Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Finally, there is a funding amendment that has been offered. While well-intentioned, it would, in effect, derail this legislation. It would provide money through Attorney General Sessions to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human trafficking. This amendment, too, is opposed by law enforcement agencies. Yesterday, I put their letters into the Record. Every major law enforcement representative agency opposes it because ``the funding amendment is a poison pill that is dead on arrival if sent back to the House.'' I will conclude simply by saying that I believe this measure accomplishes some powerfully important purposes. It would not criminalize the so-called harm reduction communication--information designed to ensure that women and men wrapped up in commercial sex trade can avoid violence, prevent HIV, and access community and support services. H.R. 1865 was not designed to target websites that spread harm reduction information, and the language of the bill makes that clear. The purpose of this bill is much more narrowly focused: A website user or operator must intend to facilitate prostitution. If their goal is to save lives by providing lifesaving information, they have not violated the law. Finally, I want to make absolutely clear, this legislation is not intended to prejudice the rights of anyone who has been victimized by a crime online other than sex trafficking. For example, I disagree with the courts that have held that the Communications Decency Act immunizes online firearm sales--like Armslist--for facilitating illegal gun sales. While this legislation does not address those cases, nobody should infer that Congress believes they were rightly decided. Again, my thanks to all of my colleagues and most especially to Senator Portman for his hard work, his leadership, and his courage in tackling this tough problem, which should bring all of us together. Making SESTA the law of the land will help save lives. It will spare others the fate of Desiree Robinson. It will make sure that more parents see justice, that survivors have their day in court, and that law enforcement has the right to pursue these wrongdoers. Mr. President, I yield back to Senator Portman.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I say thank you to my colleague Senator Portman for his hard work. When we began this legislation, no one gave us a chance because of the entrenched and powerful interests against us. This measure will unlock the courthouse doors to survivors and to law enforcement who can stop sex trafficking--a scourge, modern- day slavery in this country. I thank so many of my colleagues for cosponsoring it and for helping to lead this effort that will make a difference in the lives of countless young girls and women and men who are victims and survivors.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, my colleagues should take heed of what these groups are saying because they see through the potentially derailing impact of these amendments. I close by again thanking my friend and partner, Senator Portman, as well as Senator McCaskill, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and Senator McCain. This measure is truly bipartisan, as it should be. There is nothing partisan about sex trafficking. There is nothing excusable or tolerable about it. I hope the Senate will do its job tomorrow and send this legislation to the President's desk. I yield the floor to my partner, Senator Portman, with my thanks.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, at the very start, I am grateful, and I praise my cosponsor, Senator Portman, who has helped to lead in the championing of this measure. He has really been steadfast in the face of a lot of challenges. It was a difficult bill to draft and then to redraft and change again in response to suggestions that we received from friends and adversaries, but Senator Portman has been really stalwart throughout it. I join him in thanking our partners, Senator McCaskill, Senator McCain, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and, of course, Senator Thune, who is the chairman of the committee, and Ranking Member Nelson. This road began for me more than 10 years ago when I was the State attorney general in Connecticut, and I wanted to pursue legal remedies against the websites. Back then, it was craigslist or MySpace that promoted sex trafficking and prostitution as well as pornography. My staff informed me that there was a provision of Federal law--section 230 of the Communications Decency Act--that would stop me in my tracks. Indeed, it has stopped others, most recently some of the survivors of sex trafficking who were told by a Federal court of appeals, in effect, that what happened to you is outrageous, and there should be a remedy for you, but section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks your day in court. It closes the courthouse doors to you in your seeking a legal remedy. Along the way, there were many who said to Senator Portman and to me that we could never pass this legislation because it would hold trafficking websites accountable. They said the opponents of this change were too powerful, too big, too entrenched. They said the victims and survivors were too powerless, too invisible. We have met them. We know their stories. They are heartbreaking. They are children--some younger than the pages in this Chamber today--who have endured torture that is unspeakable and unthinkable for anyone of any age, and they deserve their day in court, rights, and remedies-- real remedies that make the rights real. So I thank Senator Portman, and I thank, as he has also done, those survivors who have come forward and been the faces and voices of our cause. Their courage and strength and that of their family members have enabled us to reach this point. I emphasize that this measure is very carefully and narrowly written to address a specific harm, and I want to take a couple of minutes to correct any misunderstanding that there may be in this Chamber. First, some of the legislation's critics have claimed it will impose liability on the so-called Good Samaritan. In reality, this bill explicitly preserves subsection 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act, commonly called the Good Samaritan provision. This provision ensures that websites cannot be held liable on account of actions taken in good faith to restrict objectionable material. SESTA is crystal clear on this point. A website operator's good deeds cannot be used against him. This measure is also technology neutral. It imposes no requirement that website operators use a particular technology to screen their sites for objectionable content. They are free to use whatever technology they wish. That is why the Internet Association and its member companies support this legislation. They know that if technology companies work to prevent human trafficking and not to profit from it, they have nothing to fear from this measure. I understand that an amendment has been offered to restate SESTA's Good Samaritan provision. Even if the amendment only protected Good Samaritans, it would be unnecessary and potentially confusing to the courts. I emphasize that point. It would obfuscate and confuse the good intent of the Good Samaritan provision. It would also derail this widely popular legislation by sending it back to the House, where special interests will have another chance to kill it. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment--perhaps unintentionally--would not simply protect Good Samaritans; it would also protect websites that operate in bad faith. It would also protect websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave them up in order to continue profiting from them. I will briefly talk about one other amendment that has been offered-- again, while being well-intentioned--that threatens to derail this legislation. The amendment would provide additional money to Attorney General Sessions to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human trafficking. I believe law enforcement ought to have additional resources. I firmly support more funding to investigate and prosecute this criminal activity, but this bill is not the means by which to do it. In fact, law enforcement and the community against human trafficking are strongly against these amendments. Let me repeat. These law enforcement groups include the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the FBI Agents Association, and I could go down the list. In fact, there is no need to. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today is a momentous one in the Capitol because the students of America are giving us a real life lesson in the American Constitution. Their energy and passion are a civics lesson for America. What a proud and wonderful moment today is for our democracy. It is sad--indeed, tragic--that this lesson must concern gun violence that has taken such a devastating toll, most recently in Parkland, FL, but literally that toll is true of America every day. We can never become numb to the catastrophic costs of gun violence in America today. I have the honor to read the names of some of those victims of gun violence; indeed, the Sandy Hook victims. Their deaths are still in our hearts. Their lives are still with us. Their memories are alive today. My friendships with their loved ones, particularly their parents, inspire me to continue this fight against gun violence in America. Their courage and strength have inspired so many of us in this country, and their names deserve to be remembered and read again in this Chamber. Noah Pozner, age 6; Charlotte Bacon, age 6; Jack Pinto, age 6; Olivia Engel, age 6; Dylan Hockley, age 6; Catherine Hubbard, age 6; Avielle Richman, age 6; Jessica Rekos, age 6; James Mattioli, age 6; Josephine Gay, age 7; Caroline Previdi, age 6; Benjamin Wheeler, age 6; Chase Kowalski, age 6; Ana Marquez-Greene, age 6; Grace McDonnell, age 7; Emilie Parker, age 6; Madeleine Hsu, age 6; Allison Wyatt, age 6; Daniel Barden, age 7; Jesse Lewis, age 6. And their teachers: Victoria Soto, age 27; Lauren Rousseau, age 30; Anne Marie Murphy, age 52; Rachel D'Avino, age 29; Mary Sherlach, their psychologist, age 56; Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the principal of the school, age 47. All of them died in December of 2012. All of them will be remembered not only on this day but forever, not only in Connecticut but around the world. We must always keep them in our hearts as a reason to keep this fight against gun violence going. In the hearing presently underway in the Judiciary Committee, as I speak, there is testimony from members of the government investigative agencies which have responsibility for stopping gun violence. My fear is, this hearing will be an excuse for inaction and continued complicity by Congress in the failure to act. The complicity in those deaths is on our hands in this body by failing to take action. There are actions we can take that will help to save lives-- commonsense, sensible action--that Congress has failed to take: universal background checks, ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, a red flag statute that will prevent people who are dangerous to themselves or others from having or buying guns. Many of these measures are bipartisan, and we can come together with the lesson from the students and young people who are in the streets coming to the Capitol today. That lesson should be a reminder that the right side of history is in favor of preventing gun violence. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I wish to pay tribute to Carmen Rodriguez, a wonderful leader, role model, and family woman. Sadly, Mrs. Rodriguez passed away on January 22, 2018--her 83rd birthday. She will be remembered for her outstanding public service, particularly her advocacy of Hartford's Puerto Rican community. Mrs. Rodriguez was born in Aguirre, PR, where she lived until she moved to Buffalo, NY, with her husband, Faustino, and their seven children. She became an active member of the Puerto Rican community there, serving as a member of the Puerto Rican Center, as well as the director of bilingual education at Public School 76, now known as the Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy. During her time in Buffalo, Carmen worked tirelessly on her own education, obtaining her GED, a bachelor's degree from Rosary Hill College, a master's in education from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and began her PhD. She took her passion for learning and educating to Hartford, CT, in 1979, where she managed the Work Places program at the Hartford Board of Education, which helped students learn specific trades. Soon after, she began working for the deputy mayor to measure the efficiency of the program. Subsequently, she supervised Hartford Housing Authority's tenant education program for a decade. For 3 years, Carmen served as the executive director of La Casa de Puerto Rico, until retiring in 1994. Her legacy of extraordinary service and dedication to her community shines clearly through the many people she affected, as well as through her children's unfailing efforts to uphold their mother's progress. I have seen this firsthand as two of Carmen's children, Maria and Raul, served in the Office of the Connecticut Attorney General during my tenure as attorney general. Carmen is known by many of us throughout Connecticut as an invaluable supporter of Hartford's best interests and a fearless leader of the Puerto Rican community. Her passion to use politics to initiate change has left her town--as well as the entire State--with great hope for the future. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Carmen's family during this difficult time, particularly to her 7 children, 15 grandchildren, and 8 great-grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Carmen provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. We are here at a critical time for our democracy because our country is under attack. In fact, we are here because Russia is attacking our democracy as part of a campaign of informational warfare. That term is not mine; it is Russia's. It is quoted in an indictment that was handed down by the special counsel less than a month ago against 13 individuals and 3 entities. That document is absolutely stunning. It is chilling in its detail and breadth and in its revelations about the apparatus and personnel, the skills and expertise that Russia methodically and relentlessly brought to bear in the 2016 election, in its attack on our democracy. That attack began in 2014. It was not a few hackers in the basement of some Moscow apartment; it was literally thousands of people, divided into different departments with different skills, pursuing disinformation, cyber attack, misinformation, and propaganda directed at undermining our democracy and, in fact, our election. Let's remember, constitutionally, elections are foundational to our democracy, and Russia sought not just to sow discord and dissension but to affect the outcome. According to the indictment, its effort to affect the outcome was to assist then-Candidate Donald Trump and to disparage and damage Hillary Clinton. We will never know how much it affected the outcome, but it certainly impacted the views and the votes of some people in the United States of America. That attack is now continuing. Our intelligence community is unanimous in the view that Russia interfered in our last election and that this effort is continuing. Indeed, all of the intelligence community that has come before the Armed Services Committee in the last 2 weeks has been unanimous that Russia is continuing its attack. In his testimony, Admiral Rogers is very clear that they will continue that attack because they are paying no price for it. The cost to them is minimal, if any, and the benefit is highly asymmetrical. In other words, they pay very, very little to undermine our democracy, and they see a lot of return. That is because this country is doing little or nothing--or I should say more accurately that this administration is doing absolutely nothing to make Russia pay a price. In effect, that is the testimony from representatives of the intelligence community, including, most recently today, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and GEN Robert Ashley. When I asked what was being done to deter, counter, or retaliate against the Russians, Director Coats said, in effect, that it is everyone's responsibility, which means, in effect, it is no one's responsibility; that it was the whole of government responding, which means no single agency, and there is no plan and no action underway. There is at most perhaps some kind of study of what should be done. But the denial of meddling is really the reason why nothing has been done and why no action is underway, and that denial comes from one person--the President of the United States. He has refused to acknowledge that the Russians interfered on the scale and scope that they did, and that denial or refusal to acknowledge is itself a tremendous boon to the Russians continuing to attack our democracy. As recently as this afternoon, at his press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President said, in effect, that perhaps Russia might have meddled, other countries might have meddled, and other individuals might have meddled, but he has refused to acknowledge the extent and the depth and breadth of past and continuing Russian interference in our democracy. Make no mistake--others of us on both sides of the aisle have said that the Russians will escalate in the sophistication of their attacks, in the depth of their interference, in the types of tools used through cyber and social media and platforms that are now being developed. They will use American voices. There will no longer be the broken English, no longer be the payment in rubles. They will become ever-more astute and adroit in their attack on our democracy. So the question is, Why? Why has the President declined to acknowledge this attack--a continuing assault on our democratic institutions, particularly on our elections, which are foundational to our democracy? Some have put it this way: What do the Russians have on him? But my view is that we need to look back at the knowledge that the Trump campaign had of that attack in 2016 as it was proceeding. To take one example, the stolen or hacked emails. Clearly, Trump campaign contacts with WikiLeaks and Russia show that the campaign knew about those stolen or hacked emails, which were then used to attack the Clinton campaign. If those members of the Trump campaign knew about it--those in responsible positions--the question is, How could the President not have known? In April of 2016, George Papadopoulous, a member of the Trump foreign policy team for at least a substantial period of time, was eager to communicate with senior staff of the Trump campaign that he knew the Russians had hacked emails and that those emails could help the Trump campaign. He was anxious to ingratiate himself with his connections to make himself more valuable in their eyes. So he boasted, in effect, about his contacts with Russians and with Russian officials. Papadopoulous was already working overtime to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign leadership, and he certainly was not likely to keep valuable information about stolen emails possessed by the Russians to himself. Remember, when the Trump campaign--specifically Donald Trump, Jr.-- was offered dirt on Hillary Clinton, he replied: ``I love it.'' From everything we know about Donald Trump, Jr.'s relationship to his father, he is unlikely to have kept that information to himself. George Papadopoulous is one of several Trump associates who seemed to know that Russia was trying to help the Trump campaign win the 2016 election. Donald Trump, Jr., again, was in contact with WikiLeaks beginning in September of 2016, and we know this communication continued at least through July of 2017. We know that Donald Trump, Jr., turned over these messages to investigators. When Trump, Jr., received the first message from WikiLeaks, he emailed other senior officers within the Trump campaign. Those officers included Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. How could that information and other similar communications not have been transmitted to Donald Trump himself? Donald Trump, Jr., received an email in which Rob Goldstone offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents from Russia that would supposedly incriminate Hillary Clinton. We know now that Donald Trump, Jr., jumped at the chance to receive this information, responding with the famous: ``If it's what you say, I love it.'' That, then, led to the meeting involving Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort at Trump Tower. There is more here that raises the likelihood of collusion. There is a credible case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. There is a solid factual basis to believe that the Trump campaign not only knew but encouraged and cooperated and even colluded with the Russians in this effort. If motive is necessary for the Trump campaign to have done this kind of collusion--certainly it is in the prospect of impacting the outcome. If motive is necessary for President Trump now refusing to acknowledge Russian meddling during the election campaign and now continuing meddling, it is collusion as well. So we are in a dangerous time because, in fact, Russia will continue to interfere and undermine our democracy if it pays no price for it. The only way to make sure Russia will pay a price to counter, deter, or retaliate is for the President of the United States to demonstrate leadership and to put aside whatever concern about legitimacy there may be. No one is relitigating the 2016 election as to what the outcome was, in fact. We have a President in office, but that President now must act to protect our democracy and our elections going forward from this day into the future. Thank you. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Illinois.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, watching the pictures today as I came to the floor was deeply moving. Even though there is much that we don't know and a lot of information that we lack about what is happening at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, the images of emergency vehicles and emergency responders and of young people and children evacuating a school after another tragic incident of gun violence brings back memories that are searing and harrowing. Once again, we feel that churning in our stomach, that sense of gut-punch, and a wrenching of hearts that reminds us of how we felt the day of violence in Newtown. Yet another school is victimized by gun violence. We are waiting to learn more of the details, but certainly our hearts and prayers go to the victims and their loved ones. Our gratitude goes to the courageous first responders who are on the scene now apprehending the shooter and administering to the victims and survivors. My thoughts and prayers are with those students, emergency responders, parents, loved ones, and the community of Parkland. Again, gun violence respects no boundaries. It spares no communities. It victimizes all of us, wherever it happens and whenever, including the gun violence that kills people every day individually, often unpublicized and invisible. My heart breaks to hear that one more school is facing this unthinkable horror, that again this harrowing scene plays before the people of America, literally unfolding in real-time. I know that I and all of the Members of this Chamber share the grief and sympathy and heartbreak that community is experiencing today. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Connecticut Dreamers and share their stories and call for this Chamber to take narrow and focused action to prevent their draconian mass deportation and protect them from that kind of very unfortunate outcome. The Dreamers who would be covered under legislation, which I hope will pass in the next 24 hours, came here as children. They grew up as Americans. This country is the only one they know. English is the only language many of them speak. They go to our schools. They serve in our military. They support our economy. They believe in the American dream. All of us believe in the American dream, but so do they. They work hard and give back. Deporting the Dreamers would be cruel, irrational, and inhumane-- unworthy of a great country. It would break our promise to the Dreamers who came forward when they were told they would be given protected status and would be a violation not only of the American dream but of the promise made by a great nation. Gabriela Valdiglesias came to the United States in 2001 from Lima, Peru. She has lived in Connecticut for 17 years. She works for Connecticut Students for a Dream, advocating for her fellow Dreamers. For those workers, she has been working on securing their right to safety, to higher education, to healthcare, and to live in a country without fear and discrimination. She shared with me some of the difficulties her family had while she was growing up. She and her five siblings are supported by their parents, who work in minimum-wage jobs. She hopes that if the Dream Act passes, she will be able to take on some of the economic burden her parents now carry. She hopes she will be able to make enough money to support herself and her family. She is currently in her first year of college, at a community college, where she has faced many financial challenges. Not being able to get a job at 18 years old is frustrating and sometimes devastating. If the Dream Act is passed, she could finish her 2 years at community college and transfer to a 4-year institution, and she could pursue her dream of working as a lawyer or in the field of law. There are countless other stories of Connecticut Dreamers, some wanting to keep their identities confidential. There is a young man in Bridgeport who was brought to Connecticut at the age of 5. He was educated in the Bridgeport public schools. He majored in chemistry and now attends Fairfield University. He has excelled there. He finished his first degree and was accepted at the University of California, Berkeley's physical chemistry program. He had to live under the threat of deportation because he had no way to apply for permanent lawful status. While he was continuing his studies here, he lived with the threat of deportation. There is a New Britain woman who was born in Mexico and brought to America when she was 6 years old. The journey was terrifying. She could barely understand what was happening. She had no idea at 6 years old that she was entering America in a way that would affect her for the rest of her life. It was not her choice to come here or to come here in that way, but it has affected her. In fact, despite her attending school and then going to college out of State at Bay Path University and earning a great many leadership positions there, she remains in the limbo of uncertainty and anguish and anxiety created by the threat of deportation. She dreams about helping people, making sure that families with low incomes can have access to occupational therapy. She is pursuing a master's degree in occupational therapy. Finally, there is a woman I know who came here from Venezuela. She was brought here when she was 11 years old. She remembers her mother telling her that she was going to America to learn English. When they settled in Norwalk, CT, her mother also told her that she could be successful if she were bilingual. She began to go to school right away. Life was difficult at the beginning, and there was a lot to learn. By the time she was a junior in high school, she stopped trying to get perfect grades because she feared colleges would not accept her, and even if they accepted her, she could not be eligible for financial assistance because she was undocumented. But she persevered, and she attended community college. She went on to Western Connecticut State University, and she overcame obstacles that for many Americans born here would be insuperable. Now facing deportation, she fears all of those dreams and all of that work will be for naught. These Dreamers, in fact, have trusted America. They believed in America's promise to them. Coming forward, providing facts about their residence, their family, their job, and Social Security number, they believed in America. It wasn't a dream. America is to be trusted. America is the land of opportunity. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. They have a dream that is American, which is that they will have the opportunity to pursue their full potential as human beings to give back, to educate themselves, and to better their lives. That is the American dream. In Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, he said: When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note . . . a promise that all men-- And he might have added women-- would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The time has long since come for us to help the Dreamers. The time is today for us to protect them against mass draconian deportation, a violation of a promise that would be unworthy of America. The promissory note of this American dream can be made a reality by this Chamber today and tomorrow. I understand that some of my colleagues may want to change the immigration system. It is truly a broken system in need of comprehensive reform. That task is for another day. Today, we must make sure that we provide these Dreamers with legal status and a path to citizenship. That is our moral obligation. That is our job. Let's get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Glucksman Ireland House of NYU as they celebrate 25 years of dedication to the promotion of Irish studies and providing a valuable, vibrant center for the appreciation and understanding of Irish and Irish- American culture and scholarship. Established in 1993, the Glucksman Ireland House strives to form enriching, comprehensive connections to Irish and Irish-American culture for students at New York University and other members of the community. The house uses an integrated approach that combines academic curricula for undergraduates and graduate students with an impressive array of public programming. For a quarter of a century, the Glucksman Ireland House has earned its status as the hub for one of the world's top-ranked academic Irish Studies programs. Boasting a faculty that specializes in Irish and Irish-American language, cultural studies, literature, history, and music, the house proudly hosts lectures, concerts, and other stimulating events, often headed by notable guests with personal expertise on a wide range of Irish topics. This month, the house will celebrate its milestone anniversary at its annual gala, where it will honor Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Paul Muldoon and entrepreneur Carl Shanahan. This year's gala focuses on Irish-Jewish themes, in a tribute to Loretta Brennan Glucksman and the late Lewis L. Glucksman, whose joint vision helped transform the house into the lasting institution it is today. Lew strongly believed the ethnic and immigrant experience is universal and strongly supported the open cultural exchange that occurs so often at the house. The Glucksman Ireland House continues to build a distinguished legacy as a key forum for discussion and learning, starting relevant conversations, and commemorating rich histories. I applaud their numerous accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Glucksman Ireland House of NYU on their 25 years of education, awareness, and community.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to rise after my distinguished colleagues from Minnesota and Illinois to issue a simple demand: We must act now to pass legislation protecting the Dreamers against mass, draconian deportation. We must act now effectively, not cosmetically or superficially. We must act now without unacceptable preconditions and hostage-taking amendments that cut immigration--a betrayal of our American values. We cannot ask Dreamers to languish in uncertainty any longer. These young people are Americans in all but name. They grew up in this country, and they went to our schools. They serve in our military and support our economy. They epitomize the American dream. These young people work hard, and they give back. Deporting Dreamers would be cruel, irrational, inhumane, and very simply repugnant to the American values that every Member of this Chamber holds dear. When DACA was adopted in 2012, it changed the lives of these young people. It opened new doors to opportunity. Dreamers could come out of the shadows. They could use driver's licenses, attend college, and fully participate in our economy. When DACA was adopted, we made a promise to the Dreamers. We promised that if they come forward and provide the U.S. Government with their most basic personal and private information, this information will never be used against them. We assured them that they have a place in this country. Now, with the complicity of this body, that promise is about to be broken. I say ``complicity'' because the President, in September, is the one who committed the act of breaking that promise by saying that he was going to end the DACA Program, and he gave Congress 6 months to remedy that broken promise. He threw to Congress a ticking time bomb that literally would rip apart the lives of 800,000 or 1.8 million--the numbers vary; the principle is the same. Ripping apart their lives would be the consequence. I have said it before, and I am going to say it again. Great countries do not break their promises. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. We should not be breaking our promises. We should not even threaten to break our promises to innocent young people, men and women who know only this country and whose whole lives are here. The President's decision to rescind DACA threatens to tear them away from their families, their jobs, and their communities, where they make a difference for the better. It is threatening their lives with total disarray, forcing them to go back to countries where they barely lived and have no life. It derails their future. We are a country better than this kind of inhumanity. I want to talk again about Jonathan Gonzales-Cruz, a college student at Southern Connecticut State University. He is shown here, and I am behind him. He was attending a rally in support of the Dreamers, but I had the privilege of meeting Jonathan well before this rally. He shared his story with me, and I shared it with this Chamber in January. Jonathan was born in Mexico. He came to the United States when he was just 4 years old. The United States is his home. It is the only country he has ever known. He is set to graduate this spring with honors in economics and math after receiving a full scholarship to attend Southern Connecticut State University. Like many, due to the President's recision of DACA and this Chamber's failure to act, which is complicity, Jonathan has been compelled to delay his dream of continuing his education and attending law school. However, Jonathan hasn't abandoned his steadfast commitment to helping others and giving back to Connecticut and this Nation. I recently had the honor of writing a letter of recommendation on his behalf in his pursuit of a public policy fellowship. Despite the uncertainty around his own immigration status, Jonathan believes so much in this country and our ideals that he continues to seek out opportunities to give back. That is the purpose of his fellowship, and that is the reason I wrote a letter of recommendation. He first became compelled to tell his story after his father was deported. He was unable to even say goodbye before his father was ripped away from his family. If Congress fails to act, Jonathan could lose his DACA protection. He could be one of those 800,000 who have legally told the government where they are, what they are doing, how to call them, and he could be deported--one of 800,000 who could be swept away in a mass deportation, unprecedented in this great country. In the meantime, he is anguished and anxious, as are many other DACA young people who are afraid to go to school or to health clinics or to courts or police stations if they are victims of crimes, such as domestic violence. My office meets with countless numbers of them from Connecticut and across the country. Like Jonathan, they are at risk of losing those DACA protections. They have become moms and dads and leaders in our communities. Congress must do its job. Congress must act, and it must act now to provide permanent status and a path to citizenship for Jonathan and 1.3, 1.8 million Dreamers in this Nation. Due to a Federal court order, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, has been ordered to accept renewal applications for DACA recipients. Once again, the courts have been a bulwark for individual rights and liberties, but this reprieve is no final remedy. We must redouble our determination to assist these young people and protect them, which must be done right away because deportation is a continuing threat. President Trump's cruel and unconscionable decision to end this program is intolerable, but so is our complicity if we fail to act. DACA protections are set to expire in less than a month. There is no more kicking the can down the road. The ticking time bomb thrown by President Trump into this Chamber is set to explode. We have the power to defuse it and to end this awful menace. Refusing to do so would be a grave abdication of responsibility. Acting now in the service of the American dream is not only the right thing to do, it is in our self-interest to do so. It is in our self- interest in a basic economic sense. In reality, these young people are integral to our economy. If Congress fails to pass the DACA bill, we will lose $500 billion over the next 10 years. We will lose $25 billion in Medicare and Social Security taxes. In my home State alone, we stand to lose more than $300 million a year. Now is the time to abandon the myth that the Dreamers work on the sidelines of American society. They are part of the economic fabric as well as the social tapestry of this Nation. They help drive our economy. They are small business owners. They are physicians, scientists, and teachers. Continued waiting would mean instability in the job market as companies are forced to fire DACA recipients and train new people in anticipation of the March deadline. As I said before, forcing these outstanding members of our community to leave would be a logistical and humanitarian nightmare. Time is not on our side. If Congress passes a DACA bill, USCIS will need to develop new regulations. It will have to process applications. It will have to set up the bureaucratic structure and rules of procedure. We cannot delay because the Dreamers stand to lose their protections simply by the passage of time. Contributing members of our society, like Jonathan, who have done nothing wrong, have no criminal record, will be dragged back into the shadows. They will be unable to attend our colleges, work in jobs. Once again, they will dread the sound of police sirens. The character of our Nation, who we are, is at stake. So many Americans relate to the story of these Dreamers because they can see themselves through their eyes. They can see their own immigrant story in Jonathan. So many of us--my family included--came to this country with hopes for a better life and a future. Jonathan had no choice; he was brought here as a child. But the American dream belongs to him too. We must pass DACA legislation now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues here today and to be followed by my great friend and colleague, Senator Whitehouse, who has been a wonderful partner in this effort and has helped organize today's colloquy. I will yield to him shortly. I think the American people are asking a commonsense question: What is the President trying to hide? What do the Russians have on Donald Trump? The intelligence community unanimously says that the Russians attacked our democracy by interfering in the 2016 election. The only one who has any doubt about it--in fact, the only public official who has the temerity to deny it--is the President of the United States. So the question is, Why? That is the elephant in this Chamber. That is the question that the American people demand that we answer in our investigation into obstruction of justice through the Judiciary Committee and that the special counsel will be answering in his investigation into collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign, as well as subsequent obstruction of justice. Some of this investigation involves past events and actions by the President and others. But, in fact, what is happening daily in real time is evidence of obstruction of justice. It is as though we were watching a case in court unfolding before our eyes. All we lack is the marshalling of the evidence and the closing argument. In a subsequent speech, I intend to go into great detail on that obstruction case. From what we know now through the public record, there is a lot more that the special counsel knows from his investigation, and he will be making use of it from classified and unclassified sources. We now know, irrefutably and undeniably, that there is a credible case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. It is credible and, in many ways, powerful and compelling. In fact, President Trump has endeavored mightily to stop all of these investigations into the Russian meddling in the 2016 election and his connections to it. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime, essentially consisting of two elements: No. 1, to interfere with a lawful investigation and, No. 2, that interference has to be done with corrupt intent. Corrupt intent means any improper purpose. It doesn't matter that the President, for example, had the right to fire Jim Comey or to say one thing or another. The question is why he did it. There can be circumstantial evidence of that corrupt intent in what he says and does, as well as direct quotations. If it was to stop or influence an investigation, that is corrupt intent, and that is enough for obstruction of justice. My colleagues and I are here today to raise the alarm because where we are now is that part of the President's corrupt intent, as well as his interference with the investigation, consists of an all-out assault on law enforcement and the intelligence community. In some ways, it is a standard means of defense at trial: When all else fails, attack the prosecution. I have seen it and experienced it as a U.S. attorney myself in court. So I know it is a last resort, but it has lasting implications for the defendant, or whoever is raising this defense--in this case, the President of the United States. It has huge, sweeping, enduring, horrific, and reprehensible ramifications. It is irresponsible in a profound constitutional sense for the Commander in Chief to be undermining our national security by attacking the FBI and our intelligence community as institutions. I wish to remind my colleagues of what our colleague John McCain said. My colleague Senator Whitehouse prepared this poster board and will be using it shortly. He said: ``The latest attacks against the FBI and Department of Justice serve no American interests--no party's, no President's, only Putin's.'' These attacks serve the Russians. They do not serve America's national security because they are done with the purpose to obstruct justice. They are the latest in a series of irresponsible and reprehensible actions that began in the first days of this administration. In January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates went to the White House to inform White House Counsel Don McGahn that Michael Flynn had lied to the Vice President about his relationship with the Russians and he could, therefore, be subject to blackmail. Don McGahn immediately briefed President Trump, but the White House failed to react in the way that a responsible President would. Soon after it was revealed that the FBI was doing an investigation into Russian meddling, Trump asked FBI Director James Comey for his loyalty. In effect, he asked for a loyalty pledge from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. He cornered Comey privately and said that he hoped Comey would let Flynn go, referring to the FBI's investigation into Michael Flynn. Trump called Comey and told him he wanted him to lift the cloud of the Russian investigation over his Presidency. He then called for the firing of Andrew McCabe, a potential corroborating witness for Comey's conversations with Trump. He asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Mike Rogers to publicly state that he was not under investigation. When Comey refused to bend to this pressure, he fired Comey and misstated the reason for that firing. He lied about it, claiming it was because of Comey's supposed handling of the Clinton email investigation, although he later admitted in an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt that the firing was ``because of this Russia thing,'' and he bragged to Russian officials at the White House that Comey's firing had ``taken off'' the ``great pressure'' of the Russia investigation. But that did not make the Russia investigation go away, because of the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He berated his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the special counsel's investigation because he knew Sessions could have stopped it. He berated Jeff Sessions and privately ranted about it. Those private rants, along with other private conversations--many of them now known to the special counsel, no doubt--are evidence that will be produced by the special counsel. We know that President Trump wrote a deliberately deceptive statement for his son Donald Trump, Jr., to cover up the Trump Tower meeting and to misstate what the purpose of that meeting was--supposedly Russian adoptions, when, in fact, it was to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton. He did it when he knew he was under investigation. That is the key point. He ordered the firing of Robert Mueller and backed down only when his White House Counsel said he would resign. Again, the reasons that he provided, much like the Comey letter that was a lie, the reasons for his firing the FBI Director were pretextual. He lied about why he wanted Mueller gone, just as he had lied about why he fired Jim Comey. In some ways, others are tasked now, in a switch of tactics. He has no longer threatened to fire the special counsel--at least publicly-- but he has tasked his surrogates and sycophants in Congress to attack institutions like the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the intelligence community, along with him. That was the purpose of the Nunes memo--to discredit the FBI and distract from the investigation. But if he orchestrated the writing of that memo, if he participated in drafting it, if anyone in the White House, with his imprimatur or direction, was involved in crafting that memo, that is evidence also of obstruction of justice, and it will come home to haunt Devin Nunes and the White House staff who participated and others in the Congress who may have been involved, including the staff--all of it because he wants to stop the investigation, all of it because he is afraid of something that the special counsel has and that the Russians may have on him. The fact of the matter is that no one is above the law. If the President refuses to talk to the special counsel, he should be subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. If he fails to voluntarily appear for that interview with Robert Mueller or his staff, he should be subpoenaed before the grand jury, and he should be forced to testify under threat of contempt. And if he invokes Executive privilege, the outcome will be the same when it is tested in court, as it was in United States v. Nixon. We have seen this movie before. We know how it ends because a broad claim of Executive privilege fails in the face of a lawful need for evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation. If he claims a Fifth Amendment privilege--the right against self- incrimination--it will be a powerful testimony to what he fears the special counsel and the Russians have on him. We are careening toward a constitutional crisis, and that is why my colleagues in this Chamber can no longer remain silent. It is why Paul Ryan can no longer tolerate Devin Nunes to continue with these frantic antics to protect the President and his ongoing acts of obstruction. It is why I hope we will adopt legislation to protect the special counsel, sending a message to the President of the United States that he cannot obstruct justice by firing the special counsel and precipitate a confrontation that would match the Saturday Night Massacre during the era of Watergate. That would throw this country into another constitutional conflagration that would be profoundly damaging and enduringly harmful. This investigation is no hoax or witch hunt. It is real. It is not about any of us or any of the President's tweets. It is about evidence and law. It is about facts and statutes. It is about the elements of a crime that is under investigation. The American people deserve to know the truth, which is why we must have public hearings in the Judiciary Committee, and we must have subpoenas for documents and witnesses. It is why we need to move in the Judiciary Committee with special counsel legislation that will offer protections that guarantee the American people that they will know the truth and that the rule of law will be protected. No one is above the rule of law. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend and colleague Senator Whitehouse. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I want to very quickly and simply emphasize a couple of those very important points, and maybe the overriding one is the need for action. The Presiding Officer has demonstrated repeatedly his convictions and conscience, and I want to say how much I have admired much of what he has done during his Senate career. My hope is that others in this body will step forward and say: Enough is enough. The FISA Court--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--is a carefully crafted bipartisan institution meant to protect our country against foreign threats that would destroy our democracy--the very kinds of threats that Russia has repeatedly mounted against us. Its function is balanced by a concern about civil rights and civil liberties, which is why it is a court that must approve warrants for surveillance and searches. Its secrecy goes to the core of what it does so that the agents, operatives, and informants who are the sources of intelligence are protected. The House Intelligence Committee is about to trash that carefully crafted structure. They are about to release a memo that says, in effect: That court--that carefully crafted balance as a result of bipartisan work over many years, involving many in this Chamber--means nothing. We will use it for the most gross partisan purposes, partisan gutter politics, and character assassination. It is a reminder of the darkest days of the McCarthy era when similarly there was a contempt for basic fairness which persisted until Senator McCarthy was asked: Have you no sense of decency? We are at that moment now, but it is a moment that is dark for all of us in this democracy. It is a moment that should elicit our strongest impulses for decency and democracy. We know that the special counsel is proceeding with his investigation. We know there is a need to protect that special counsel against firing and political interference. We know there is a need for legislation that is bipartisan, and the need is now. This use of the most gross partisan politics and tactics is proof-positive that there is a need for this legislation. My hope against hope is that the President will, in fact, impose sanctions; that there will be a bipartisan outcry against this defiance of a 517-to-5 vote, and in this body, a 98-to-2 vote; that there should be sanctions when there is this defiance of our interests by the Russian Government; and, rather than simply listing oligarchs from a Forbes magazine account, that there be real action and accountability. Certainly, the President has avoided the finding of significant transactions, which is his duty under the law. We need people of conscience and conviction now to step forward at this historic moment. In speeches going forward, I hope that, again, the Senator from Rhode Island--my friend and a leader in this body-- will come to the floor and talk further about this issue. For now, my hope is that the President will heed the advice he has received from his Department of Justice. Yet it is not really his; it is the Nation's Department of Justice. It is his appointee who has said that the release of this memo would be extraordinarily reckless, that it would be reckless, reprehensible, irresponsible, and in defiance of the President's duty to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are here at a historic moment. The President of the United States will come before us for his first State of the Union tonight, at a time when there is a credible case of obstruction of justice against him and an overwhelming case to show that the campaign that elected him was aided and abetted by the Russians. But the immediate threat is even more dire. Yesterday was a new low for the House Intelligence Committee. The House Republicans, in an act of partisan gutter politics, voted to release a four-page, misleading, deceptive characterization of warrants submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This partisan gutter politics brings us to a dark day of character assassination much like the McCarthy days, when Members of this Chamber were counted in history as to whether they stood up and spoke out against this kind of smear campaign. Not only is there character assassination at work here but also, equally dangerous to our democracy, the potential compromising of sources and methods vital to our national intelligence and our national security. That is the reason President Trump's own appointee at the Department of Justice, Stephen Boyd, stated that the release of this memo would be ``extraordinarily reckless.'' Those words come from a former staffer for a Republican Congresswoman and then-Senator Jeff Sessions--hardly a Democratic partisan. ``Extraordinarily reckless.'' Why? Because this memo, four pages long, summarizing a warrant that typically is tens or hundreds of pages, will reveal sources and methods vital to the continued operation of our intelligence community. My colleague, Senator Whitehouse, has very powerfully and eloquently stated why this development is so threatening and so deeply troubling, but my Republican colleagues are apparently averse to listening to this kind of reasonable and sensible need for caution. They are about to ask the President to defy his own Department of Justice and disclose this memo. Now, let's be very clear. I am one of the leading advocates in this body for transparency and disclosure. In fact, I believe strongly that all of the transcripts of interviews before the Judiciary Committee on the obstruction of justice investigation should be disclosed, and all of those witnesses should be called before us--in open hearings, under oath--to tell their stories so that the American public can understand what happened. I am in favor of challenges to warrants in the FISA Court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--that may be defective or fallible. In fact, I was the leading advocate and drafter of a provision in the law now that provides for challenges to those warrants. It does so within the bounds of confidentiality that are necessary to protect our secrets and our national security. What the House Intelligence Committee and potentially the President of the United States are about to do is essentially defy the law, an end-run so as to avoid the need for secrecy and confidentiality when it comes to intelligence gathering vital to our national security. There is a procedure for challenging warrants when they are fallible. The House Republicans are refusing to follow it, and they are also refusing to provide any rebuttal to the distortions and mischaracterizations in that four-page memo. Here is the reality: The United States was interested in Carter Page, who was viewed by the FBI as a Russian agent well before the 2016 Presidential campaign. In fact, their interest dates back to 2013, well before the Steele dossier, well before the election when Russian operatives sought to recruit him as a spy. I am going to repeat that. The FBI thought Carter Page, who became a Trump campaign official, was an agent of the Russian Government. That is a stark public truth. That, in and of itself, would have been enough to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil him. Remember, he doesn't have to be convicted. He doesn't have to be proven a spy beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the probable cause standard and sufficient suspicion that he is a Russian spy that provide the opportunity, legally, and indeed the obligation to do surveillance. We also know that European and other intelligence agencies--including from the UK, Netherlands, Germany, France, Poland, Estonia, and Australia--all discovered interactions between Trump's inner circle and Russian intelligence beginning in 2015. In fact, the Australian Government told the FBI that George Papadopoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat over drinks at a bar that Russia had ``political dirt'' on Hillary Clinton while he was working for the Trump campaign. We know also that the Dutch Government informed the FBI of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election through hacking. We know that Carter Page openly traveled to Moscow to give a pro-Russian speech, and we know he met with Russian officials just as the Kremlin was working to undermine the 2016 election. The purpose of releasing this memo is to create, very simply, a false narrative, a distraction, a red herring--call it whatever you wish. Its purpose is to discredit and degrade the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice--law enforcement agencies that deserve the American people's support no matter who they are investigating as long as they are doing it objectively and dispassionately, as they are doing here. Republicans conveniently ignore the facts--not only the facts that I have just recounted, the facts that are declassified, but also facts that they know well, facts that may continue to be classified. A 4-page memo simply cannot accurately summarize what is typically 100 pages or more in a FISA warrant application without cherry-picking facts to suit the Republican author's message. I want to paraphrase one of our former colleagues, my friend and mentor Senator Patrick Moynihan: Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The American people should not be selectively presented with the facts and deceived by a memo that amounts to character assassination, a memo that endangers our national security, compromises the sources and methods of our intelligence community, and has only the purpose of degrading and discrediting the FBI and our Department of Justice as they engage in a valid, necessary investigation, through the special counsel, of Russian collusion in the last campaign, with the campaign itself, electing Donald Trump, and potential obstruction of justice afterward. The hypocrisy and silence of many of my Republican colleagues in both Houses is deeply disappointing. Now is the time for people of conscience to stand up and speak out in favor of the rule of law and know that the fate and future of our democracy depends on it. There will be a lot of rhetoric tonight in these Halls, but what matters now is action to defend our democracy. I am grateful to my very distinguished colleague for calling attention to the continued Russian meddling and interference in our democracy. Hashtag ``Release the Memo,'' which was retweeted 200,000 percent in a span of 48 hours and became the leading hashtag on twitter, was spread by accounts associated with the Russian Government or agents. House Republicans are playing right into the hands of the Russians. The President of the United States, defying the law, declined to impose sanctions even after an overwhelming number of our colleagues here--98 to 2--voted in favor of those sanctions. Why is it that Donald Trump is so much enthralled with Vladimir Putin and the Russians? Perhaps it is because of the last campaign. They are continuing with their interference and meddling, and they will do it again in 2018. CIA Director Mike Pompeo said today that they will do it again. And indeed they will unless they are made to pay a price. The absence of sanctions speaks louder than my words. It is time for us to stand up and speak out. I thank my colleague from the State of Rhode Island for being here today to join me.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today is a proud day but also a painful one for me. I am proud because I am honored and proud to join my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and others on the floor. I was proud to join Connecticut organizations and advocates this morning in Hartford for a rally that involved Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut, the Women's March of Connecticut, AIDS Connecticut, and the Center for Medicare Advocacy. These groups are proud and steadfast and have strong activists who joined me to support a woman's right to determine her medical future, the right of privacy, and the constitutional right to be left alone, as one of the Supreme Court Justices once called it. It was a proud moment for me also because it reminded me of my days as a law clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun, who was the author of Roe v. Wade and who taught me the constitutional principle that underlies a woman's right to determine her own healthcare decisions. Harry Blackmun was a Republican appointee. He was a Republican before he became a jurist. But there was nothing partisan for him--and there should be nothing partisan for us--about this decision. I am tempted to call this 20-week abortion ban a Republican proposal, but when I think about the Republicans I know--and especially Justice Harry Blackmun, whom I revered--there is nothing Republican about this proposal. There is nothing partisan about a proposal that seeks to interfere in this fundamental right of privacy. It is an extremist, rightwing proposal that happens to have been brought here by 46 of our Republican colleagues--all of them men, except two--who are essentially trying to tell the women of America what to do with their own bodies, when to have children or not. That is fundamentally unconstitutional. It flies in the face of Roe v. Wade and all of its progeny. It is a restriction that has been struck down when adopted at the State level in at least two courts, and the others that have adopted similar proposals will be struck down, in my view, as well. The consensus of the medical community, the legal community, and ordinary citizens, particularly women, is that women have reproductive rights that would be violated, dramatically and directly, by this proposal. It violates those rights for totally baseless reasons-- policies founded on falsehoods. It is another excuse for rightwing dogma and ideology, out of touch with America, to seek to put opponents at a political disadvantage. It is transparently a political ploy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--the doctors who are most qualified to present scientific, evidence-based facts-- disagree with the assertions and falsehoods that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote--and I am quoting directly from medical experts on fetal health: Sound health policy is best based on scientific fact and evidence-based medicine. The best healthcare is provided free of governmental interference in the patient-physician relationship. Personal decision-making by women and their doctors should not be replaced by political ideology. Worse than the fabrications behind this bill are the very real consequences that will come if it is passed. This nationwide abortion ban would provide virtually no adequate exception when a woman's health is at risk, when there are fetal anomalies or when there are dangers to the health and well-being of a mother who is sick; or if her life is threatened, this bill fails to guarantee that she has access to the healthcare that she needs. If there is a fetal anomaly and a woman learns that her child will be born with significant impairments or, worse yet, a short life filled with pain, it would force her to carry that child to term. If a woman is advised that her child will not survive pregnancy at all, the most personal medical decisions of her life would be usurped by a cruel, heartless, unconscionable, unconstitutional law. She would be deprived of the right to make those decisions with her family, her clergy, her doctors. The American public disagrees strongly with this potential law, as does the medical community, and individual doctors who have real-life experiences disagree strongly with it as well. One doctor who practices in Connecticut told me that for patients who are treated in that office who choose to get an abortion after 20 weeks, it is oftentimes ``an agonizing decision, an unexpected one, and too often a lonely one--a decision that is deeply personal and altering.'' For many women, he told me, medical tests show a devastating issue with a future child. ``A joyous event becomes a tragic one, as they learn of a lethal condition, or a syndrome that will lead to a brief life of suffering.'' I could quote other doctors. I could quote women who have been through this experience. But without exaggerating, it is one of the most deeply difficult, personal decisions that women have a right to make, without the interference of a politician, an insurance bureaucrat, or anyone else in positions of authority. It is their decision. Congress must keep its hands off women's healthcare. To my colleagues, keep your hands off of women's healthcare. It is their lives and their well-being and their personal privacy that are at stake. I am going to continue to fight this ban, painfully, because its consequences would be so cruel, but also because it is certainly not the Republican Party that I know that would advocate for it. It certainly should not be partisan in any way, and it certainly should not even be before us in this great Chamber, which has such respect and such a profound role in our Constitution. To consider violating the Constitution so dramatically is a disservice to this great body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Margaret Soong Meow Lee, a remarkable educator, researcher, and family woman. Sadly, Mrs. Lee passed away on August 1, 2017. She will be remembered for her dedication to helping others as well as for her invaluable contributions to the field of forensic science. Mrs. Lee was born in Sarawak, Malaysia, and went on to earn her bachelor's degree in education from Taiwan Normal University. Subsequently, she received a master's degree in education from Long Island University and a postgraduate certificate from Seton Hall University in bilingual and multilingual education. Mrs. Lee became a teacher and ultimately an assistant high school principal in Sarawak and served as the commissioner of women's affairs. She brought her love for educating others to the United States and continued teaching in New York. Her impressive career in the New York City public school system lasted nearly a decade. After moving to Connecticut, Mrs. Lee worked at the Veterans Administration Hospital in West Haven as a computer programming analyst for 20 years. Her exemplary work at the VA hospital still benefits that facility. Mrs. Lee's extraordinary life's work includes her husband's career as well. As the wife of Dr. Henry C. Lee, the founder of the University of New Haven's Institute of Forensic Science and internationally renowned forensic scientist, Mrs. Lee accompanied her husband to hundreds, if not thousands, of his lectures. Throughout the course of his distinguished criminal justice career, Dr. Lee received unfailing support and assistance from his wife. They traveled the world together, with Mrs. Lee serving as a trusted sounding board, expert aide de camp, and vital source of insight and perspective. Her remarkable intelligence and wisdom greatly assisted Dr. Lee and the many professionals and criminal justice experts who worked with him. I have valued my personal relationship of many years with these two uniquely talented, insightful, and public-spirited friends and professionals. Known as a caring mother, excellent educator, and strong advocate for the University of New Haven's international students, Mrs. Lee received many awards including a ``Mother of the Year'' award by the Chinese American Parent-Student Council of New York City and an honorary doctor of humane letters degree in 2012 from the University of New Haven. To honor her ongoing memory and strong support for the university, the Margaret Lee Scholarship Fund was established upon her passing. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Mrs. Lee's family during this difficult time, particularly to her husband--a dear friend and role model of public service--their two children, and their four grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Mrs. Lee provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, Secretary Mattis informed Congress: Long term CRs impact the readiness of our forces and their equipment at a time when security threats are extraordinarily high. The longer the CR, the greater the consequences for our force. So my Republican colleagues should take no solace in the harmful CR-- whether it is 3 weeks or 4 weeks--that they are continuing to insist that the U.S. Senate approve. In fact, I believe we can fully fund our government today without requiring the mass draconian deportation of children in March, without abandoning our commitment to opioid treatment programs, without ending the Children's Health Insurance Program, without forgoing community health centers, and without forgoing pensions our veterans need. We can do all of it. We must do all of it. The elements of consensus are there. There is bipartisan support for every one of these programs. Opioid treatment and addiction were supported in the Cures Act, as well as other measures, by overwhelming bipartisan consensus. We all support opioid treatment programs. We support addressing the pension needs of veterans of this Nation and their challenges. We cannot abandon them. We support making sure there is disaster relief for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. We support measures that will preserve the Children's Health Insurance Program and the community health centers. These measures should not be options, luxuries, or choices. We have an obligation. We are a nation strong enough in the courage of our convictions to do all of it and to meet the obligation. It is a moral obligation and an economic obligation to provide a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. We have a moral obligation because we made a promise--great nations keep their promises--to those 800,000 young people brought to this country as infants and children without any choice of their own. There is a bipartisan consensus to give them that path to citizenship. There is growing acceptance of the funding that the minority leader, Senator Schumer, put on the table to build a wall, if that is what is necessary to achieve a compromise. It is a compromise on our part, but that is what an agreement is. Each side must give something. There is bipartisan consensus for every one of these elements, and every one of them should be part of a full budget. A full budget is what is necessary. Most Americans want their government open. Most Americans want bipartisan agreement that will keep their friends--coworkers, neighbors who were brought to this country as children--safe from arbitrary seizure and deportation from the only home they have ever known. Most Americans recognize that moral obligation, and most Americans recognize the economic advantages. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, half a trillion dollars would be lost in economic activity and in workforce contribution if there were these mass deportations. Most Americans want us to face our national opioid addiction epidemic. Americans want community health centers and a host of our pressing priorities that were all pushed aside, delayed, and denied in the mad dash by our Republican colleagues for a tax bill that benefits mainly the rich. The Republicans who have spoken today seem to imply we have to make a choice. They want to falsely blame or frame this debate as if we must choose between the Dreamers and our troops. That is a false choice. It is an unnecessary and, in fact, irrelevant choice. There is no such choice that has to be made. We can do both. A great nation can be strong militarily and also be a nation that keeps its promises. In fact, the two go together. We are a nation of immigrants. Our strength is our diversity, and we have made a promise to the Dreamers, and that promise is one that we must keep. The senior Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, came to the floor to pass a simple measure, one that seems to be a matter of common sense. The Pay Our Military Act would have protected our military and their families during this Trump shutdown, but Senator McConnell, unfortunately, blocked that effort. Democrats are united in ensuring that our troops and their families are spared any needless suffering or sacrifice during the shutdown. Today we are back to continue the fight for each and every American-- our troops, our children, our friends, our families--and we will be there each and every day until we accomplish that task. That includes the Pay Our Military Act. I still hope our Republican friends will agree to it for even the short term. We hope that the shutdown continues for a very short time. We all hope it will end tonight, tomorrow, or as soon as possible. But even in that short timeframe, military men and women should be guaranteed that they are paid without question and without doubt. Republicans are in charge of both Houses of Congress, and they have the White House. They own this shutdown. It is a Trump shutdown. But there is no satisfaction for anyone on this side of the aisle in that essential truth. They control the floor schedule. They control what bills will be voted on and when. They control the schedule of our votes here. They could have funded CHIP months before it expired in September. In the State of Connecticut, those funds will expire shortly, as with many other States. They could have funded community health centers long ago. They could have enabled us to solve the Dreamer challenge months ago, in fact, in September when the President first announced that he would end the program. We have been constrained in this debate by finger pointing, by blaming, by the failure to move forward. We must now come together. Today, we can no longer wait to solve the mounting problems facing our Nation. Now is the moment to permanently fund health insurance for 9 million children in America. Now is the time to protect the Dreamers from deportation. Now is the time to provide disaster relief for Puerto Rico, Texas, and Florida. Now is the time for full funding for the opioid programs. Now is past time for the tweets and the reneging that have characterized the White House response. We have an obligation to be the responsible leaders in the absence of that leadership in the White House. We are here today, and all of us will be here until we solve this problem. We can do it on a bipartisan basis. Congress must do its job. The American people expect no less. They deserve no less, and we owe them much more. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have heard some highly partisan and passionate speeches on the floor of the Senate and a lot of finger- pointing. The American people are done with the blaming and the finger- pointing; they want the government to be reopened. All of us do too. That is why a number of our colleagues are working hard and have been involved--many of us, directly and indirectly--in promoting and suggesting possible solutions, reaching across the aisle, working to reach a consensus and to make sure the government is reopened. The President has been absent--some would say absent without leave, AWOL--from these negotiations. Ironically, he is the only one in America who has referred to this as a ``good shutdown.'' It is a Trump shutdown because the President has enabled--indeed, encouraged--it to happen. Across the aisle in the Senate, there are efforts to provide leadership and to fill the gap that has been created by a President who is AWOL in America. The lack of leadership is potentially tragic for this country. He has thrived on chaos and confusion, personal invective and insult. The time is now for us in this body to fill that vacuum. We are divided in our Nation in many ways, but we are united in support of our military men and women. Two of my sons have served. And always in this Chamber and throughout the country, there is support for them and their families, who equally serve and sacrifice. No speech on the floor here and no tweet by the President will change that fundamental unity and bipartisan support for our military men and women. That is why there was bipartisan support for rejecting a short- term, ``kick the can down the road'' patch in a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution that flatlines funding for our national defense, both military and nonmilitary, is against our national interest. The most eloquent and persuasive voice on that topic is our Secretary of Defense, General Mattis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 8 letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are in the midst of the Trump shutdown, aptly named for him because he is the one--perhaps the only one in America--who thinks it is a good shutdown. In fact, his head of Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, gloated that it was ``kind of cool'' that he was the one who got to shut down the government. ``Kind of cool,'' he said on Friday in a radio interview. As I speak tonight, all Americans know there is no such thing as a good shutdown. All of us in this body strongly believe that we must end this shutdown. We mark the first-year anniversary of the Trump Presidency with the Trump shutdown and his now infamously saying on May 2 that our country needs a ``good shutdown.'' But this shutdown has damaging, even potentially devastating effects on millions of Americans--our troops whose pay will be delayed, our families who rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program and who will soon be without funding, community health center patients whose source of healthcare will be closed, government workers who keep our Nation running every day, the disaster relief victims in Puerto Rico who will be denied relief, along with their fellow Americans in Texas and Florida. This shutdown is not a ``good shutdown,'' and it is not ``kind of cool.'' I beg to differ with the majority leader, who has just come to the floor saying that Democrats agree with everything that is in the measure that came to us from the House, because, as damaging as a shutdown is, so is a continuing resolution. It is corrosive and destructive to good government. We have been through three continuing resolutions--each a month--in as many months, and now a fourth in the fourth month is proposed. That is no way to run a government. Whether it is 3 weeks or 4 weeks, at the end of that so-called continuing resolution--a short-term temporary patch--we will be in the same place as we are today. The good news is that we have bipartisan consensus not only that we must end the shutdown but also on each of those issues that are necessary to reach consensus on a longer term, full fiscal year package. That is also why a continuing resolution and the measure that came to us from the House are completely inadequate--because they continue to fund those programs at the same level as the previous year, 2017. The Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense, and our military leaders have told us unequivocally and clearly that those levels are inadequate to our national defense. I hope there is bipartisan consensus among us on the Armed Services Committee and in the Chamber as a whole that we need a strong national defense--both military and nonmilitary funding--and there needs to be an increase in that funding, which the bill presented last night did not provide. So far from agreeing with every provision in that 4-week extension, it is inadequate. It would be irresponsible and reprehensible for this body to go along with it, and that is why four of our Republican colleagues joined us in opposing it. We are all here tonight ready to vote but waiting on one man-- President Trump--to finally be the leader that we expect and demand the President to be; the leader that Donald Trump himself in 2013 said that President Obama should be in ending or stopping the shutdown then. He said, in effect, that the buck would stop with President Obama--just as now it does with President Trump. In President Obama's case, his party did not control the two branches and Houses of the Congress. The Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, and they control the White House. They are in charge. They are responsible, and they are dysfunctional, in disarray and division. There have been weeks--indeed, months--of difficult negotiations. I am not here to blame my Republican colleagues. I think they have worked--many of them--in good faith. And that is the reason we have arrived at bipartisan agreements on the need for increases in defense spending, both military and nonmilitary; on the need for the Children's Health Insurance Program to be reauthorized, along with community health centers; the needs of veterans and pensioners and disaster relief to aid the victims of the recent hurricanes, Irma and Maria. That is why we need also to prevent the mass, draconian deportation of 800,000 young people brought here as infants and children through no choice of their own. Those bipartisan agreements on each of those issues can be turned into a package that can unite both sides of the aisle--maybe not everyone but a majority here and a majority in the House of Representatives--if they are simply put to a vote. We are here to vote on the substance. Give us that opportunity to vote on a package that embodies those bipartisan agreements. The President must either lead or get out of the way. These difficult negotiations have to be contrasted with the talks that took place just yesterday between the President and the minority leader, Senator Schumer. In a kind of microcosm, that day epitomizes the kind of leadership that got us to this point. The President and minority leader emerged from that conversation at midday with a conceptual framework and agreement--virtually--on a constructive set of principles, including a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. To the consternation of some on our side, the minority leader put on the table, in effect, full funding for the wall--the wall that my colleague Senator Rubio just discussed as a condition for such an agreement. This wall was supposed to be funded by the Mexicans. It is, in my view, excessively costly and a waste of money. Border security is absolutely necessary, but it can be done more effectively and less expensively with surveillance, drones, sensors, more patrol officers, and better training. There is a set of fencing system improvements that we can agree on. But if Donald Trump wants that wall and it is a condition for literally the survival of 800,000 young people, the minority leader was willing to put it on the table. That flexibility and willingness to compromise epitomizes the approach that we have offered to take--and must be taken--to reach an agreement. Within hours, literally, the President backed away from that virtual agreement--maybe ``backed away,'' in fact, is inaccurate. He was pulled away by his far-right extremist staff and supporters. We may never know all of the names that spoke to him, but the fact is, the agreement fell apart. The shutdown is almost entirely the making of one man, who happens to be President of the United States and who today marks his 1-year anniversary--a year characterized by chaos and conflict, disarray and dysfunction, personal invective and partisan controversy. He has reversed himself so many times that the majority leader himself expressed frustration just a day or so ago because we have no idea what he wants to emerge from these bodies on any of these issues. The minority leader characterized negotiating with him as trying to deal with Jell-O. I think it is equally like a ping pong ball that ricochets back and forth, depending on who has last talked to him and what his mood is and what his last tweet may have been. So, just as many times before, the President is likely to put the extreme rightwing members of his party before all else--before children and their health, before Dreamers and their potential deportation, and before funding for our troops. One party is in charge of the Senate and the House and the White House. It owns this shutdown. But more important than pointing fingers and assigning blame is reaching an end and reaching agreement on what is necessary to end this shutdown. And more important than who is hurt politically in this body or the House or in the White House is who is hurt in the country by the failure of this government to function. We have work to do. We are here tonight. I will be here tonight and tomorrow. We have engaged in some very constructive conversation and discussion across the aisle. I think there is good will on both sides because ultimately we have in our hearts and minds this great Nation. If the President is not able to take yes for an answer, he needs to accept what we provide and resolve that the great dealmaker has to be a deal acceptor. He has repeatedly shown himself to be an erratic, unreliable, unpredictable, and capricious negotiator. There are a number of ways to resolve this shutdown that are within reach with the right kind of leadership on both sides. I went today to the Women's March here in Washington. I was impressed with the excitement and energy and the dedication of many of the young people who were there. Far from the cynicism and the partisanship that maybe we find all too rampant in this body, their idealism seems balanced. It is inspiring and exciting, their dedication to equal rights and equality, to women's healthcare, and engaging in the political process, believing that one person--one of them, one of us-- can make a difference. If we are impressed by the resolve and determination of those young people, as I was, we should fulfill those high expectations which they and all America have for us. Restoring trust in our institutions is a service we can help perform by ending this shutdown, coming to an agreement, and making sure we do what is truly in the public interest. Looking into their eyes, I was reminded also of the Dreamers. They are known as Dreamers because they believe in that same American dream. Many of the individuals at the Women's March on the Mall in Washington, DC, this morning were, in fact, Dreamers. They were not a majority but many. They were there because they believe in America, the only country they have ever known. Their communities, their schools, their families are intricately part of this Nation. They are Americans except for the papers, the documents they lack. I know that my Republican colleagues want to give them a path to citizenship. It is not so much give but afford them the opportunity for a path to citizenship because they have so much to give back to this country. They have lived here all their lives. They played by the rules. They are our future doctors, engineers, nurses, business owners, and entrepreneurs. We can fulfill the American dream for them and for us if we give them that path to citizenship. A great nation fulfills its promises. America is the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We need to keep our promise. We need to keep our promise in this body to the American people--the oath we have taken to uphold the law and the Constitution--and to do what is right. We should do what is right for the Dreamers and their American dream, for our military who need support, children who need health insurance, families who need health facilities, veterans who need programs that they have earned and deserve, and fellow Americans who need disaster relief. Every one of them should be done now, not 3 weeks from now, not 4 weeks from now. We are already 112 days into this fiscal year. Now is the time to do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, a number of us are here today with a very simple, straightforward demand. We must act now to pass a Dream Act. Very simply, the honor and integrity of this Chamber are at stake. The young people who would be covered under the Dream Act are Americans in all but name. They came here as children. They grew up as Americans. They go to our schools, serve in our military, and support our economy. They work hard and they give back and they believe in the American dream. Deporting Dreamers would be cruel and irrational, inhumane, and, very simply, repugnant to basic American values. Just think of Jonathan Gonzalez-Cruz. He is a college student at Southern Connecticut State University. I had the privilege of meeting him in December. His story has stuck with me. His story haunts me when I think of the moral imperative of this Nation to pass the Dream Act. Jonathan was born in Mexico. He came to this country when he was just 4 years old. The United States is home for him. It is the only country he has ever known. He received a full scholarship to attend Southern Connecticut State University, and he is set to graduate this spring with an honors degree in economics and math. His dream is to attend law school, but due to the uncertainty surrounding DACA, he has decided to delay applying, knowing he will be unable to receive scholarships without his DACA status. He could attend, but he can't pay for it with scholarships unless he has that DACA status. Jonathan first became compelled to speak up and tell his story after his father was deported, and they were unable to even say goodbye. Despite his own struggles, Jonathan is a passionate advocate for his community, and he actively works for Connecticut Students for a Dream. That organization, Connecticut Students for a Dream, is a group of students who help empower and advocate on behalf of other undocumented students. In fact, today, Jonathan is in DC to help ensure that the voices of students are, in fact, heard. Jonathan is a volunteer peer mentor through that organization because he is so passionate about raising graduation rates and ensuring that all students like himself have the support they need to succeed. During his senior year, Jonathan has been interning at an immigration law firm, and he is glad to be helping others gain legal status in this country. The irony is not lost on him--and should not be lost on us-- that he, himself, could face deportation this year. If Jonathan is not permitted to stay--if Congress does not act and he loses his DACA protection--Connecticut and this Nation will be the losers. Connecticut and this Nation will lose an educated and compassionate public service- minded individual who gives back to his community, to his fellow students, and to our State. He is just one example of the estimated 10,000 like him in Connecticut--and at least 700,000 around the country--who could lose their status in March if Congress fails to act now. Very simply, we have an obligation to do our job and provide permanent status and a path to citizenship for the Dreamers. The hopeful news is, there is broad bipartisan support for affording the Dreamers protection against mass, draconian deportation. Our challenge is to make sure that what we do here reflects that broad bipartisan support in this Chamber and around the country because America knows it has made a promise. It made a promise to those Dreamers, and great countries do not break promises. Last night, a Federal district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering DHS--the Department of Homeland Security--to resume accepting renewal applications. Once again, the courts have served as a bulwark for basic rights under rule of law, but this reprieve is no final remedy. We must redouble our determination to protect these young people from draconian, mass deportation--a continuing threat as long as President Trump refuses to reverse his cruel, unconscionable policy. A Federal judge has struck down President Trump's order as unconstitutional, but a Dream Act is no less necessary today than it was yesterday. Congress should waste no time in swiftly passing clean legislation--a clean Dream Act to protect these young people. When DACA was adopted in 2012, it changed the lives of young people like Jonathan. It opened new vistas. It provided Dreamers with the opportunity to get driver's licenses, to attend college, to become productive members of our economy. Importantly, when DACA was adopted, we made that promise to these young people. We promised that if they came forward and provided the United States of America with information, some of the most personal information any of us have--information about their addresses, employment, dates of birth, their families--we would not use that information against them. They had a place here under DACA. They had rights--moral, if not legal. That promise is now about to be broken. Great countries keep those promises. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. It should not be breaking promises to innocent young men and women who know only this country, who believe in the American dream, who believe in America's promises, who believed those promises when they offered that information and now are relying on the good faith of America. The rescission of DACA threatens to tear apart families, destroy lives, create disarray, and derail futures. We are a country that is better than this rescission. We are a country that keeps promises, and Congress must now act to protect these young people. DACA protections are set to expire in 2 months. Already, tens of thousands of DACA recipients are estimated to have lost their protection from removal. The longer Congress takes to act, the longer these young people, who were promised the American dream, continue with anguish, with targets on their backs. Continued waiting means instability to the job market because companies are forced to hire replacements for DACA recipients and train new workers in anticipation of the March deadline. It could mean a massive ejection of qualified, hard-working people vital to our economy. This kind of massive deportation by plane, by boat, by car, by foot would be unprecedented. We have never seen anything like it before. As I have said repeatedly, this kind of mass, draconian deportation would be a humanitarian nightmare, a betrayal of America. If Congress fails to pass the Dream Act, we will lose nearly $500 billion over the next 10 years. Let me repeat. We will lose $500 billion over the next 10 years. We will lose $25 billion in Medicare and Social Security taxes alone. In my home State of Connecticut, we stand to lose $300 million in economic benefits a year. Now is the time to abandon the myth that the Dreamers work on the sidelines of American society. They are part of the fabric of this Nation. Their lives are woven into the great tapestry of America. They drive our economy. They give back to our communities. The administration has thrown a ticking time bomb into their lives, but it is also a ticking time bomb in this Chamber. We have the power to defuse it. In doing so, we can give hope to hundreds of thousands of members of our society and reaffirm the greatness of our country. At stake is nothing less than the character of our country, and that is why there is such bipartisan support for the Dream Act, as evidenced yesterday in the Cabinet Room when the President met with Members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle. In the Dreamers, we see ourselves. We see relatives who came to this country years ago, many of them as teenagers. My father fled Germany at 17 years old with nothing more than the shirt on his back, speaking no English, knowing virtually no one here. Like him, they believe in America's promise, America's dream, and we should believe in the Dreamers. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Buchwald wrote a satirical list of tactics Republicans were using to keep Americans from focusing on the Watergate scandal. The list is eerily familiar. The tactics being employed by the Trump supporters today ring of those same tactics used in Watergate. Buchwald suggests focusing on accusations made against prominent Democrats or individuals who had accused Richard Nixon of wrongdoing. He suggests attacking the media. He suggests saying: ``The Democrats are sore because they lost.'' He suggests deflecting blame to a ``bunch of eager kids''--perhaps sounding like the reference to ``coffee boys'' today--and saying that this investigation is ``bad for the dollar,'' much like bad for America abroad. I am very confident--and I want to emphasize this point very emphatically--that the special counsel will be in no way distracted from his investigation and his team will be undeterred by these tactics. But the American people should not be distracted or deterred either and, equally important, the Judiciary Committee, the U.S. Senate, and the Congress as a whole has a duty here that is, in fact, vulnerable to that same distraction. We must persevere. What our Republican colleagues are doing at this point is indicated by a recent New York Times article. The article describes President Trump's efforts to persuade congressional allies to drop their investigations, and it says: Another Republican Senator said Mr. Trump had not urged him to help bring the Russia inquiry to a halt. Instead, the Senator said, the President nudged him to begin an investigation into Hillary Clinton's connection with the intelligence-gathering firm Fusion GPS, which produced a dossier of allegations about Mr. Trump's ties to Moscow. The goal was to stop the investigation of Russian meddling, but the implication in the article is that the President knew he could achieve that goal as effectively, or at least more practically, by distracting from those investigations, diverting resources to other issues, and muddying the waters for the American people. That is the playbook from 1973 that is referenced by Art Buchwald in his 1973 column. Here is the danger: Distractions are dangerous, and efforts to discredit law enforcement are equally perilous. Those efforts have included not only the urging for an investigation of Uranium One and Fusion GPS but also attacks on the integrity of some members of the FBI and the FBI as a whole and attacks on individual members of the special counsel's team, on the team as a whole, and on Robert Mueller himself. The effort plainly is to discredit the investigation before it reaches a potentially incriminating conclusion and to stop the investigation, but if not stop it, at least to demean its credibility before charges are brought. It is standard operating procedure. We know as prosecutors. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and I served as U.S. attorneys and then attorneys general for our States. We know going into the courtroom that we can expect to be attacked and that our teams can be expected to be attacked. That is what defense lawyers do. That is what they do because they hope to demean and discredit and dismantle the credibility of prosecutors before the jury in the courtroom. Here, the courtroom is not a court of law but the court of public opinion. Our Republican friends have launched that preemptive strike, methodically and meticulously, just as the special counsel is engaging in his investigation methodically and meticulously. Now, I referred to Republican colleagues, and I believe strongly and passionately that many, if not most, of our Republican colleagues share our zeal for the rule of law and for a just outcome to this investigation. The reason is very simple. The Russian attack on our democracy imperils not just this administration and not just one election. It imperils our democracy as a whole. The meddling in our elections was perhaps done to advance the Trump candidacy in 2016, but it can be used against the Trump candidacy in 2020. It can be used against another Republican candidate in that year. It could be used in 2018 against other candidates for Congress or for State election. My Republican colleagues have been as eloquent as any of us in defining that threat because there is no doubt in the intelligence community that it is a threat, that the Russians did interfere, and that they sought to advance the Trump candidacy. Whether there was an impact and what the impact was may never be known, but the effort is clear. It involved a massive campaign of disinformation, propaganda, cyber attack, and other means. That is what the FBI learned was happening, not as a result of Christopher Steele but from sources within the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos, and from other intelligence sources, and that is what we must make sure is known to the American public. We must make sure that anyone who aided the Russians pays a price and that the Russians themselves pay a price, because if there is no price, it will be done with impunity again. So there should be--and I believe there is--bipartisan apprehension about that threat to our Nation's security. That is the reason that the Judiciary Committee's investigation, along with the special counsel, is so important, because our purview includes obstruction of justice and the integrity of the Department of Justice. Any interference politically with the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling must be prevented in the future as well. Only the Judiciary Committee can frame and craft legislation that will help to protect the FBI. Senator Whitehouse and I, and Senator Feinstein and others on the committee, will be proposing such legislation based on what we know so far. It is legislation that essentially protects the rule of law against such efforts to obstruct justice and politically interfere. The intelligence community's conclusions about Russian meddling did not rely on the credibility of Glenn Simpson or Christopher Steele. The two guilty pleas and convictions that the special counsel has already secured do not rely on the credibility of Simpson or Steele. Without fear of contradiction, I can predict that additional convictions and indictments will be based on fact and law, not on the credibility of Simpson and Steele. The conclusions reached by Simpson, Steele, or anybody else are relevant only insofar as they are supported and backed and proved by facts and consistent with relevant law. Now, in fact, as we know, Christopher Steele tried to blow the whistle on the Russians. He brought to the FBI's attention information that he thought was relevant to protecting the United States of America against Russian interference. As my colleague Senator Whitehouse has outlined in detail, the FBI already knew of it and courteously heard from Christopher Steele and later interviewed him. The effort to undermine the credibility of the FBI by pointing to Christopher Steele completely misses the mark. In fact, I am deeply disappointed that the first major action by our Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee was aimed at someone who reported wrongdoing, not committed it, and it was done without any cooperation or even consultation with Democratic colleagues. It is really a betrayal of the spirit that I think should characterize this very serious investigation, because it should be bipartisan. My hope is that these distractions, dangerous as they are, will, in fact, not divert either our committee or the special counsel. The pace of our committee's investigation--again, to be very blunt--has been shamefully slow. I hope that its pace will quicken and that it will intensify and that there will be hearings in public with witnesses under oath and subpoenas of documents. I have said it repeatedly. I hope we will use those tools because only by relying on our powers to investigate effectively and comprehensively will we protect the goals of upholding integrity and justice. As for the special counsel and our law enforcement community, I think they should know that we support them and that we will protect the special counsel against political interference. That is why there is legislation I have proposed, along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse and others. It is bipartisan legislation. I thank Senators Tillis and Graham, as well as Senators Coons and Booker, for joining in this legislation. That legislation has already had a hearing. It should be voted to the floor and passed by the Congress so that there is no question that the special counsel will be protected against interference or firing. As that investigation moves closer to the Oval Office, as it tightens its grip on members of the administration, there will be increasing threats and efforts to intimidate. The FBI and the Department of Justice, as well as the special counsel, have a well-earned reputation for integrity and zeal. It is part of our rule of law that a law is enforced. Enforcement of a law depends on thorough and independent investigations that are pursued without fear or favor, without efforts to distract or demean. This body, the U.S. Congress, has an obligation to support those kinds of values. They are uniquely American values. They are the underpinning of all of our laws, all that we hold dear, and all that we celebrate in this body and in this country. My hope is that we will be part of the effort to avoid politicizing the pursuit of justice. Politicization of the pursuit of justice diverts energy and attention away from credible criminal investigations. It sends a message to this President and future Presidents--and everybody who occupies any office--that there are no repercussions for diverting and distracting and for the ploys and rabbit holes that may be used to squander resources or undermine credibility. Republicans and Democrats alike should join in the effort to preserve the rule of law. My hope is that we will and will do so without delay because every day that passes when these kinds of false, baseless, and biased innuendos and rumors are raised and given credence is a day that undermines those values that we hold dear. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his very erudite and insightful summary of the bright, shiny toys and rabbits and rabbit holes that a number of our colleagues have attempted to use to distract the Judiciary Committee and this body from what should be its quest for the truth; that is, the truth about the Russian attack on our democracy during the last election and potential collusion in that attack-- specifically, collusion by the Trump campaign--and obstruction of justice. Indeed, obstruction of justice is within the direct purview of the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for joining me in a letter that we wrote to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, asking that he very simply make public the transcript of the interview with Glenn Simpson conducted by our staff. Senator Grassley declined. But, earlier today, Senator Feinstein released the interview, advancing the American people's right and need to know the full truth. I want to applaud Senator Feinstein's leadership in using her proper authority as the ranking member to serve this vital public interest. I am grateful to her for her courage and strength in moving forward and disclosing the transcript to prevent its use as a dangerous distraction from the critical work of our committee. I want to thank at least one of our colleagues across the aisle, Senator Cornyn, for apparently supporting that step. The toys and rabbits and rabbit holes are hardly new to efforts by defenders of an administration against an investigation, and perhaps for some amusement as well as enlightenment, I want to cite a satiric column done by Art Buchwald in 1973. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the column be printed in the Record.

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, every day in America--the greatest Nation in the history of the world--children, young women, and teenagers are sold for sex. That is not a proud fact about America, but it is the stark reality. Every day in America, young women, children, and teenagers are trafficked, in large part because they are advertised now on the internet, in the open, visibly, and obviously. Even though code words may be used and sometimes doctored photographs, they are sold for sex because the traffickers are able to do so using the internet. We are here to stop it. We are here today to stop the trafficking and, most importantly, to stop the advertising. In support of a measure, known as the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, SESTA, we have a strong bipartisan coalition. This bill is about as bipartisan as any bill is. I have worked on this legislation together with my colleague and friend, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, from the very beginning. We have been joined in this effort by two Democrats and two Republicans--Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, Cornyn, and McCain. We are passionate about this effort, and so are our colleagues who have joined us, because it is about those victims--those children, teenagers, and young women--who are sold for sex, who are trafficked on the internet. We want to give those victims a voice and a day in court, a right of action, a defense against this absolutely heinous, atrocious, inhumane crime. It is a crime and it can be prosecuted, but the victims deserve a day in court and a voice as well. That is the fundamental, core purpose of this legislation. It is about the victims. We have been joined in this effort by advocates for those victims-- sex trafficking survivors themselves and a diligent, bipartisan coalition of colleagues. In fact, more than 60 of our colleagues have joined this as cosponsors. We are now at a critical milestone for this bill. We have reached a point of momentum that makes this bill unstoppable if those survivors are to be heard and heeded, and I urge my colleagues to do exactly that. SESTA is really the product of stakeholder consensus. It has the support of every major human trafficking organization, of law enforcement, and of all of the major tech companies. In essence, SESTA would clarify that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was never intended to protect websites that facilitate sex trafficking, and it would ensure that those survivors get their day in court. It stands in stark contrast to a measure in the House of Representatives that has been approved by the relevant committee there, which would fail in that effort. Websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking should be afforded no protection under the Communications Decency Act. They should be given no harbor or implicit approval, which is what the legislation now does. The House bill, unfortunately, would fail to give those survivors and victims their day in court and the voice that they so desperately need. Senator Portman and I--and I am proud to be joined with him today on the floor--have championed this cause as a result of what we have seen and heard. In fact, in going back almost a decade, when I was attorney general for the State of Connecticut, I saw firsthand the way that websites can knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. I saw firsthand how challenging it was for law enforcement to develop cases against sex traffickers and employ anti-trafficking laws given the constraints on their resources, especially when those sex traffickers were able to use the internet to reach their customers. My experience in combating sex trafficking as attorney general at the State level led me, in my working with Senator Portman, to co-launch and co-chair the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking so as to help find solutions to this problem and others around the world whereby children and teenagers and others are sex-trafficked and victimized. As the State attorney general, I concluded that facilitating sex trafficking must face repercussions. I was joined by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which reported and has since reported the numbers. For example, there has been an 846-percent increase in reports of suspected child sex trafficking from 2010 to 2015--a spike it found to be ``directly correlated to the increased use of the internet to sell children for sex.'' We have heard of some of those instances, of some of the histories and the stories of these young people. In 2012, a 15-year-old girl ran away from home. Over the next 2 years, pimps trafficked her for sex through these ads. As a result, she was raped over 1,000 times while she was moved from one site to another with the aid of the internet. In 2010, another 15-year-old girl ran away from a residential program. A pimp began to traffic her for sex by posting online ads. As a result, she was raped 900 times over the next 2 years. These two young women and a third mustered the courage to tell their stories and to bring a lawsuit against backpage.com, which is the website that has profited most prominently from these online ads. These advertisements graphically emphasized the survivors' and victims' youth and other characteristics in trafficking them for sex. Yet the courts, understandably and perhaps rightly, have held that backpage.com and these internet sites generally have no legal responsibility. The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that backpage.com was immune from civil liability because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Websites that facilitate sex trafficking unconscionably and intolerably are now immune from legal action by survivors. That is unacceptable in America. No matter how terrible the harm they cause, no matter how horrific the consequences to these young people, they are protected by a shield from moral and legal responsibility. In a sense, these women were victimized as much by backpage.com and the internet as they were by the pimps who more directly sold them. Senator Portman and I, through SESTA, would implement three key reforms: No. 1, allow victims of sex trafficking to seek justice against websites that knowingly facilitate their victimization; No. 2, clarify that it is illegal to knowingly facilitate a violation of the Federal sex trafficking laws; and No. 3, enable State law enforcement officials, not just the Federal Department of Justice, to take action against individuals or businesses that violate Federal sex trafficking laws. If websites are not knowingly facilitating sex trafficking, they should have nothing to fear from the law. If websites are doing their best to avoid facilitating sex trafficking, they have no worry about their liability. Yet, if they knowingly facilitate, they ought to face survivors and victims in court, and they ought to acknowledge and recognize their legal and moral responsibilities. I want to be very blunt with my colleagues here about the House bill because my feeling is that we owe it to those survivors and victims to give them not just nice words and rhetoric but real rights. Congress must not only pass an online sex trafficking law; it must pass real sex trafficking internet protection. Unfortunately, the House Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation that fails to accomplish that goal. My colleagues should not be fooled--the House bill is in no way an adequate alternative to SESTA. It is, unfortunately, completely insufficient in protecting survivors and victims and giving them that day in court and that voice they now lack. The difference between the House and Senate bills is stark and clear, like night and day. The Senate bill gives victims of trafficking their day in court. The House bill does not give a single survivor or victim access to justice. It fails to open the courthouse doors; it leaves them shut. In fact, it may even deny victims and survivors their right to file legal action. The Senate bill has the support of every major human trafficking organization, as well as of all of the major stakeholders. The House bill is supported by none--zero--no major group. In fact, 47 organizations and more than a dozen survivors and family members recently sent a letter that calls for the House bill, as it is presently written, to be rejected. I strongly urge my colleagues to join this bipartisan group of more than 60 of us who are supporting SESTA to help pass this essential legislation as soon as possible. We owe it to those survivors and victims. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to America. I am proud to yield to my friend and colleague who has joined in this effort and has been such a steadfast champion, Senator Portman.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico. Even as the Northeast is gripped by a storm of impressive proportions, Puerto Rico is still recovering from the hurricane that hit that island 106 days ago. I visited Puerto Rico with my friend and colleague, Senator Murphy, yesterday and the day before, to bring back to my colleagues a fact- based report on how the recovery effort is going and how ample Federal support has been. I come to the floor today furious and frustrated. The people of Puerto Rico have a right to be furious, as well, because they have been denied the basic help and relief that this great Nation--the greatest in the history of the world--owes to all Americans. Let there be no doubt that the people of Puerto Rico are our fellow Americans. They have fought in our wars. They have come to the mainland and gone back, contributing to our communities, as well as theirs. They are in our communities in Connecticut, which has the highest concentration of people from Puerto Rico and their descendants of any State in the country. We are proud of the Puerto Ricans in Connecticut and of the Puerto Rican families and people who are coming from the mainland in an exodus unmatched in recent history. The reason for that out-migration is that Puerto Rico is in the midst of a humanitarian and economic crisis. Let me repeat that. Puerto Rico is in a humanitarian and economic crisis 106 days after Hurricane Maria. It is still in triage. Half of the population lacks reliable electricity. Almost half lacks drinkable, healthy water. The tourist industry--the lifeblood of its economy--is shrinking and struggling. About half the hotels still are not open, and the unemployment rate is well above 10 percent--double the rate of unemployment here on the mainland. Housing continues to be a major problem. Of the homes that need temporary relief, only half of them have been provided the blue tarps because they have not been delivered. I want to pay tribute to the first responders, the Corps of Engineers, and FEMA workers, as well as the National Guard from Connecticut and elsewhere who are on the ground serving and sacrificing for their fellow American. They lack the support they need in resources and commitment from the administration and from this Congress. Resources and support have been denied them because of a lack of will, not a lack of money. Many of the schools there are shuttered, and students have been denied the privilege to continue their education. The healthcare system of the island is still in shambles. Primary care is struggling to recover because of the lack of electricity. A doctor's office simply cannot run without electricity, nor can manufacturing plants be operated without a reliable source of power. In restoring power, the Corps of Engineers has provided generators in places where formerly there were plants actually producing power. Generators are a temporary source of power, not a reliable permanent source. Transmission is still down in many parts of the country. To add insult to injury, Puerto Rico is stuck with a tax as a result of the action of this Congress and the administration--a tax imposed only on manufacturing in foreign countries. Puerto Rico is treated as a foreign country for purposes of the 12.5 percent tax on certain manufacturers. That is simply unconscionable. Manufacturing plants will soon be facing the decision of whether to stay or go, and many of them will go, adding to the unemployment situation there. It is heartbreaking and gut-wrenching to visit this island and to walk in a neighborhood, as Senator Murphy and I did on Wednesday night, and find darkness after the sun goes down--total darkness, except for a few isolated lights here and there. How can students study? How can parents care for children? On that Tuesday night, we walked through a neighborhood in downtown San Juan that was dark because of the lack of electricity. There simply are not enough generators for every home to have one. Generators, themselves, are only a stopgap source of power. The human faces and voices are gripping and riveting from the suffering that people in Puerto Rico--our fellow Americans--still endure. The lack of Federal commitment and response is shameful and disgraceful. There are steps that we must take immediately. In the short-term relief package that is coming to us from the House of Representatives, we must make sure that some of that aid--a significant proportion--is specifically targeted to Puerto Rico. The number requested by the Governor is $94 billion. It is a number that is fully and amply supported by fact. The total package coming from the House is only $81 billion, and it is supposed to cover expenses in Florida and Texas as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. So that number has to be vastly increased. Longer term, there must be a change in the Tax Code to eliminate that 12.5 or 13 percent tax that discriminates against Puerto Rico as if it were a foreign country and as if the residents in Puerto Rico were citizens of another country. They are Americans. The Medicaid formula must be changed so that it is fair to Puerto Rico. The 20 percent commitment that now goes to Puerto Rico, unlike other States, must be increased so as to treat Puerto Rico, in fact, as if it were a State and so that it is given an adequate match. These kinds of commonsense steps must be the beginning of more than just repair and more than just rebuilding. It must be a full recovery with a vision for the future. I have proposed, with Senator Sanders and others of our colleagues, a Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico. That is the kind of commitment that is necessary. The $150 billion includes not only the $94 billion that is necessary to repair and recover right away but a longer term plan to enable the island to be back on its feet financially, to recover from the near bankruptcy that it is enduring, to able its institutions to function fully, and to permit its healthcare system to rely on electricity from plants that are powered in an economic and environmentally friendly way. There is, sadly, the hint also of potential corruption in the Whitefish contract that now has been withdrawn and in the Bronze Star contract for tarps that is under review. Investigations must be concluded quickly and thoroughly so that we are assured that Federal dollars are being used honestly and effectively. We must make a commitment to use the island's natural advantages. Electricity is essential. It is not a luxury, not a convenience. It is vital. It is the lifeblood of that island economically and humanly. One of the island's great advantages is its sunlight. Solar has to be used more effectively and widely as a source of power. My hope is that we can make this disaster relief program a Marshall Plan-like program for the island in the long term with bipartisan support. There is nothing political about a neighborhood in darkness, about children unable to go to school, about health facilities closed, electricity lacking, and water undrinkable. These are basic needs that we have an obligation to come together on both sides of the aisle and meet. I hope that we will do so and that we will match the resilience and resolve that I saw in meeting with Governor Rossello and all of his team. The island's residents and FEMA and other Federal workers were also there. Governor Rossello has provided the kind of courage and commitment that are necessary to lead his people in this time of challenge. We must match the courage and strength of the residents on the island with equal resolve here that we will meet the needs of our fellow Americans and that we will keep our commitment, as we do always in times of crisis, to rebuild and to recommit and make sure that we leave no one there behind. I am proud that we are working with Governor Rossello. After meeting with him yesterday and after meeting with him in the wake of the hurricane when I first visited--I had the privilege of flying over the island, and I saw the devastation, with whole villages destroyed, houses and community centers completely razed--progress has been made. Governor Rossello is to be commended for his continuing perseverance, as well as the people of Puerto Rico in their resolve and resilience, but we must now do our part and match that resilience and resolve with a true commitment that we will leave no American behind and keep faith with the people of Puerto Rico. I am proud that many in the Puerto Rican community in Connecticut have shared their stories with me, and I look forward to returning to them this weekend and sharing my stories with them of their families and their friends on that island. It is a beautiful island that has such great promise and so embodies the future of our Nation in its patriotism and its dedication to the ideals of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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