it is one of the least reported crimes because of the public shaming and character assassination and mocking and ridiculing we have seen from men in power over just the last few days and weeks. I want to say, as a man speaking on the Senate floor--and greatly honored to do so--to other men in this country, those men in power who have mocked and ridiculed Dr. Blasey Ford cannot be our role model. Those men in power--they may be colleagues and they may be the President of the United States who have belittled and demeaned and dismissed Dr. Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez and survivors across the country--do not speak for us. I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she was credible and powerful as a witness before us in what she remembered and what she so candidly said she couldn't remember. I believe Deborah Ramirez. I believe all of you who have written my office or called us, as many of you have done in other States to my colleagues, who have recounted the horrors of your personal experience with sexual assault, who have come to me as I have been in airports or rallies or other public meetings and shared with me your horrific story. I believe you. America believes you. Let me say to Dr. Blasey Ford's sons, you should be proud of your mom. You should be proud of your mom because she is a profile in courage. To Mr. Ford, you should be proud of your wife. To all the men in America, we need to believe survivors of sexual assault. We need to protect and respect them, not just in word but in deed so they will come forward and tell us their stories so we can conquer scourge. We should be proud of the brave women who have brought us truth that cannot be denied no matter how much character assassination and public shaming they have endured. We know their truth. This issue of how America moves forward on sexual assault is bigger than this nomination. It will last beyond the vote tomorrow. It will be a defining question for each of us as men, as human beings. Judge Kavanaugh, in facing these allegations, has also revealed something profoundly significant about himself. When he came to the committee after Dr. Blasey Ford, he revealed his true character. He pulled back the mask on the judge and revealed the man. What we saw was someone filled with rage and spite, self-pitying and arrogant, deeply partisan, and threatening. We can disagree on Judge Kavanaugh's views on jurisprudential issues and policy and law. We can disagree on issues relating to his out-of-the-mainstream, far-right ideological position, but what cannot be denied is that picture of Judge Kavanaugh before our committee that indicated profoundly a lack of temperament and trustworthiness. That picture led former Justice John Paul Stevens to revoke his endorsement and to say his performance was disqualifying. What we saw--as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words--was a man who refused to answer questions; he snapped at my colleagues; he spouted partisan conspiracy theories. That is the real Brett Kavanaugh--the Brett Kavanaugh who characterized Dr. Ford's serious and credible allegations as nothing more than ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit.'' He, in effect, depicted her as a puppet or a pawn of Senators or political figures, not people who came forward voluntarily in their own right and on their own initiative, as truly they did. He was the Brett Kavanaugh who alleged that it was all ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He is the Brett Kavanaugh who, as the Portland Press Herald characterized it, ``ripped off the nonpartisan mask'' and never looked back. He is the Brett Kavanaugh who threatened us, saying, ``What goes around, comes around.'' In Brett Kavanaugh's own words, a judge must be someone who is ``even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.'' Those are his own words. That is not Brett Kavanaugh the man. It will not be Brett Kavanaugh the Justice if he is confirmed. Brett Kavanaugh revealed himself to be a partisan--an angry and bitter partisan--not an impartial jurist, and he did so in prepared remarks, planned and premeditated, well calculated, written word for word, and delivered word for word as he angrily turned the pages, and that is the message that, for me, resonates because I have argued cases in the Supreme Court. I have spent a career standing before judges. Some of their rulings I liked; some of them I disliked. Some of their conclusions I thought were maybe incorrect. But I knew that those men and women wanted to be impartial. When they put those robes on, as Brett Kavanaugh has done, they left party and partisan interests at the door. Now, when I go to the U.S. Supreme Court, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, there can be no trust or confidence that he will be that impartial jurist. It is and will be a stain, a cloud, on the U.S. Supreme Court. All the Supreme Court has in the way of power is the trust and credibility and confidence of the American people, which will be diminished forever. So let me pose a question to my colleague from California because she has so well described the voir dire process. It is jury selection, where we make an effort to pick jurors who are impartial and nonpartisan. I say to Senator Harris, if Brett Kavanaugh came to a courtroom where the Senator was trying a case as an attorney general, and he were in the jury pool to be picked for a jury, would the Senator pick him as a juror? After that appearance before our committee, would the Senator allow him to sit on a case where the Senator was litigating?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I think this issue of temperament--and I am going to pose a question to my colleague from Washington--is fundamental to our system of justice in this country. Courtrooms are sometimes really emotional places, and sometimes they are angry places. The function of the judge is to remove the emotion and the anger, to be impartial and balanced and even keeled. So for a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to engage in the kind of angry outburst--it was not spontaneous; it was not the result of some accusation in the moment. It was calculated. It was premeditated. It was written the day before. It was inexcusable and unacceptable. I will ask my colleague from the State of Washington, since she is not a lawyer, perhaps to her credit: If the Senator were appearing in a courtroom with Judge Kavanaugh, wouldn't the Senator ask that he step away from the case, that he recuse himself in light of what he has said about all Democrats, about vast classes of people--this anger that he has expressed?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will yield back to my colleague from California, but let me just close my part of this colloquy by saying that we saw the real Brett Kavanaugh before us on that day at that moment, and I think my colleagues, if they review that picture, a picture is worth a thousand words. If they apply common sense--we should not leave common sense at the door. If they put themselves in the shoes of someone appearing, seeking justice, they will vote against Brett Kavanaugh and the disrespect that he showed that brave survivor, Dr. Blasey Ford. I yield back to my colleague from California.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to provide clarification surrounding section 317 of H.R. 302, the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, Reauthorization Act of 2018. New section 44737 of title 49, as added by section 317 of the bill, allows for the consideration of other means acceptable to the FAA Administrator that provide an equivalent level of fuel system crash resistance. I want to state clearly for the record that the intent of Congress in new section 44737 subsection (a), paragraph (1), subparagraph (B) is to provide flexibility for the FAA to consider innovative fuel system designs when determining an equivalent level of fuel system crash resistance.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, the Judiciary Committee had an extraordinary meeting this morning, and each of us spoke at some length about our reservations or support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. At the end of that meeting, as we were about to take a vote, Senator Jeff Flake, our colleague, announced his decision that he would request and seek a 1-week extension of the vote so there could be an FBI investigation of some of the unanswered questions that still very seriously and urgently demand responses in fact and evidence. That is a very promising and important step. It has to be a real investigation, not a sham or show. It has to be penetrating and impartial, which the trained professionals of the FBI can do. I have a lot of confidence that the FBI will do its job and answer those very serious and urgent questions. The answers are all the more pressing after the extraordinary hearing we held yesterday at the Judiciary Committee. The entire Nation watched as two people told their stories; two very, very different stories and also told in very, very different ways, but let's be very clear. The roles of these individuals and their responsibilities were also very different. Judge Brett Kavanaugh came before us for a job interview. He has no right to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a privilege of extraordinary magnitude and significance. The position is one of the most important in our country--a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. Our responsibility in the Judiciary Committee is not to approve just anyone for that job. We should be seeking the best person, a person of intellect and integrity and temperament who will be fair and impartial, objective, and considerate. I concluded well before the hearing yesterday--it is no secret--that I would oppose Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. My opposition was based on his extreme ideological views and judicial philosophy which were amply demonstrated at the previous hearing we had with him. My concern is, he would be a fifth vote to cut back or even overturn Roe v. Wade and stop women from making decisions about when they will become pregnant or have children; stop people from marrying and exercising their right to do so with the person they love; cutting back on consumer rights and workers' rights and environmental objectives; and permitting an imperial Presidency--a President who could decide unilaterally that he believes the law is unconstitutional, and therefore it should not be enforced, meaning that laws protecting millions of Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions like diabetes and heart disease, cancer, mental illness, and, yes, pregnancy would go unprotected, and other rights under the Affordable Care Act. An imperial Presidency giving the power of that kind of unilateral authority is an anathema. What we saw yesterday went beyond views on substantive issues, and I will be very blunt. What we saw was a man filled with anger, even rage, and self-pity, someone of arrogance, highly intensely partisan, and someone, in my view, temperamentally unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, I fear his rancor and animus, his partisan bitterness, which came across so clearly and explicitly in his reference to a leftwing conspiracy; Democrats organized to fight him and dredge dirt to destroy his family, a conspiratorial view of the world that is not only factually totally false but also deeply dangerous and unprecedented in anything we have ever heard from any nominee for any judicial position as long as I have been here and I believe unprecedented also in the Senate's consideration of Supreme Court nominees. He indicated a partisanship that was disrespectful and dangerous. We saw also a woman who came before us as a sexual assault survivor who was temperamentally almost exactly the opposite. Instead of hostile, she was helpful. Instead of angry, she was calm. Instead of rancorous and arrogant, she was modest and humble. Like Judge Kavanaugh, her family has been harmed by death threats and other vile, vicious behavior that has no tolerance in a democratic society, and my heart goes out to both families. We should reject threats to both of those families, as we do to anyone else in our society, and I have sympathy for the children and the families on both sides and others who may have been affected in coming forth with truth that relates to this nomination. The demeanor of Professor-Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was completely distinct and different. She was mesmerizing. Even now, her visage haunts me in her profound honesty. She was credible and powerful in recounting events that caused her untold terror and anguish; events she hid because of the trauma she experienced then and because of many of the fears that cause other survivors of sexual assault to hide the same kinds of assault, the fears of blame and public shaming and character assassination and threats of retaliation and sometimes self-blame or stigma or embarrassment. In her case, coming forward has made many of those fears a reality, tragically and unfortunately. She has endured the nightmare befallen her and her family simply to serve the public with facts and evidence she believes we should know--we in the Senate, we in America--should take into account before we make a decision on Brett Kavanaugh as the nominee. So there are profound questions raised by her powerful testimony that need to be answered in the FBI interview. That is the reason the American Bar Association Thursday evening called for postponing a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court until sexual assault and misconduct allegations made by Dr. Blasey Ford and others are fully investigated and why separately the magazine of the Jesuit Order in the United States, America, withdrew its endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh. He was educated by Jesuits at Georgetown Preparatory School in Maryland, and on Thursday, the editors said the nomination was no longer in the best interest of the country. I want to quote further the magazine, which said: If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country. Approval of Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court would be a cloud, it would be a stain on the U.S. Supreme Court for generations to come. We do that damage to the Nation's highest Court at our peril whether we are in agreement or disagreement with Brett Kavanaugh on his policy aims, as the magazine said. We are talking about the fundamental integrity of an institution and our responsibility to uphold that integrity. In her testimony yesterday, she was convincing not only because of what she knew and recalled in such precise, vivid detail--indeed, highlighting the laughter of Brett Kavanaugh as he groped her and held her down, as he lay on top of her, the laughter from both him and from Mark Judge--but after we heard her compelling and powerful story, in Judge Kavanaugh, we heard several statements that clearly contradict the facts in evidence. They are untruths. He claimed the FBI had already investigated him because they did a background check six times. The FBI never investigated Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations. It never investigated Deborah Ramirez's allegations. It never investigated Julie Swetnick's allegations. In fact, the ABA highlights this point. Senator Grassley said that committee investigators were willing to talk to the witnesses about their allegations, but committee investigators are no substitute for the FBI. The FBI must send those trained professionals to talk to these brave survivors who have come forward, and it must talk to Mark Judge. I offered a motion to subpoena Mark Judge this morning before our committee. The motion was voted down. The FBI must talk to Mark Judge, who was allegedly in that room with Brett Kavanaugh when he assaulted Dr. Blasey Ford. We asked Judge Kavanaugh to call for an investigation by the FBI. A person who is innocent would want the FBI to investigate their claims and clear their name. That is what Dr. Blasey Ford wanted. She said so publicly. When Brett Kavanaugh was asked, he refused to make that same call. The question is, Why? What is he hiding? What is the administration concealing in refusing to disclose more than a million pages of documents that relate to Brett Kavanaugh's service in the Bush White House as Staff Secretary? They bear on his credibility, maybe not on these specific allegations, but on his credibility. Judge Kavanaugh claimed that polygraphs are not reliable; that the polygraph Dr. Blasey Ford took and passed was meaningless. Yet, on the DC Circuit as a judge, Brett Kavanaugh ruled otherwise. He wrote ``law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants.'' As a former U.S. attorney, I know how polygraphs are used to test credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. They may sometimes be inadmissible. They may be inadmissible generally, but they have a use. Judge Kavanaugh claimed that all four witnesses Dr. Ford identified as being present at the party have said that the sexual assault ``didn't happen,'' but in fact, only one person has said the sexual assault didn't happen. That one person is Brett Kavanaugh. The other three parties identified by Dr. Blasey Ford said they do not remember. There is a big difference between ``do not remember'' and ``it didn't happen.'' The other woman Dr. Blasey Ford named who was there has since publicly stated that she believes Dr. Ford's account. She believes Dr. Ford, and I do too. Judge Kavanaugh tried to give himself an alibi by making it sound like he never drank on weeknights. His own high school calendar, which he provided the committee as evidence, disputes that statement. During the hearing, he admitted that one of the entries on his calendar from a Thursday signified that he went to a friend's house to drink. Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly said that he had never in his life had so much to drink that he couldn't remember everything that happened, but numerous people who spent time with him during his high school, college, and law school years confirmed that he frequently drank to excess and sometimes became belligerent. Judge Kavanaugh claimed that he always treated women ``with dignity and respect''--his words--and yet he and his football friends from high school named one of my constituents, Renate Dolphin, in their yearbook pages, saying they were her ``alumnius,'' in effect, boasting of sexual conquests and objectifying her, demeaning her. That is hardly treating a woman with dignity and respect. Judge Kavanaugh said this reference meant nothing sexual, but Renate Dolphin disagrees. In a quote to the New York Times, she said: The insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated that way. He said the allegations against him were ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election.'' He called it ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He issued a warning--more like a threat--that ``what goes around comes around.'' That threat to the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate is a threat to America. It is profoundly and deeply dangerous to think that litigants will come before his court with the threat that their political views will determine how he decides their cases. That is antithetical to the basic fundamental principles of this country. It contravenes the entire concept of an independent judiciary. President Trump has demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and an independent judiciary, but a member of one of the highest courts in the country doing so is chilling. It is stunning. It is staggering. My Republican colleagues, unfortunately, followed that example. They said we leaked her letters to the press at the last minute to derail Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. They called the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh a coordinated smear campaign. That contention is false. It implies that these courageous survivors of sexual assault are puppets or pawns orchestrated by politicians. Anybody who heard and saw Dr. Blasey Ford yesterday knows that is blatantly false. She came forward on her own initiative. She did it reluctantly, foreseeing the nightmare that would befall her and her family. She did it without encouragement from any Member of the U.S. Senate or any other political figure. That contention is an insult to her and all survivors of this horrific crime. Is Deborah Ramirez's story, too, a fabricated allegation to take down Judge Kavanaugh? When Senator Harris asked Judge Kavanaugh if he had listened to Dr. Ford's testimony, he said: ``I did not.'' He should have. He should have listened to her testimony. He should have heard and heeded what Deborah Ramirez said about his sexual misconduct toward her and, likewise, Julie Swetnick, about the chilling acts that she alleged that he was involved in performing. Judge Kavanaugh and my Republican colleagues say they don't dispute that Dr. Blasey Ford may have been sexually assaulted at some point but by some other person, just not Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe she was mixed up. Maybe she was confused. Those kinds of words used to describe her and other sexual assault victims demonstrate the disrespect and disregard that has shamed and silenced so many sexual assault survivors from coming forward to tell their truth, seek prosecution, and consult their parents or loved ones and seek healing. It is the reason that sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in our country. One out of every three women is a survivor, but so very few come forward because of the public shaming, character assassination, and threats and rejections they fear and, in fact, they rightly foresee. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, you cannot have it both ways. You either believe Dr. Blasey Ford or you reject her testimony. Either you accept her veracity or you don't. Dr. Blasey Ford was asked whether it was possible that she confused her attacker, whether there was mistaken identity, or whether there was maybe someone else other than Brett Kavanaugh. Firmly, unequivocally, repeatedly, she said no. Before us and the entire country, she said she was ``100 percent'' sure that Brett Kavanaugh was her attacker. This detail is seared in her memory. There is no mistaken identity here. A person so brutally attacked at the age of 15 who admits to these details and also the details that she doesn't remember and insists on the details she does remember doesn't make something like that up out of whole cloth. She came forward at great personal sacrifice. I believe her. I think America believes her. She testified that she was terrified--that is her word, ``terrified''--to come forward. She was very nearly silenced by her fear. She worried if she told her story that she would be shouted down or vilified by Judge Kavanaugh's defenders and that he would never be held accountable. That fear silences too many survivors. We must prove them wrong. We must hold him accountable. As I said at the very start, a lifetime appointment and promotion to the Supreme Court is not an entitlement. It is a privilege for the person who is best for that position. Last Friday, President Trump said about Dr. Blasey Ford's story on Twitter: I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed by local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so we can learn the date, time, and place! President Trump knows better. I hope he knows better. Psychologists have noted, and it is widely known, that there are a number of reasons why survivors opt for silence, such as fear of retaliation and repercussions in the workplace or at home, feelings of self-blame. They are told to dismiss it. They are told by their parents they will be blamed, not the perpetrators. They fear they will not be believed, and they want to forget. They want to put this trauma somewhere deep and dark where it will be a source of less pain. So Dr. Ford did not share the details of her abuse until a therapy session in 2012. She told her husband early in their relationship, but even he did not know the details of this incident until that therapy session. That is not uncommon for people who have experienced trauma. In the last few weeks, numerous survivors of sexual assault have stepped forward with their stories to explain why they hid their own trauma. I want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the survivors who are coming forward now with stories of terrible crimes, of impulses to stay silent, and of fears that they have conquered in coming forward. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these stories be printed in the Record. I will not read them all now, but I wish for the statements of Lindsey Jones of Connecticut; Tara, who asked that her last name not be used, also of Connecticut; and survivors from other parts of the country who have contacted me just over the past few days be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, let me conclude with this thought. Dr. Blasey Ford is a profile in courage. Her name will be remembered long after many of ours are forgotten. She will be in the history books as a teacher--she is a teacher by profession--for this teaching moment for America. It is a teaching moment for all of us--for women who need perhaps that inspiration and role model to come forward and to know that they will be embraced, not rejected. They will be believed, not shunned. They will be bolstered and heeded, and their perpetrator will be held accountable. It is a teaching moment for men--all of us--that we need to do better. It is also a teaching moment for young men--high school juniors and seniors, like Brett Kavanaugh was. When he put into his yearbook that hurtful, horrible phrase about Renate Dolphin--in effect, laughing at her and ridiculing that young woman, just as he laughed and ridiculed Dr. Blasey Ford, then 15 years old, as he allegedly was on top of her, groping and trying to undress her--that laughter was the detail that continued to ring in the ears of Dr. Blasey Ford. It was the most identifiable fact about that incident, as she said yesterday: That laughter is what I hear when I see that entry in the yearbook. So to all of us men and women in America, her profile in courage should send a message. We should be proud of her, and no one should be prouder than her two sons. I say to Dr. Blasey Ford's sons, as I did this morning in the Judiciary Committee meeting: You should be proud of your mom. She is an American woman who stood strong and spoke out and fearlessly and relentlessly insisted on America hearing her story-- well, maybe not fearlessly. She had fear, but she conquered it. That is the definition of courage--not to be without fear but to act courageously in spite of it. Grace under pressure--that is Christine Blasey Ford. I expressed my gratitude that I think is shared by many in America for that great teaching moment yesterday. We should honor her by acting in a way that keeps faith with her honesty and bravery. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, shortly, I will move for unanimous consent to pass S. Res. 610, urging the release of information regarding the September 11 terrorist attacks upon the United States. It is a bipartisan resolution, and I thank the cosponsors who joined me in this historic effort: Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Gillibrand, Murphy, Menendez, Grassley, Markey, Booker, Rubio, and Sanders. At a time of very deep division in our country and in this body, all of us are still able to come together to help the survivors and families of the horrific September 11 terrorist attack as they seek justice and fairness to deter additional and ongoing state sponsorship of terror. Following our successful efforts in 2016 to enact the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, also known as JASTA, the families of 9/11 victims who perished earned the right to have their day in court. We thought that day would come quickly and they would receive justice. We believe they also earned a right to the necessary Federal Government archive investigative files on the al-Qaida terrorists and foreign nationals who may have assisted. As much as we expected justice, the Federal Government denied them those records and documents that are vital to their cause. So 17 years after this national tragedy, the appropriate declassification releasing these documents poses no threat to our national security, and there is no reason for the Federal Government to resist their requests. These files have been kept secret for too long. That secrecy contradicts the national interest. Their cause serves our national security, not only because it gives them justice individually, but it also deters terrorists in the future. Denying them access to this important evidence is unjust, unfair, and unwise. The U.S. Government should make public any evidence of links between the Saudi Arabian Government officials and the support network inside the United States used to aid and abet the 9/11 hijackers. The legal and moral responsibility of our government is to provide its citizens with all available information regarding this horrific tragedy on September 11, 2001, particularly where there may be evidence that foreign nationals conspired within our borders to support terror with the assistance of foreign governments. This resolution would never have been possible without the efforts of my constituent Brett Eagleson, of Middletown, CT. He was 15 years old when his father Bruce was lost to him in that massive, unspeakable destruction. He was on the 17th floor of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. Brett was joined in his advocacy and efforts by members across the country of the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism. That group is a profile in courage, reliving the pain and anguish of those days in their efforts to seek justice for all Americans. They include a number of individuals whose names I wish to place in the Record: Mary Fetchet of New Cannan, who lost her son; Gordon Haberman of Wisconsin, who lost his daughter; Carol Ashley of Long Island, who lost her daughter; Tim Frolich, a survivor from New York City; Sharon Premoli, a survivor from Vermont; Loreen Sellitto from Florida, who lost her son; and Charles Wolf of New York City, who lost his wife. I thank each of them and the many others who supported this effort for their courage and strength. There are so many we honor today by our passage of this sense-of-the- Senate resolution. This Senate resolution is itself succinct but significant. It resolves that it is the sense of the Senate that documents related to the events of September 11, 2001, should be declassified to the greatest extent possible; and, two, that the survivors, the families of the victims, and the people of the United States deserve answers about the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11 terrorist attack upon the United States. Many years later, the pain and grief they endure on that horrific day is still with them. Each year in Connecticut we commemorate this day, and we will never forget. That is our resolve--never to forget, never to yield to hopelessness, never to allow our support for these families to diminish. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution makes real the promise the Nation made to these 9/11 families. They deserve this evidence. Even if it is embarrassing to foreign governments or foreign nationals, they deserve justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 610 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Connecticut Chiropractic Association, Inc., CTChiro, as it celebrates 100 years of extraordinary and exemplary advocacy on behalf of chiropractic doctors in Connecticut. Since its formation in 1918, CTChiro has demonstrated tireless dedication to the advancement of the chiropractic profession. The association seeks to support these doctors and their practices throughout Connecticut in order to improve public health policies and provide their patients with the best treatment possible. Endeavoring to raise awareness of the profession and make chiropractic care more accessible to the people of Connecticut, CTChiro diligently monitors healthcare legislation to ensure chiropractic services are a viable health option for residents. To meet the need for such medical care throughout the State, CTChiro strives to improve patient awareness of chiropractic services, while advocating for greater insurance coverage. Continuously seeking to raise the standard for doctors in the field and the treatment they provide to their patients, CTChiro also offers opportunities for its member doctors to access resources and continue with higher education. Thanks to the association's longstanding, consistent efforts, institutions, representatives, agencies, and Connecticut residents are able to see the importance and availability of chiropractic medicine. Additionally, they can feel secure in the services offered to them as a result of CTChiro's dedication to developing a more comprehensive and knowledgeable set of doctors. Since its establishment, CTChiro routinely prioritizes the creation of thorough, economical, and beneficial chiropractic care, supported by experienced, well-rounded professional doctors. I applaud their numerous achievements and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Connecticut Chiropractic Association, Inc., on 100 years of service and commitment to Connecticut chiropractic doctors and patients.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, as well as leaders on both sides. This effort has been truly bipartisan. It is a profoundly significant beginning but only a first step. It needs to be followed by others because we know that this epidemic truly is national. I especially thank my colleague from West Virginia who will follow me, Senator Manchin, for his tireless, relentless efforts on this issue. I have been very proud to work with him and to begin working on it when I was attorney general of the State of Connecticut in suing the painkiller manufacturers and taking action against the sellers of prescription opioids, to make sure they are held accountable. The communities need our help. We promised action, and we are now delivering, in part, on this issue, which has been so devastating and deadly for so many families, communities, States, and towns throughout Connecticut and our Nation. The calls for action tonight are answered in this beginning step with money that will go to treatment, prevention, and law enforcement. That money is a good first step, but it must be followed by additional investments and commitment. This measure increases the number of drug take-back programs. I visited communities, most recently East Hartford in Greenwich, where these take-back programs have provided an anonymous, secure way to rid medicine cabinets of drugs that all too often can be a menace. Medicine cabinets are a modern-day menace when they provide accessible painkillers and opioids to teenagers, children, and others who begin lifetimes of addiction. This measure is profoundly important in setting standards and guidelines for sober houses, a very important resource but one that requires some sense of regularity and guidelines. There are many sober homes in Connecticut--for example, in Torrington--that do good work. But Connecticut is grappling with sober homes operated by bad actors who put lives at risk. This prevention is a step in the right direction. I am very proud of a bill I have led with Senators Grassley and Brown to enhance transparency in opioid prescribing. This provision requires drug companies to disclose payments made to nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other prescribers, ensuring that they are not being inappropriately influenced by these manufacturers. It is already required for doctors. It ought to be required for everyone who may be involved in prescribing these powerful medicines. The bill will also fight back against deadly drug trafficking when it involves use of the postal system. Just a few weeks ago, in New Haven, there was a mass overdose caused by trafficked synthetic drugs. More than 100 people overdosed on K2 brought into this country by China and Mexico through the mail. These new law enforcement tools are critically important, as is the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. This bill will help protect our citizens. I thank all my colleagues for supporting it. I am looking forward to a positive, affirmative vote that will help communities throughout the country and spare families the heartbreaking and gut-wrenching problem that infects so many healthy communities. Everyone is affected and touched by this problem. I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I recognize Judge Guido Calabresi, a dedicated public servant and professor who is celebrating 70 years as a naturalized citizen of the United States on September 16. His life and career constitute a legacy of commitment and passion for initiating positive change. A deeply insightful and tirelessly driven person, he is recognized as a pioneer in the academic world who has spent six decades educating and serving others. In 1939, Judge Calabresi moved with his family to New York and then New Haven, CT, from Milan, Italy, where his parents were notable antifascist figures. Forbidden from bringing money with them to America, his family had to start again from scratch upon their arrival. Judge Calabresi and his older brother, Paul, worked to learn English and assimilate into their new home. Their father had a fellowship at Yale, which at the time had no Italian or Jewish faculty members, forcing the family to forge a unique identity at the institution. Young Guido devoted himself unstintingly to his studies. Once naturalized as a citizen, along with his parents and brother in 1948, he graduated summa cum laude from Yale in 1953 with a bachelor of science in economics, earned a bachelor of arts with first class honors from Oxford in 1955 as a Rhodes Scholar, and then a bachelor of laws magna cum laude from Yale Law School 5 years later and a master of arts the next year in 1959 from the University of Oxford in politics, philosophy, and economics. Judge Calabresi focused on legal scholarship starting in the late 1950s, when he served as a law review member and note editor for the Yale Law Journal and graduated first in his class from the law school. After graduation, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black and went on to become the youngest full professor ever at Yale Law School. His impressive career led him to become dean of the Yale Law School for 9 years, ending in 1994. One of Judge Calabresi's most notable accomplishments in the academic world is his role as a founder of the subfield of law and economics along with Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase. His public service included impressive charitable and local government activities, including as a town selectman in Woodbridge for 4 years, beginning in 1971. In 1994, recognizing his extraordinary accomplishments as a teacher and scholar, President Bill Clinton nominated him to serve as a U.S. circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Judge Calabresi joined the court in September 1994, 55 years after fleeing to America to escape Italian racial laws. Judge Calabresi was shaped throughout his education, as a lawyer, and as a judge by his experiences as a refugee who courageously forged his own path as a U.S. citizen. Now a senior judge for the Second Circuit and sterling professor emeritus of law and professional lecturer at Yale, he has written seven books and more than 100 articles on law and other related subjects. He has also been awarded 50 honorary degrees from universities across the globe. With his remarkable record of public and academic service, Judge Calabresi is a credit to the State of Connecticut and to our country. His unfailing readiness to embrace new challenges and benefit his communities sets an inspiring model for all of us. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Judge Guido Calabresi on this landmark of attaining 70 years as a naturalized American citizen.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Greg Bollard, who will be honored at the 15th anniversary celebration for Friends of the Lake on August 9, 2018. His numerous accomplishments on behalf of Lake Lillinonah have made a great impact on the health of Connecticut's environment. Mr. Bollard is the cofounder of Friends of the Lake, a nonprofit organization created to improve the water quality of Lake Lillinonah in Connecticut, enhance the enjoyment of the lake's pristine and stunning surroundings and protect that portion of the Housatonic River and its watershed. Friends of the Lake works alongside an array of community and environmental organizations, Federal, State and local officials, and residents in order to acquire vital funding to improve the lake, raise awareness of the project and its importance, and bring together the community around Lake Lillinonah. Mr. Bollard has worked tirelessly over the past decade and a half to obtain and deploy a monitoring buoy. This buoy uses the Global Lake Observatory Network GLEON, to share data about the lake with scientists and other lake organizations worldwide, in order to facilitate more thorough monitoring and study of lake ecology. In order to ensure Lake Lillinonah is clean, safe, and accessible to the community, Mr. Bollard has led tireless efforts to learn more about invasive species and control their populations, along with chairing the water quality committee. He is known as an incredibly dependable man, who is able to fix any problem by spearheading key efforts to develop a solution and bring the right group of people together to see it through successfully. Mr. Bollard's desire to help his community extends beyond his work with Friends of the Lake, as well. For 16 years, he served on the Bridgewater Inland Wetlands Commission, and he continues to dedicate his time to his community through his role as an EMT and ambulance coordinator for the Bridgewater Fire Department, a firefighter and EMT for the Morris Volunteer Fire Department, and as a member of the Shepaug parent council. Through his devotion to helping our State with Friends of the Lake and his great work as a public servant, Mr. Bollard has left a lasting, positive impression upon Connecticut and laid a profoundly strong foundation for improving our State's environment in the years to come. I applaud Greg Bollard's dedicated commitment to improve and protect Lake Lillinonah, and I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Bollard on his well-deserved honor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Florida for his leadership on this profoundly important and imminently threatening issue of safety, as well my colleague from New Jersey for his very important leadership and also Senator Markey from Massachusetts. We have joined together in this cause to prevent a new wave of lethal gun violence in our streets and communities resulting from these plastic, undetectable, and untraceable, weapons. We are talking about assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns--all of them homemade. They are ghost guns. They are the new frontier and new face of gun violence in this country. Our colleague from Utah raised a First Amendment objection. The fact is that the courts are dealing with that objection. It is the basis of a challenge brought by a group who so far has failed in the courts to stop this public health regulation. No right is absolute. The First Amendment is not absolute. The idea of crying fire in a movie house is one example that is given time and again. Likewise, in the course of our history, we have found that the First Amendment has to yield to public safety when there is an imminent and urgent threat. Clearly, there is here. I have supported companion legislation that would, in fact, stop the actual making of these kinds of weapons. It involves none of the First Amendment difficulties the Senator from Utah has raised, and I will be pursuing it perhaps through the same kind of unanimous consent effort in the days to come. Today, the Senator from Florida is absolutely right to seek this body's unanimous consent in the face of this threat that is self- inflicted by the Trump administration. It has caved to the rightwing fringe group and the NRA, which are challenging this public safety regulation, and it has, in effect, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because the litigation was on a path to prevailing against those objections. This litigation should have been permitted to run its course. It was on a path to success. But now the administration has created this emergency, beginning at midnight tonight. On August 1, plans, designs, blueprints can be published without limit on the internet, making possible the mass homemade manufacture of these ghost guns. They are a scourge, a potential source of death and injury on our streets. Any idea that plastic is less durable or strong as a source of material for these guns is completely outmoded because we make planes from plastic. Plastic in some forms is as durable and strong as metal. The threat here is real and urgent, and I join my colleague from Florida in asking that there be unanimous consent. I hope we will pursue this legislative effort together and that we will have bipartisan support. I stress that we must have bipartisan support. Senators who fail to step up, speak out, and act in the face of this emergency should be held accountable. Mr. President, I yield the floor to our colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to SFC, Retired, Restituto ``Tuto'' Oyola-Alvarez, a courageous member of our military and devoted family man. Sadly, Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez passed away on July 22, 2018, at the age of 101. He will be remembered for his tireless, dedicated service to our nation. Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez was born in Arecibo, PR, and he enlisted in the U.S. Army at Fort Buchanan on January 22, 1941. He went on to serve in Puerto Rico's 65th Infantry Regiment during the Korean war. The regiment was referred to as the Borinqueneers, and Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez and the rest of his Latino-segregated unit played a valuable role in helping American war efforts. Unfortunately, despite their remarkable dedication, the Borinqueneers' contributions went largely overlooked once the war ended. After 20 years of Active service and many more decades during which it went unrecognized, Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez was at last granted the awards his unfailing support of our Nation deserved. On Veterans Day in 2012, I was honored to present him a number of hard- earned medals at his home in Hartford, CT. Four years later, I was proud to present him and his fellow Borinqueneers with the Congressional Gold Medal at the Connecticut State Capitol. At the ceremony, Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez also received more medals acknowledging his efforts on behalf of America, including the World War II Victory Medal and Korean Service Medal, among others. Honorably discharged in 1961, he gained proper recognition for his service when he reached his mid-90s. Citations and certificates from his home State of Connecticut were given by the Connecticut General Assembly, the secretary of the State of Connecticut, and the mayor of Hartford. In 2014, Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez's tenacious defense of our democracy earned him the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Latino Puerto Rican Affairs Commission in Connecticut. His sincere devotion to his birth island of Puerto Rico, the United States, and the U.S. Armed Forces carried into his family life as well. Sergeant First Class Oyola-Alvarez cherished his wife of 70 years, the late Sarah Rivera, as well as his only daughter, Sara Victoria, his son-in-law, Merril, and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. His years of outstanding leadership, loyalty, and commitment are a model for all of us and have left a lasting positive impact upon the country. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Restituto's family during this difficult time. May their many wonderful memories of him provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Fred Grimsey, in whose honor a beach in Waterford, CT, will be named Grimsey Beach on August 11, 2018. I have had the honor of seeing firsthand the many amazing accomplishments of Fred Grimsey over the past decade. Mr. Grimsey is the founder and president of Save the River-Save the Hills, Inc., a nonprofit, grassroots environmental organization focused on preserving the health of the Niantic River Estuary, its watershed, and the natural beauty of the Oswegatchie Hills. In 2003, Mr. Grimsey built a system to use his boat as a pump-out vessel. Relying on his personal funds for 2 years to keep what became the Pump-Out Program going, Mr. Grimsey has since secured grants from the DEEP and the towns of Waterford and East Lyme, CT, to maintain it. Just this year, over 16,000 gallons of sewerage were pumped from boats on the Niantic River, preventing a significant amount of pollution from being dumped in the river. As director of the Pump-Out Program and president of Save the River- Save the Hills, Mr. Grimsey has worked long hours to improve the diversity and amount of aquatic life in the estuary, encourage safe recreation, and enhance economic growth of the Niantic River area. His determined dedication has helped lead to the designation of the river and the Long Island Sound as a Federal No Discharge Zone. Mr. Grimsey's significant environmental efforts has extended Statewide, including serving on numerous committees centered on improving waterways in and around Connecticut. Currently, Mr. Grimsey and Save the River-Save the Hills are working on a Unified Water Study with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment. The goal of the study is to encourage collaboration between multiple monitoring groups in order to measure the ecological health of a local bay, cove, or harbor. Mr. Grimsey's positive impact upon the Niantic River has greatly benefitted our State. In 2008, he received the President's Volunteer Service Award for the State of Connecticut, and in 2017, I was proud to recognize his environmental achievements by presenting Mr. Grimsey with the Aquarion Environmental Champion Award in the adult category. I applaud his tireless efforts to improve and protect the Niantic River, and I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mr. Grimsey on his well-earned honor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, there are few responsibilities--I would say none--more important than our duties in connection with the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. Much is at stake in the nomination that is before the Senate now to appoint Judge Brett Kavanaugh as the Justice who will replace Justice Kennedy. So much is at stake--the future of Roe v. Wade, affordable healthcare, particularly, preexisting conditions and the protections of them for millions of Americans. But I am not here to talk about Judge Kavanaugh as a nominee. I am here to talk about how we reach a conclusion as to how my colleagues and I vote and how we seek and pursue the truth about Judge Kavanaugh, his qualifications, his temperament, his integrity and intellect, who he is, and what kind of Justice he will be. The best way to do it is to know what he has written and said--all of his writings and opinions and the articles he has written. These points are pretty basic. I am struck by our colleagues' objection to our seeking documents they have sought in connection with past nominees when they were made by Presidents of our party. When President Obama nominated Justice Kagan, Republicans asked for documents from her years in the Clinton administration, her tenure as dean of the Harvard Law School, and even her clerkship for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Senator Grassley, now the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said at the time: ``For the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent, we must get all of her documents . . . and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a Justice.'' I agree. Now, unfortunately, Republicans want to apply a completely different standard to Judge Kavanaugh. They want his documents kept sealed and stored so that he can waltz onto the Court without having to answer tough questions about what he has written, said, and done. They maintain that there is nothing in the documents that would be relevant or revelatory. Well, we can't know this supposed irrelevance, and neither can they until we all see those documents. For some reason, the Republicans seem worried. They seem concerned. They seem apprehensive. The American people and we have a right to ask: What are they concealing and why are they scared of it? What is Judge Kavanaugh hiding and why is he afraid of it? That is a question he should answer and which they have a responsibility to address before we begin the hearings. Our questions require those documents. There is, in fact, a lot of good reason to think that those documents will be relevant and revelatory, particularly the documents from his time in the White House. My Republican colleagues are now downplaying the role Judge Kavanaugh had while working for President Bush. Republican whip and Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn, our friend and colleague from Texas, said that Judge Kavanaugh was ``more or less a traffic cop,'' but that contention contradicts what our colleagues said at the time when Judge Kavanaugh was a nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Senator Cornyn himself said then of Kavanaugh: ``He . . . is currently Staff Secretary to President Bush, a job whose title belies the very serious and important responsibilities that individual performs.'' Senator Hatch, also a colleague and a very distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, said of Judge Kavanaugh: ``His background as Staff Secretary may prove to be particularly good judicial training.'' But for me the best indication of how important his role as Staff Secretary to President Bush was--not just as counsel, but as Staff Secretary--comes from Judge Kavanaugh himself. He said: When people ask me which of my prior experiences has been most useful to me as a judge, I tell them that all of them have been useful, and I certainly draw on all of them. But I also do not hesitate to say that my five and a half years in the White House--and especially my three years as Staff Secretary for President Bush--were the most interesting and in many ways the most instructive. I would read that sentence again, but I am not sure I need to. It will be in the Record, and it is well-known to many of my colleagues. Judge Kavanaugh went on: As Staff Secretary, I sat in meetings where he talked with President Hu and then-President Musharraf and President Karzai and Prime Minister Blair and Pope John Paul. I was at the G-8 in Scotland when the London subway bombing occurred. I saw and participated in the process of putting legislation together, whether it was terrorism insurance or Medicare prescription drug coverage or attempts at immigration reform. I worked on drafting and revising executive orders. I remember times on the Hill in negotiating last-minute changes in legislation. I saw regulatory agencies screw up. I saw how they might try to avoid congressional mandates. I saw the relationship between independent agencies and executive agencies and the President and White House and OMB. I saw FOIA requests. That is from Judge Kavanaugh. If there is any indication as to why we need those documents from the time he was Staff Secretary to President Bush, it is from Judge Kavanaugh's own words. If we want to know what kind of Justice he will be, we need to understand the decisions he has made and the lessons he has learned in that most informative job. If we refuse to even try, we have abdicated our constitutional responsibility. We have a duty. I submit, with great respect, that the request made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee involves all of us abdicating that responsibility unless we protest and raise a hue and cry and force the production of additional documents. This goes beyond any sort of partisan divide, and it goes beyond the question of whether any of my colleagues are voting for or against Judge Kavanaugh. It is about our constitutional responsibility. These documents, as Judge Kavanaugh himself has said, would, in effect, reveal much about Judge Kavanaugh, for he worked on just about every major issue as counselor to President Bush and as Staff Secretary to him. In a recent interview, Karl Rove noted: ``Literally every document that goes to the president on a policy issue has to pass through the hands of the staff secretary.'' As he himself has said, Judge Kavanaugh was at the President's side at many pivotal moments of the Bush Presidency--from the passage of the partial-birth abortion ban to debates over same-sex marriage and well beyond. We should know just what Judge Kavanaugh said as Staff Secretary to President Bush during those and other critical moments of the Bush Presidency. His advice to President Bush and his role in those decisions are relevant. I think that word understates its importance. It is critical to our judgments about his qualifications. Perhaps--maybe just by chance--there is nothing in those documents. When Judge Kavanaugh was in the White House, maybe he was just a traffic cop, as Senator Cornyn has claimed, or was an honest broker, as the judge described himself at his confirmation hearing. Yet, if that were true, what are they hiding? Why do they need to conceal it? We should have the opportunity to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh had truly been an honest broker, just a traffic cop, or had just passed documents through his hands without his having had any input. The best way to determine this is by reviewing those documents. Judge Kavanaugh made this very point when he was an appellate court nominee. At his confirmation hearing, he was asked how Senators should assess his record. He answered: ``I think that's done through an assessment of going back, in my case, 16 years of my career and looking at the kinds of things I've done in the staff secretary's office.'' We should heed those words. They are the words of Judge Kavanaugh. We should examine all of the documents. It may take some additional time to review all of those documents but maybe not if there is nothing in there that relates to his view and his opinion and his role. If he were just a traffic cop or an honest broker, we can get through them very, very quickly. Regardless of the time involved, there is no more important task that we will undertake as U.S. Senators than to decide on his qualifications for being a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Anything less would be a dereliction of our duty. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the historic ship USS Nautilus, SSN-571, and her historic submerged transit of the North Pole on August 3, 1958. The USS Nautilus was the first commissioned nuclear-powered ship in the U.S. Navy. President Harry S. Truman laid the keel for the future ship on June 14, 1952, at the Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, CT. Two years later, First Lady Mamie Eisenhower launched the history-making nuclear submarine when she broke the traditional bottle of champagne across the bow of the USS Nautilus. On the morning of January 17, 1955, at 11:00 a.m. EST, the Nautilus's first Commanding Officer, Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson, ordered all lines cast off and signaled the memorable message, ``Underway On Nuclear Power.'' During its shakedown on May 10, 1956, the USS Nautilus cruised from Groton, CT, to San Juan, PR, in fewer than 90 hours, fully submerged for the entire journey. The underwater distance--1,381 miles--was ten times farther than any submerged submarine had previously sailed. Following this journey, the Nautilus would shatter all submerged speed and distance records over the remainder of the decade. In response to the nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile threat posed by the Soviet Union following the launch of the first satellite Sputnik, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the U.S. Navy to attempt a submarine transit to the North Pole to gain credibility for the soon-to-come submarine-launched ballistic missile weapons system still in research and development. On July 23, 1958, the USS Nautilus departed Pearl Harbor, Hi, under top secret orders to conduct Operation Sunshine, the first crossing of the North Pole by a ship. Eleven days later, Commander William R. Anderson announced to the 116 men aboard, ``For the world, our country, and the Navy: THE NORTH POLE.'' Thus, on August 3, 1958, the USS Nautilus became the first watercraft to reach the geographic North Pole, 90 degrees north, known also as the geographic ``top of the world.'' Following this momentous voyage, the USS Nautilus and her crew earned the Presidential Unit Citation, the first ever awarded in peacetime. After Operation Sunshine, the USS Nautilus enjoyed many more successes in her long and illustrious career of duty in the U.S. Navy, such as in October 1962, when she participated in the naval quarantine of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Over the years, the USS Nautilus played an integral part in numerous North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--exercises and a variety of developmental test programs. On September 14, 1966, the USS Nautilus celebrated 300,000 nautical miles of ocean faring. Having pioneered the use of nuclear power at sea, the USS Nautilus continued to serve alongside many of the more modern nuclear-powered submarines. In April 1975, the USS Nautilus participated in Exercise Agate Punch. She was cited by the Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Group 12 as ``Not Getting Older--Getting Better.'' In the spring of 1977, the USS Nautilus deployed for the last time to the Mediterranean Sea, and on April 9, 1979, the Nautilus set out from Groton, CT, on her final voyage to Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, CA. On May 25, 1979, the USS Nautilus shut down her reactor for the final time, and she reached Mare Island 4 days later. Following a career spanning 25 years and over half a million miles steamed, she decommissioned on March 3, 1980. On May 14, 1980, President Jimmy Carter authorized Groton, CT, as the permanent home for the USS Nautilus, and on May 20, 1982, the USS Nautilus was designated a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior. Following an extensive historic ship conversion at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the Nautilus was towed to Groton, CT, for the final time, arriving on July 6, 1985, in preparation for display to the public as a museum. On April 11, 1986, 86 years to the day after the birth of the submarine force, the historic ship Nautilus, joined by the Submarine Force Museum, opened to the public as the first and finest exhibit of its kind in the world, providing an educational and visible link to yesterday's nuclear-powered submarine. I am delighted to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the North Pole transit by USS Nautilus, SSN-571, and her accomplishments over the last 64 years. The historic ship Nautilus is a testament to American ingenuity, courage, and technical prowess. She deserves the greatest reverence and continues to serve as a reminder to future generations of Americans as she rests alongside modern day nuclear submarines at the Naval Submarine Base New London.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say how honored and grateful I am to follow my friend and distinguished colleague, who has outlined some of the reasons that I would vote against this nominee. I especially respect his raising this issue of the blue-slip approval process, which is probably unknown to the vast majority of Americans. Let me begin by saying, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, as a litigator who has spent about 40 years in the courtroom before Federal and State judges of all kinds all over the country, why the blue slip from a U.S. Senator matters to justice. We debated this issue on the Judiciary Committee. It is a time- honored tradition that Senators be consulted, that they return a blue slip; that is, approval of a nominee from their State. That is because Senators, such as Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden, are rooted in their States. They know the lawyers. Many of us are lawyers. They know the colleagues of people who may be nominated to the U.S. district court or the court of appeals in the jurisdictions that cover the areas that they serve. They know the lawyers who have appeared before these judges--their qualifications and sometimes their faults. Also, they know the opinions of these lawyers, their records in court, and how they have performed. They know their character, their integrity, and they know their records outside of the courtroom as well. You have just heard tonight from Senator Merkley some statements that are extraordinarily revealing. The American people deserve to know them, and my colleagues deserve and need to consider them. For generations, the blue-slip process has ensured that judges are well-suited for the States where they will preside. The majority's decision to ignore this process and, for the first time--very, very significantly--to ignore it with respect to both Senators from a State is a precedent that is profoundly damaging to this institution and to American justice. It isn't about us. It isn't about our prerogatives or our pride. It isn't about our hurt feelings or our sense of insult. The sun will rise tomorrow on all of us in this Chamber, and we will go on to do the business of this Nation, but for many people who will go into a courtroom where Ryan Bounds may preside, they will experience a lesser standard of justice than they deserve, a lesser standard of justice than most judges provide. They deserve better. They are ultimately the losers, not we. It is not about us. The American people are the losers if we destroy this principle and norm that Senators must approve nominees who are from their own State. Only rarely, very rarely, is a fraction of the nominees found unacceptable by the Senators from their States. In my experience, in my 8 years here, I think there have been maybe a few, and with good reason. But this President shows that no principle is safe and no norm is inviolate in the rightwing fringe's campaign to remake the Federal judiciary and to remake it in the image of the far right in this country. They have an ideological agenda and no respect for quality in deciding who will serve on the judiciary. Those groups that are trying to remake the court of appeals and the Federal district courts--that is, to remake judges at the lower level--whether it is the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation, are also responsible for the President's decision to make himself a puppet of their recommendations, letting them pick judges who meet their anti-choice and anti-healthcare litmus tests. Those tests really are President Trump's test. He said: I am going to appoint judges who are pro-life. He berated the Chief Justice because he was responsible for upholding the Affordable Care Act and clearly showed that he would appoint judges who would strike it down. His decision to pick a Supreme Court Justice nominee who believes that the President should be above the law perhaps should surprise no one, but his outsourcing of that decision to those same rightwing groups that are trying to remake the lower courts is truly unprecedented. He has become a puppet of those groups in all of his judicial nominees and most particularly in his Supreme Court nominee. I know my colleagues will want to speak tonight about Ryan Bounds and other related issues, but let me just say about Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that he has shown that he meets the Trump litmus test because he has been vetted and screened by those rightwing groups. He has shown that he would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and that he would, in fact, strike down significant protections--indeed, protections for millions of Americans under the Affordable Care Act--from preexisting conditions. He also believes that a President can refuse to comply with a law if he believes it is unconstitutional--if he alone believes it is unconstitutional--even if the law was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. He has written: ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.'' Judge Kavanaugh has also written that the President should be immune from even investigation for criminal or civil wrongdoing. Under his view, a President could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, and would not have to respond to a civil suit or a subpoena or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. That is the rule he believes should be adopted. It is clear from Judge Kavanaugh's position on Executive power that he is a staunch supporter of, in effect, an imperial Presidency. He believes a President is above the law and immune from checks and balances. This view is antithetical to our democratic principles and tradition. It is in keeping with Donald Trump's view of the Presidency. It is out of sync with what our democracy needs now, especially with this President. President Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration of dictators like Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin. His apologists will tell us to ignore Judge Kavanaugh's view of Executive power--pretend like they don't exist--but we have a responsibility to consider them, to take into account these extreme views on Executive power. They must be a central issue in this confirmation battle. He would, in effect, welcome legislation enabling the President to fire a special counsel for any reason or no reason at all, and if we have learned anything over the last 24 hours, it is that the special counsel's investigation must be protected. It must be protected against the concerted and coordinated, concentrated effort of the Trump surrogates and cronies to discredit or derail it. It must be protected against efforts to impeach Rod Rosenstein. It must be protected against the President's own threats, continuing to call it a witch hunt, when we see more and more in indictments and convictions that it is real and significant. Donald Trump cannot be permitted to derail it. We will talk again about Judge Kavanaugh. As to Ryan Bounds, the decision is for now, and because he has been rightly denied approval through the blue-slip process, because the abandonment of that process does such grave potential damage to American justice, and because Ryan Bounds is unfit by virtue of many of his views and past statements to serve on the Federal bench, I will oppose and vote against him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored and grateful to follow the very powerful comments of my friend and colleague from Arizona. They remind me of our mutual friend, his colleague and partner from the State of Arizona, Senator John McCain, whom we miss at this moment more than ever. Senator McCain is with us in spirit, and those words remind us that the threat we face at this perilous time in our national history must be met with a truly bipartisan response. The threat we face is every bit as serious as any in the history of this country because it involves an attack on the pillars of our democracy. We know that 9/11 and Pearl Harbor involved a physical assault with immediate loss of life. Russia's attack on this country in 2016 is every bit as serious and urgent. In the words of the Director of National Intelligence, our former colleague Dan Coats, this incident should put us truly on alert. Those blinking lights based on objective and unvarnished evidence, as he put it, of a pervasive, continuing attack should bring us together as a legislative body and as a country. This issue really is not about Donald Trump as much as it is about our Nation. The summit in a sense realized our worst fears; indeed, our deepest nightmare. At best, it was going to be a gift to President Putin because it legitimized him and elevated him on the world stage, even if no words followed that private meeting. The truth is that it happened, and the President of the United States was a puppet, a patsy, a pushover--in fact, an appeaser, in the worst tradition of that term--on the public stage. The President put Russia over this country. He failed to fulfill his oath of office to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He failed to put America's interests first. In fact, he blamed America first. He blamed everyone except for Putin and himself. Now he has attempted, shamefully, to rewrite history--unartfully, incredibly. He has said, in effect, that some editing, some minor change in grammar, would allow him to escape the universal condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum of his shameful surrender to Vladimir Putin. The question is, What does Vladimir Putin have on Donald Trump? We will not know until the special counsel finishes his investigation. We must do everything in this body--and this point is central to what we are saying today--to protect the special counsel against the continuing onslaught and assault from Donald Trump's cronies and surrogates on the far right--the fringe of the Republican Party--who are seeking to discredit the special counsel investigation; indeed, talking about impeaching Ron Rosenstein and demanding documents involved in that investigation. We must now pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act. If Donald Trump is serious and he believes that the Russians, in fact, interfered with our democracy, what he will do now is implement the sanctions that were made mandatory on Russia. He has violated his duty by continuing to avoid imposing them. He will authorize the Cyber Command to take aggressive measures--not simply defensive--and penetrate and disrupt the systems of cyber within Russia that are used against us. He will authorize the exposure and revelation of Russian oligarchs' and Vladimir Putin's wealth around the world, hidden and concealed--the result of their corruption in Russia. He himself can undertake these measures. If the Senate is serious about protecting the United States, it will order that the transcripts and notes and any documents and the security team who attended that summit come to the Congress in a closed briefing and eventually an open one, under oath, so the American people can know. They should be required to provide whatever they know about what happened in that private meeting so that we know what happened and the implications of what happened are truly known. Just yesterday, the Department of Justice issued a criminal complaint against Maria Butina. It followed indictments against 12 Russian individuals. Maria Butina is a Russian agent who worked through the NRA to influence and corrupt our political system--again, part of the Russian attack on this country. We need to hold hearings now to know whether Russia has been using organizations like the NRA and other shell companies to illegally funnel money into our election. I will close where I began. These issues transcend partisanship. They ought to be put above the everyday issues that concern us. We cannot say that we weren't warned. The failure to act and act now to hold Russia accountable, to make them pay a price, to show them that we will not tolerate--nor will our allies--this kind of interference in our elections will mean they will do it again. History will judge us harshly. Our allies were never more important than now. They are victims of the same kind of attack. Rather than trashing and beating them, as President Trump has done, we should bring them to our side and express to them, as this Senate did by a 97-to-2 vote, that we are committed to NATO and that if one of us is attacked, all of us are attacked. In fact, almost all of us are under attack right now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Arizona if he wishes to be heard first.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are at a crossroads, a historic turning point for the U.S. Supreme Court and our country. This body is often called upon to consider court nominations for the district courts and the courts of appeals, but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest Court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come. When we are called upon to consider a Supreme Court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. Ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the Court. Ordinarily Presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. So ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values, since they are unknown when we first hear their names. We live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. These are not ordinary times. We live at a time when there is, right before our eyes, an ongoing assault on the rule of law in this country, coming from the President of the United States on down. We live at a time when the courts are critically important to our democracy because they are a bulwark for fundamental rights and liberty, and when the history of this era is written, I believe that our judiciary and our free press will be the heroes because they stood between the President defying the law and preserving those key freedoms and rights that are foundational to our democracy. What we know about the President's nominee for the highest Court in the land--the most important to that effort against this assault on the rule of law--is that he will ``automatically'' vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. We know that he will vote effectively to eliminate the Affordable Care Act and to undermine protections for millions of Americans who suffer from diabetes, obesity, alcohol abuse, addiction to opioids, stroke, Parkinson's, and many other preexisting conditions. Millions of Americans suffer from those kinds of sicknesses, including more than 500,000 Connecticut residents. We are a State of about 3.5 million people, so you can do the math. There are a lot of Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions. We know these facts because we have heard them from none other than the President of the United States, who said that his nominee would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and who berated Chief Justice Roberts for upholding the Affordable Care Act in his decisive swing vote. When a President tells you he is trying to eliminate basic legal rights and liberties for the people of the United States, you better take him at his word, and I do. But in this case, actually we need not take the President at his word because we can review the facts--in fact, the circumstantial evidence surrounding this nomination. The President has allowed himself to become a puppet of rightwing fringe groups--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which have been trying to strike down Roe v. Wade and overturn it for decades. As one recent news story put it, if you want a seat on the Supreme Court, the man to see is not Donald Trump; it is Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society. Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society have made clear their desire to overturn Roe v. Wade for years, and Mr. Leo's friend, Ed Whelan, brags about Leo's efforts, stating: ``No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo.'' The President of the United States outsourced this decision to the Federalist Society and other groups long intent on overturning Roe v. Wade. They produced for him a list. He selected from that list, and the rest is an unfortunate, deeply tragic chapter in American history. The Heritage Foundation has been vehement in its desire to overturn and strike down the Affordable Care Act and deny many Americans access to health insurance. It has fought to end protections for people who suffer from these conditions, and they are not only the ones I have mentioned but also many others that are common throughout our society. Its efforts to shape the Supreme Court are a part of a conscious, concerted strategy in a war on the ACA. Perhaps as troubling as any other fact about this nominee, to many of us who have seen the horrific, unspeakable effects of gun violence, Judge Kavanaugh is the dream candidate of the NRA. He has taken the view that almost all commonsense, sensible measures to stop gun violence violate the Constitution. He is the dream pick of the NRA. He is a nightmare for the students of Parkland, the survivors of Orlando, Columbine, San Bernardino, and all of the mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, and all of the victims and survivors, their loved ones, families, and friends, who know the tragic effects of those 90 people gunned down every day in America. Those 90 victims every day in this country who die as a result of gun violence bear witness to why we should reject this nominee. Just minutes after Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, the NRA endorsed him, showering praise on his extreme record against gun safety. As an appellate judge, Judge Kavanaugh heard the sequel to Heller, a case regarding the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's gun registration requirement and semiautomatic assault rifle ban. On a panel of all Republican appointees, Judge Kavanaugh was the only judge to vote to strike down both gun safety measures as unconstitutional. His basic premise is that gun laws have to be similar or identical to laws that he considers ``traditional'' or ``longstanding.'' He rejects bans on assault weapons and gun registration requirements. He has no clear definition of what is ``longstanding'' and enables a statute to be upheld. But consider his logic. He has, in effect, ruled out any statute that bears no resemblance or connection to laws on gun violence on the books in 1789. That is a breathtaking concept of the constitutional test that should be applied to measures against gun violence. The Founders almost certainly never considered the possibility of universal background checks at a time when it might have been impossible to do it anyway and when the kinds of firearms available were very different than they are now. By Judge Kavanaugh's logic, Congress would seemingly be prohibited from requiring universal background checks, even though more than 90 percent of all Americans want them on the books. That is a radical view, even for the far right. Should Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can say good-bye to a slew of gun safety measures around the country in States like Connecticut, California, New York, or, now, Florida. Many other States are realizing that they should be on the right side of history and the right side of the American people and adopt commonsense, sensible measures. They would be struck down by the logic that Judge Kavanaugh would bring to the Supreme Court. We would have fewer safeguards against the scourge of gun violence. There is now one mass shooting every day and 90 deaths every day in America. This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gun violence--a public health emergency. With Judge Kavanaugh as a member of the Nation's highest Court, this epidemic would continue unabated. This nominee is part of a concerted, coordinated effort to roll back the clock, to take the Nation back to a time--one of our darkest eras-- when abortion was criminalized, when women died and they were denied access to contraception and the morning-after pill, when Americans were denied healthcare because of those preexisting conditions, and when civil rights, LGBT rights, voting rights, and workers' rights were largely ignored. That prospect is frightening. For President Trump, the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is about more than just undermining or eviscerating these fundamental rights. It is about undermining and eviscerating the rule of law. Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President can refuse to enforce a law if he believes that it is unconstitutional--if he alone believes it is unconstitutional--even if that law was duly passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. He has written that special counsels--like Robert Mueller, who is investigating the President--should be appointed only by the President and should be removable by the President. Under that rule, Robert Mueller never would have been appointed as special counsel, and the President would be able to fire him for no reason at all--except that he is investigating the President. Finally, Judge Kavanaugh has written that the President should not have to deal with those responsibilities or burdens that the rest of us, ordinary Americans, fulfill. A President under Judge Kavanaugh's rule could not be investigated or indicted, could not be held accountable under the law, and would not have to respond to a civil suit, a subpoena, or a request to be investigated by law enforcement. He need not be interviewed by the FBI or cooperate with law enforcement because under Judge Kavanaugh's concept the President is above the law. Nothing is more fundamental, no principle more sacrosanct in this country--no one is above the law. No President. No one is above the law. A President who has demonstrated unprecedented disdain for the rule of law has nominated a Justice who will tell him he can ignore the law. A President who has fought tooth and nail against the special counsel's investigating some of the most serious crimes has nominated a Justice who would allow him to fire the special counsel at will for no reason. A President who faces not only the prospect of indictment but an ongoing civil suit brought by nearly 200 Members of Congress--I am proud to be leading them--for his violation of the chief anti- corruption provision in the Constitution would be declared above the law, immune from lawsuit and accountability. We are going to continue with that lawsuit to make sure that the President obeys the Constitution and comes to Congress for consent before he accepts the payments and benefits in the hundreds of millions of dollars that he is doing every day. Judge Kavanaugh would absolve him of accountability. These are no ordinary times. In the coming days, I will be speaking out on other areas where Judge Kavanaugh would undermine the rights of everyday Americans and put the rights of corporations and special interests above them. Judge Kavanaugh would prevent Congress and the States from passing commonsense gun violence laws that will save lives. He would invalidate a slew of existing laws in States across the country, and he would leave powerful corporations to prey on consumers, workers, and anybody who wants to breathe clean air or drink clean water. These prospects are not imaginary or abstract. Read his opinions and his writings. In one area of law after another, Judge Kavanaugh poses a clear and present danger to our fundamental liberties, to effective government, and to the rule of law. To the people who say to me ``What can we do?'' our challenge is a call to action. It is to mobilize and galvanize America, just as we did during the healthcare debate, when they said the Affordable Care Act would be repealed, and we mustered Americans' sense of outrage and alarm. I say to the students of Parkland who spoke so eloquently and movingly, your time has come; to the patients who came to my townhalls in Connecticut and spoke so powerfully about their fear of what would happen to them and their insurance coverage if preexisting conditions were declared in violation of those insurance policies, your time has come; to all who care about civil rights and civil liberties, workers' rights, and gay rights, your time has come. We need to hear your voice here, just as we did during the healthcare debate, as powerfully and eloquently. The challenge is yours in stopping this nomination, as it is our responsibility to demand specific answers that this nominee recuse himself from any consideration of the President's financial dealings or the special counsel and to reject the phony platitudes and the evasive and vague answers that have been accepted before, because we know that the old platitudes adhering to settled precedent is meaningless. We do not live in ordinary times. We need extraordinary efforts to make sure that the U.S. Supreme Court remains faithful to the rule of law. I yield the floor.