Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am really pleased to follow my colleague Senator Murphy after that very articulate case and to build on the case for keeping our promises to America. The Presiding Officer knows that promises made must be kept, including another $1,400 in stimulus payments to every individual, bringing that total to $2,000, which is what we promised; to make sure that vaccines are available broadly across this country and that schools become places of learning again, in person for students and teachers in a safe learning environment. What we are doing in this package, which is big and bold--and it has to be--is to put money in people's pockets, put vaccinations in people's arms, and put children back in schools safely. And I emphasize ``safely.'' Now, I was very excited over this past week or 10 days to travel throughout the State of Connecticut and visit clinics where vaccinations are being provided to thousands of people in Connecticut, raising our rate to one of the highest in the country--about 10.3 percent. I saw nurses and doctors at Danbury Hospital, led by John Murphy, making promises real for people. I visited Rentschler Field, a former runway turned into a vaccination site for people receiving those shots in their arms from the Community Health Center, headed by Mark Masselli. I saw vaccinations at Griffin Hospital, a wonderful team headed by Pat Charmel. But here is the story at Griffin Hospital. Last week they did 6,000 doses. This week it will be 2,000, not because of any lack of skilled vaccination person power, not because of any lack of determination--because of lack of vaccine. Shortages in Connecticut and around the country are impeding and setting back our effort. They are lengthening the tunnel. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but it is longer as we delay the vaccine that is necessary to do the job. There is not enough. It is not reaching the people who need it in enough supply, and it is not being delivered equitably. The numbers in Connecticut show that people in communities of color are nowhere near as likely to receive that vaccine--in fact, perhaps three times less likely. We need to make sure that delivery is fair and effective in this country, or we will never conquer this pandemic and put America back to work. Using the national Defense Production Act is absolutely necessary, but so is the commitment of $160 billion in this big and bold relief program. It has to be big and bold. It also has to be done now. Time is not on our side. I have no tolerance for delay or dithering. I have no patience for cuts in this package; $1.9 trillion ought to be our floor, not our ceiling. And if there is a need for targeting those stimulus payments, the money ought to be reallocated to vaccines and to creating safer environments to work and to learn. Vaccines are important to our schools. Teachers are essential workers. They are on the frontlines. They are putting their lives at risk. They have been demonstrating the courage and conviction to come to school, but they should receive this vaccine. A safe learning environment means also personal protective equipment, barriers such as we are seeing in restaurants and other public places-- plexiglass and other kinds of dividers. These kinds of essential equipment are the reason that we are advocating $130 billion for our schools. There are many other steps that must be taken to ensure not only that our learning environments are safe but also that students have the connectivity they need remotely because for some period of time, that will be the way they learn. More than a third of communities of color in the State of Connecticut, which is thought to be a very sophisticated and advanced State, still lack that connectivity--a third of our seniors. Safe and fair learning environments mean broadband, and that is also another reason for that $130 billion in this package. Many of these students face serious gaps--1 to 3 months and even longer for some students who have lacked that connectivity--up to 6 months in basic skills: reading, writing, and arithmetic. These kinds of gaps have to be filled. We need a major effort to focus on our students who have been left behind, and that is why this kind of package is a moral imperative. It is a social obligation. We will lose talents and skills, but students will also lose their future. We should come together on a bipartisan basis. There is nothing wrong with cooperation, and I hope that my colleagues across the aisle will join with us as we move forward, but we will move forward. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past when efforts to wait meant unconscionable delay. We have no such luxury in this humanitarian crisis. We must move forward, and we will. I yield the floor to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this measure, essentially, is a pretextual, ideological, and extreme step that really detracts from what should be our primary purpose at this moment in our history. Literally, we are fast approaching 450,000 deaths in this country, and people continue to die at the rate of more than 3,000 per day. Our economic progress continues to be stalled. In fact, it is declining, with joblessness increasing across Connecticut and the country. People are struggling to stay in their homes, put food on their tables, and pay for the medicine they need. Our goal should be making sure people have vaccines and the economic support that they need. Instead, we are here on a measure that would, essentially, take away rights, burden rights, for people--women--who need that right. We ought to be focusing our energy and attention on winning our fight against this pandemic, but, instead, we are here, debating a pretextual and ideological bill, another anti-choice bill--yet another attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose about when and whether to have a child. This bill purports to be about protecting individuals with Down syndrome, but it is merely a pretext for requiring healthcare providers to scrutinize women for their decisions to seek an abortion. The pretext is to take away those individual rights. As a matter of fact, this bill has nothing to do with protecting people with Down syndrome, and it has nothing to do with addressing discrimination. If my colleague would like to genuinely help people with Down syndrome, he would ask for unanimous consent on legislation that the disability community actually has supported. The National Down Syndrome Society wants increased funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. It wants better educational opportunities and settings for people with Down syndrome. It wants laws and policies that ensure economic self-sufficiency and better workplaces and a fight against discrimination. Those are the legislative priorities of this disability community, but what this bill actually does is it essentially requires healthcare providers to interrogate women about their decisions to seek an abortion. Healthcare providers who might violate this bill, if it ever became law, would incur fines, imprisonment, or both. In conclusion, people have a right to make these kinds of deeply personal decisions. Those rights are protected under our Constitution. We should be protecting people with Down syndrome, and we should be expanding their opportunities and fighting discrimination, not using them as a pretext for restricting and burdening a woman's right to choose. Therefore, I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today was a stomach-turning, gut- wrenching moment in our history. Truly, it was an assault on the heart of our democracy. I want to join in thanking the first responders and the police. I also want to thank others who have been heroes of our democracy-- unsung in many instances. First, they are all of the election officials, all of the poll workers, all of the members of boards of election who actually counted the votes--who went to the polls and made sure that votes could be cast--and who, ultimately, stood firm for the integrity of that voting system. I want to thank the judges. There are now about 90 of them who, except for one or two who ruled the other way on a technicality, have stood firm for the integrity of that voting system. In those 60 to 70 cases, except for that one who ruled on a technicality, they went with the integrity of our voting system and the rule of law. Today was, indeed, disgusting and sickening. It was shocking and despicable. It was heartbreaking, but it was not surprising. In fact, today's assault on our democracy--the mob violence, the riots, the thugs and goons who were inspired and incited by the President of the United States--all were of a piece, in these past 4 years, of a President who has no respect for the truth or the rule of law. Donald Trump's Presidency is coming to a close in the very same way it began--with an attack on our democracy. In 2016, the Trump campaign welcomed hostile foreign interference with our election. The President refused to acknowledge that he would accept the results of the election if he lost. Then, again and again, he demonstrated his contempt for the rule of law and for laws themselves. He obstructed justice, and he would have been charged with it had he not been the President of the United States. He invited a foreign government to interfere in our elections and find dirt on his political opponent. Most disturbingly, these actions by a President who demonstrated that contempt for the rule of law were met with silence from many political leaders, our colleagues here in the Senate among them--silence in the face of that contempt for the rule of law and disrespect for the law enforcers. So we could have seen today coming. In fact, we did. I warned about it, and others did because the fantasies and falsehoods that drove those rioters--not protesters but the mob who assaulted the temple of democracy--were fueled by the President's misstatements and lies and contempt for the truth, and he was enabled. He had enablers. Today, we are stopping, in one instance, that enabling, but we must also make sure to stop it going forward. The political stunt that brought us here today offers no great solace that it will. These stunts have consequences. We say words have consequences, and the actions today will have significant consequences. They are an attack on our democracy that undermines the core tenets of our American Government and a disrespect for the will of the people and a peaceful transition of power. The political stunts themselves, driven by opportunism, blaze a path that can be followed by more competent challenges just as the dictatorial instincts and actions of this President can be followed by more effective would-be tyrants intent on destroying our Republic. Yes, we have more important tasks that we should be addressing as well--the pandemic, the economic revival. Yet, today, we must be mindful of the threat to our democracy that we face down and come together on a bipartisan basis, but silence is never excusable in the face of lawlessness at the very top of our political structure. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Edwin ``Ed'' Gomes, an exemplary public servant, community leader, and advocate for equality and justice. Sadly, Ed passed away on December 22, 2020, at the age of 84. He will be remembered for his outstanding legacy of dedication to Connecticut as a statesman and an activist. Ed began his impressive career on behalf of our country in the U.S. Army, serving for 5 years. A dedicated steelworkers' union representative, he was first elected to the Bridgeport City Council in 1983. Throughout his decades on the council, Ed quickly earned the respect of constituents and colleagues, alike. In 2004, Ed was elected to the Connecticut Senate, where he served for a total of 12 years. As State senator, Ed fought tirelessly for the people of Connecticut, always going the extra mile to help his constituents. He knew that government could instill positive change for working families and constantly advocated on their behalf. Committed to social reform and civil rights, Ed participated in the March on Washington in 1963. His activism touched countless lives across our State and was an inspiration for all of us. Known for his passionate efforts to help others and strong principles, Ed was also respected across the aisle and warmly recognized for his positive spirit. Those who had the chance to work with him know well his respected, straightforward style and readiness to bolster advocacy by pulling from his personal experiences. I had the privilege of attending the annual L'Ambiance memorial ceremony, recognizing those workers who died in a horrific construction accident, with Ed, who unstintingly continued his advocacy for workplace safety. There was always an opportunity to do more and raise greater awareness of issues facing Connecticut's working families. His dedication to fighting injustice was a model across our State, and he never hesitated to initiate change from the frontlines. I can attest firsthand to Ed's unfailing attitude, which was equal parts joy and determination. His commitment to bettering our State and loyalty to his friends and family have left a lasting, positive mark on Connecticut's legacy. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Ed's family during this difficult time. May their many wonderful memories of Ed provide them solace and comfort.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are here in the waning hours of 2020, expectant and hopeful about the coming year, and I want to wish all of my colleagues a very healthy and happy new year in the hope that we will fulfill the promise of our constituents, our country, our Constitution in moving forward to meet and conquer the pandemic that still ravages our Nation and to renew our economy that still is failing. We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and Americans are hurting. This body has taken positive and important steps toward meeting this public health and economic crisis, as well as the hurt and harm that continue to plague Americans. In a number of important relief packages, we have helped to meet those needs and enabled the Nation to bridge the gap created by this pandemic--an economic gap that has become a chasm, a cliff that seems without end and, for many of our fellow citizens, a time of unparalleled and unanticipated pain. The relief package that we passed most recently--I think we can be proud to say--is the second largest in our Nation's history, and it will provide a second round of paycheck protection loans, forgivable, becoming grants, so that small businesses can keep their doors open; more aid for our transportation and education systems; money to distribute the vaccine that will be a lifesaver for so many Americans; and other important aid, including a $600 stimulus payment for every American who is making less than $75,000. That is real assistance for a family of four--$2,400--because every child, as well as adult, will receive that money. But all of that $906 billion is only a downpayment. It is a life raft, and it has to be followed by an even more robust, bigger, bolder package to provide real relief and sustenance for the survival of our economy and, literally, the survival of Americans who are struggling to put food on the table and to buy medicine, pay rent and mortgages, clothe their children. We have all told our stories on the floor of the Senate during 2020 about constituents waiting in food lines, hurting for the funds needed to stay in their home or apartment and to pay for the medicine that is literally a matter of life and death. We have told those stories. We have talked about Americans who are struggling. We have the opportunity now to do something about it, so I appeal to my Republican colleague very bluntly and simply: Give us a vote on the CASH Act. Let us vote on a stand-alone $2,000 stimulus payment bill. Allow every one of us to go on record on that $2,000 stimulus payment bill that would add $1,400 to that $600 already provided--not to minimize the importance of $600, but it is inadequate. It is insufficient. It is unacceptable because it fails to provide the basic needs to meet the desperate and dire straits of so many Americans. We are talking about families who need that money to buy bread and milk, paper towels and toilet paper, goods and services that are necessary to the survival of their families. Six hundred dollars is simply not enough, and that is why I call on my fellow colleagues to persuade their leaders that we should be permitted this vote, because I believe that if there is a vote, it will pass. Having spoken to Republican colleagues here, I have no doubt--none--that the stand-alone $2,000 stimulus payment measure would pass overwhelmingly, just as did the $600 payment as part of the larger bill. The simple fact is, that measure is the only viable vehicle. Any other measure loaded with other provisions, whether it is the section 230 reform or a commission to investigate the last election on fictitious fraud, is doomed. It is doomed logistically. It is doomed legally and physically. There is no way for the House to pass it. Only the House bill, if passed, can provide Americans with the $2,000 stimulus payment that they so desperately need. Only the House bill provides that relief. Any other measure will be doomed because the House cannot come back to pass it in the time we have left in this session. So the majority leader is essentially blocking a step that will literally save lives, supported by the vast majority of the American people, a significant part of his own conference, and every Democrat. Have no doubt--every Democrat will vote for it. We clamored for a higher stimulus payment for months when the majority leader refused to come to the table and then when the President of the United States failed to lift a finger--he was on the golf course--when it might have made a difference in raising that $600 amount higher during the negotiating. Looking forward, there is a way to provide this relief to Americans without leaving here in a contest of blame but in a new year of mutual congratulation. Pass the $2,000 stimulus payment plan as a stand-alone, clean bill. I just want to say that I am probably the only Senator who has supported two measures--one of them actually passed by the Congress and signed by the President to reform section 230 and the other unanimously voted out of the Judiciary Committee. They reformed section 230, and I support reforming section 230. I have hardly been uncritical of section 230. There should be major reform of section 230, but it has to be done in a careful, deliberate, and considered way as a separate measure, not as a meat ax in a totally unrelated bill, the $2,000 payment bill that provides real relief for the country. Loading the CASH Act with poison pills is obstruction. It is not constructive legislating, and it fails to meet the test of this moment. It is vital that we move forward to provide struggling Americans with this relief, and scuttling the $2,000 stimulus payment bill with a half-baked, meat-ax evisceration of section 230 is cruel and downright stupid. It betrays the mission and obligation that we have in these waning days of 2020. Americans need more help, and they need hope. Help and hope are embodied in the vaccine. Unfortunately, the rollout of this vaccine, despite the $8 billion contained in the latest pandemic relief bill, has been hopelessly behind schedule. The number of doses distributed is roughly one-tenth of what it should be even under the scaled-back schedule that this administration has adopted. Twenty million vaccinations were promised by the end of the year. That number was way below the initial promise, and only about one-tenth of them--probably 2 million--will actually be provided. Instead of taking responsibility or taking control, President Trump is still tweeting; instead of action, more talk. Only action will save lives, and either he doesn't care enough, or he doesn't really see what is necessary to do in order to save these lives, because the distribution of this vaccine is a matter of life and death. Using the Defense Production Act, mobilizing America, making sure States have the resources they need, providing money to hospitals, and making sure there are the vials, syringes, training for workers, as well as the facilities to transport, store, and distribute this vaccine, are essential now. They are missing at this moment, and the President is where the buck stops. Now I look forward to a 2021 when a new President will expand the stimulus payments to individuals and when many of the other gaps left unfinished--action that still is necessary--will be fulfilled by another, more robust, bigger, bolder pandemic relief program. I hope we will have the same bipartisan support that we saw at the end of this year for the latest. I hope we will overcome the divisions that prevented us from doing what is really necessary and adding $1,400 to the $600 already provided. We need to do more for small businesses. Yes, there will be another round of PPP payments, but this chasm faced by restaurants, retailers, and small businesses struggling to keep their doors open, keep their people on payroll during the holidays--we have seen them all and talked to them. Their stories are riveting and heartbreaking. Businesspeople have poured their hearts and souls and lives into these businesses, only to see them threatened with extinction. This crisis has a racial justice aspect that cannot be ignored because disproportionately, the businesses that have failed are Black- and Brown-owned. Disproportionately, the lives lost have been in Black and Brown communities. Disproportionately, the jobs lost have been in those same communities--Black and Brown communities that have suffered more than any other as a result of this pandemic. So we need to make sure that they receive the vaccine as well as the therapeutics and testing that are necessary to save lives. We are in the midst of a racial justice moment that affects policing and criminal justice, but it also affects our schools, where the ZIP Code of a child's residence can mean the difference between a quality education or not; where Black and Brown communities suffer twice or three times the death rate of others as a result of this pandemic; where job discrimination still exists and where, in housing, redlining still afflicts these communities; and where environmental quality-- rivers, lakes, air can still be disproportionately contaminated and polluted in communities inhabited by Black and Brown people. We are here in the last day of an unprecedented and catastrophic year. More than 342,000 of our fellow Americans are dead as a result of this insidious virus--over 342,000 gifts unwrapped, places at the table left open, and many of them without a final goodbye. This past year will go down as one of the hardest in our history. I think we all hope for a better year, but it will come only if we take the kind of action that apparently my Republican colleagues are failing to provide today, which is to meet the need to match the moment of the desperate and dire straits of so many Americans. The failure to approve an additional $1,400 and pass the CASH Act is a haunting omission. My hope is that the hopes of a hurting nation will be met in this new year, that the calls for justice and relief will be heard, and that the ailing and sick--not just physically but emotionally--will be met. This crisis has been one of physical health care but also mental health care, and the emotional strains can be seen in the rising rates of domestic violence, substance abuse disorder and addiction, and so many other areas where mental and emotional stress and anxiety have taken a toll. The hopes of a fearful and grieving nation rests on our shoulders, and we cannot let them down. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object on the SCRIPT Act, which I understand is the only measure so far on which the Senator from Texas is seeking unanimous consent, very simply, he knows, I know, we all know that measure will never reach the President's desk. There is simply no way it can pass both Houses of Congress in the next few days before the end of this Congress. The only way we can do something for the freedom fighters and democracy advocates in Communist China is to pass this measure that he has objected to, which has unanimously passed the House of Representatives. Only H.R. 8428 offers that opportunity, and frankly, only this measure that he has objected to does anything for the dissidents or the democracy advocates or the freedom fighters directly. He is talking about movies; we are talking about human lives. He can draw all the kinds of hypothetical connections between the so-called movie moguls in Hollywood and China, but I think his SCRIPT Act actually works against the goal that he is advocating. Censorship in China is a legitimate concern, no question about it, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with him on a bill that does something about it. But actually his bill not only takes away the support for the movies that may be made; it takes away support for documentaries about the repressive regime in China, and it takes away classification and other security screening that are necessary for those kinds of movies to be shown in this country. I think that kind of obstacle may be inadvertent on his part. But I welcome the chance to work with him on a bipartisan bill, a truly bipartisan bill that, in fact, in the next Congress could reach the President's desk. This one that he is offering, the SCRIPT Act, goes nowhere. But I just want to bring us back to the reality that really is at issue here. Just last Wednesday afternoon of this week, two of the activists among the six pro-democracy fighters living abroad, charged under China's new national security law, were before our committee. I am wondering what they are thinking when they hear my colleague from Texas pounding the table about being tough on China but objecting to a bill that guarantees them protection. As I say, I am talking about their lives and tens of thousands of others. I am not talking about movies. I am not talking about Hollywood moguls. Let's stand up for the lives of those Chinese Hong Kong freedom fighters now in this country seeking protection through a bill passed unanimously by the House of Representatives--the only bill that will go to the President's desk if we approve it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the only ones happy with the outcome of today's debate are the Chinese Government. I regret this outcome because there probably was a time when we would have cooperated in a bipartisan way on both of these matters. It may not have been unanimous. There may have been a few contrary votes in the House, but clearly it came here with bipartisan support, and I regret that the outcome today is not bipartisan agreement to protect those freedom fighters who came before the Judiciary Committee and who have risked their lives. This issue is not going away. We will be back because, fortunately, the activists from Hong Kong will persist in their fight, and we ought to do everything we can to make sure they have a safe haven in this country and that they are protected here. So my closing plea to my colleague from Texas is that maybe there remains time, even in this setting, but, if not, we need to take a stand as a nation against Chinese censorship, against repression by the Chinese, and come together and work together. I thank the chairman.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we have gone a little bit far afield from the six pro-democracy activists living abroad.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, and I was just going to, as a matter of fact, make that point because I think it is central to the objection that has been raised. In fact, the people in danger here are already here. They are in danger if they are sent back, as they would be without that temporary protected status. So that point, I think, refutes, essentially, the argument that has just been made by our colleague from Texas.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I really regret this attack on a bill that was passed unanimously--Republicans, unanimously, and Democrats, unanimously--a bipartisan bill by the House of Representatives. If my colleagues are serious about moving a bill to the desk of the President, only this bill will do it because only this bill has been passed by the House of Representatives. There is an urgency to this cause for the sake of these refugees who haven't been permitted to leave their country, haven't been sent by China, haven't simply come into this country as potential espionage agents. They have come here because they fought for freedom in their country. So to say that we have discovered that we need to stand up to China, sorry about that, but it is just preposterous.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am really honored to follow Senator Durbin, a staunch and steadfast champion of refugees and immigration reform who, year after year, has shown the courage to stand up on this issue. And to emphasize a point that he has made, there is an urgency to our acting. There is a sense that time is not on our side for the lives at stake here. The world has watched in horror as China has cracked down on the incipient democracy movement in Hong Kong. We have seen the yellow umbrellas. We have seen the marchers in the streets and the brutality and the cruelty of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese authorities, using clubs and guns with the kind of thuggishness that has come to characterize the Chinese anti-democracy movement there and around the world. We have an opportunity to take a stand and speak out and do something in defense of the brave protesters who are risking their lives. We have seen this kind of democracy movement before. We know it is in the great tradition of our country to stand with those protestors and those marchers who are saying to the Chinese Government: We will not let you break the agreement that you did in 1984 with the United Kingdom to preserve these freedoms and to make Hong Kong an outpost of democracy in the repressive regime of China. We will not let you chip away at our rights or extradite our people to China. That law was the spark that ignited these protests. We will not let you mock our demand for freedom and democracy. The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020 was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it would very simply give those protesters protective status in this country, the greatest Nation in the history of the world, saying to them: We will give you a safe harbor. We will give you a place where you can be protected. And remember, what the Chinese are saying is: You can be indicted. You can be arrested. No matter where you are in the world, if you violated our law, we will bring you back. And we would say to those protestors who are simply demanding fundamental freedoms that often we take for granted here: We will give you protective status. We will give you temporary protective status right away. We will make sure that you have that safe harbor. Now, I know that my colleagues, Senators Rubio and Menendez, have a bill that is actually called the Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act. We had a hearing on it the other day in the Judiciary Committee. All of my colleagues expressed support for the individuals who came to us asking us to act on that measure. The Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020, in fact, would go beyond that measure, only to say that you don't have to be formally charged in China and you don't have to be in specific categories of protestor. You can be a journalist, and you can get temporary protective status. It would also say that you don't have to demonstrate individually a fear of persecution, but you do have to be screened. You do have to demonstrate that you are not going to be a national security threat. My colleague Senator Durbin is absolutely right to make this point. Nobody wants Chinese spies in this country. There would be a background check and a screening just as there are for other refugees under this measure. The other day, at this hearing, we heard from Samuel Chu and Nathan Lau and we heard from Joey Su. These activists are fighting for their freedom. We heard their stories, so powerful and moving. Their faces and voices should be heard and heeded in this body. We are far removed here in this sedate setting from the clamor and the cruelty of those streets in Hong Kong, where men and women have stood bravely against the physical brutality and force of the Chinese regime. But we should send a message to the world: We are going to stand with those refugees who come here heeding the lady who stands in New York Harbor with a message of hope and freedom. The same lady who many of our forebears in this Chamber saw when they came to this country--like my dad, in 1935, at the age of 17, alone, seeking to escape persecution in Germany, speaking no English, knowing virtually no one, having not much more than the shirt on his back but believing-- believing--that America would offer him the safety of freedom as a refugee. That is our tradition in this country. It goes beyond party, geography, race, or religion. It is what makes America truly great. We are a nation of immigrants and refugees, and my hope is, as I stand here, that we will have the same unanimity in this body as the House did, despite all the other divisions that persist at this point; that we will have the respect for the moral imperative to act now and make sure that we fulfill the message of America now that is more important than ever before in light of the repressive regimes, even in our own region, whether it is Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, where we can say to the world: We are going to stand by our principles, and we are going to do it now because of the urgency of this moment and the need of these refugees for temporary protective status. Let us act now. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 8428, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. To answer the Senator from Illinois very directly, it is totally antithetical to the principles of democracy in the United States of America. It is totally abhorrent to the values of our constitutional Nation, and it is, frankly, absurd. Here we are, according to my colleague from Texas, standing up and being tough on China, and we are doing what? We are sending back their opponents so they can imprison them and kill them? That is the notion of being tough on China--to enable them to imprison and kill their political opponents? I ask my colleague from Texas to rethink the practical implications of this measure and to consider why the House of Representatives unanimously passed this. It doesn't lower the standards for political refugees coming to this country. It doesn't eliminate any security checks. It takes people, many of them living here already--not spies, by any means--and sends them back to the meat grinder of the repressive Chinese Communist Party. It may sound like good rhetoric to oppose this bill, but my colleague from Texas heard the testimony of these freedom fighters and why they need temporary protected status and why they support a safe harbor. So I continue to insist that this bill, like the Rubio-Menendez bill, protects essential American values, and I ask him to reconsider his objection.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, let me begin where Senator Murphy so eloquently finished. One of the great honors of my life has been to know and cherish the friendship of the wonderful parents and loved ones of those 20 beautiful children and sixth grade educator that perished 8 years ago today. And I have been proud to work with Senator Murphy, a true champion of stopping gun violence, in our efforts over these last 8 years. That day began for them as it has begun for all of us as parents--for me as a parent of four, for Senator Murphy as a dad of two--making breakfast, dropping off kids, heading to work. Among the beautiful holiday ornaments that decorated Newtown and Sandy Hook on that day--it was a normal day, until it wasn't. It was a normal day until those minutes when life changed irreparably for those parents and loved ones and for us. Yes, I had championed the cause of gun violence prevention for years before that day. As State attorney general, I began lawsuits; I supported the cause of banning the assault weapons in Connecticut and defending that ban in our State courts. But that day changed us forever. We went to Sandy Hook, and what we saw was unspeakable grief, pain, and anguish that still haunt me. What I saw that afternoon will stay with me not just as a source of grief and pain but also as a cry for action, as an undeniable mandate for action to honor with action those beautiful lives--to honor them not just with words, speeches, rhetoric, but with real action. For all of us, random acts of kindness are within our reach. Those acts of kindness to commemorate the gentle beauty and grace and dignity, the love and laughter, the futures that were lost--that is not just an expression of pain and grief; it is a moral imperative. With grief comes trauma and lifelong scars that never fade. But what I saw in those hours after that brutal, unimaginable massacre was also unspeakable goodness--the first responders who came and saw the carnage that brought tears to their eyes, the fire and police service, the community leaders, the men and women of faith. Father Bob Weiss, now monsignor, brought us together that evening in St. Rose of Lima Church when the grief and pain were raw, as raw as the cold of that winter night, and so many came--in fact, so many that they couldn't fit in the church. They heard it by loud speaker outside, and I said: The world is watching. In fact, the world watched with awe because Sandy Hook came to show the resilience and courage and strength of those families who have championed this cause of preventing gun violence but also launched foundations and philanthropic efforts in the names and memories of their children to do good and to change lives for the better. They are resilient and strong like Newtown is resilient and strong. This morning, in a vigil done virtually, led by Connecticut Against Gun Violence, we celebrated the lives not only of those 20 beautiful children and sixth grade educators but everyone in Connecticut over the past year who has died from gun violence because no community is immune from it. It strikes every neighborhood and area of our State and of our country. So honoring with action is something that we must do in this body. One of the memories that also haunts me is of the day when we came within a few votes of passing a universal background check bill--almost 55 votes but not enough to reach 60, a majority of the Senate but not enough for cloture. And from that Gallery, literally, came the shout: Shame. Indeed, shame--shame on us in the U.S. Senate for being complicit in the continuing deaths of thousands over these past 8 years, thousands that could have been prevented, and thousands that have our culpability. Shame on us for failing to honor with action and to move forward on universal background checks and emergency orders-- emergency risk protection orders. Those two steps keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who would do harm to themselves through suicide, as well as to others in the shootings that take place on our streets and our neighborhoods. Connecticut has led the way on those measures and others--Ethan's Law for safe storage, a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, ghost gun bans, and other measures that essentially make our neighborhoods and lives safer. But even Connecticut, with the strongest gun measures in the country, is no safer than any State with the weakest because guns have no respect for State boundaries. They cross State lines, and the ``crime guns'' that come into Connecticut are the source of those shootings that kill our people. So there are simple, straightforward steps that we can take-- commonsense measures, including stopping the nearly complete, unprecedented immunity of gun manufacturers from any legal responsibility and making sure that they bear liability for the deaths that they cause. Our lives have never been the same since Sandy Hook. But in the wake of that tragedy--as well as Parkland, Las Vegas, Charleston, El Paso, Orlando, and Pittsburgh, and countless others, mass shootings, individual deaths--there has grown a movement, and it is a movement led by young people and by people who care about this cause without partisan politics. It is a new generation of leaders. It is a movement born of that grief and pain and anger--the fury of knowing that democracy is not working, the tenacity born of the injustice of those deaths and injuries and trauma. They are fighting to make sure that what happened at Sandy Hook or any of those other places never happens again. It is a new class of heroes, and their time is now. Their organizations are diverse: Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, March for Our Lives, Giffords, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Newtown Action Alliance, and Sandy Hook Promise. These are just a few of them, and they are a movement, and they are causing a change in the consciousness of America so that now more than 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks A comparable number support emergency risk protection orders known as red flag statutes. Seventeen States now have them and increased substantially after Parkland, and they are not alone. They are joined by survivors from countless communities--too many communities. They are joined by law enforcement officials, first responders, and emergency room nurses and doctors who have the firsthand education about what gun violence does to a human body and a human mind. They are joined also by advocates and activists and community leaders from every community across the country because this epidemic affects everyone. They are the true leaders of this movement, and I am proud to stand with them today as I do every day. My hope is that a new Congress will break this complicity and that we will move forward, that a new Congress will break the inaction, and then a new President will change the dynamic, not only in this Congress but in the country, and take advantage of the historic opportunity we have. With a new administration, we have not only this momentous opportunity but also a moral imperative. We have that opportunity to enact strong, commonsense gun violence prevention measures and, in addition, although no substitute for legislative action, strong Executive action to enhance the effectiveness of background checks, to stop the spread of ghost guns, to take other measures that are within the power of the President alone, and to make sure that we explore and use every possible opportunity. The States will continue acting alone if the Federal Government fails to join them. States like Connecticut and others around the country who want to protect their citizens will continue to be proactive. We mark this painful anniversary with renewed resolve--resolve to continue to honor, with positive action, those whose lives were lost at Sandy Hook but also to redouble our efforts to educate and enlist our fellow citizens. It is long past time; 8 years is a long time--much too long for this inaction. Our hearts still ache. Our anger still burns. Our grief and pain are still there. For those families, they will never go away. But make no mistake, this pandemic is no excuse for inaction. If anything, COVID-19 has raised the number of gun purchases and increased the number of guns posing dangers in our neighborhoods. It has heightened the stress and anxiety of people who might use those guns in incidents of domestic violence. It has expanded the jeopardies of suicide and self- destructive behavior. We have no excuse for inaction because of the pandemic. We have every reason to feel a greater sense of urgency now, in the midst of this pandemic, to stop the epidemic of gun violence. Let us draw from the strength and fortitude of these brave families and loved ones--not only in Sandy Hook but survivors and loved ones everywhere--and say, finally, boldly, unapologetically, that enough is enough. Enough is enough. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in just a few moments, we will vote on the nomination of Nathan Simington to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission. We will do so in the middle of a pandemic when this agency is of more importance than ever to students, businesses, and families who are vitally dependent on broadband, on the consumer protection that this agency provides, and to net neutrality, which is a vital issue for them and for our country. ``Nathan Simington'' is not exactly a household word, but his name and his presence on the FCC will have important meaning to households around the Nation; nor is the ``FCC'' a household word, but it, too, affects literally hundreds of millions of households. The FCC will have an increasingly important role in this Nation as we conquer the pandemic and deal with the economic crisis that faces this Nation. There are 15 to 16 million students who are locked out of the internet because of the unavailability of broadband connectivity or devices that make the internet real in their lives. The FCC is the key to their participating in schools, and it is the key to businesses being able to communicate with customers. The FCC is at the crossroads of making rights real. Nathan Simington is dangerous to those rights and to the FCC at this moment in history. Why is he the nominee? The answer is that the current FCC Commissioner, Michael O'Rielly, was originally nominated for another term, and the Commerce Committee even held a vote for him in July. Yet, after Twitter and Facebook had the temerity to label Donald Trump's misinformation about voting and COVID-19, the President issued an Executive order that had the simple purpose of retaliating against these social media platforms. The President, in effect, demanded that the FCC revise section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to punish those companies for the mild inconvenience of a fact check. They didn't take down his posts; they said they needed to fact check them. Commissioner O'Rielly recognized the dangers and the potential illegality of the President's Executive order. Again, he had the temerity to speak up and tell the American public on C-SPAN that he had ``deep reservations'' if they, meaning Congress, ``provided any additional authority for the FCC in this matter.'' In a later speech, he appeared to challenge the order on First Amendment grounds, which it well-deserved, in fact, because it potentially violated the First Amendment. Despite years of a pristine record of Republican positions, this objection now was disqualifying to Commissioner O'Rielly in the view of the White House. The President pulled his nomination and substituted Mr. Simington, who was well qualified, for he had auditioned for the role of doing the President's bidding. We know Mr. Simington tried to pressure the FCC to cave in to the White House and to rightwing media outlets on this very issue, section 230. It is an unprecedented assault on the integrity and independence of the FCC, and he was clearly the White House's wingman on this issue. Very simply, Nathan Simington is the wrong person and is clearly the wrong person at the wrong time for the FCC. He is unprepared and unqualified. Last month, before the Senate Commerce Committee, he was asked about his plan for the FCC. He couldn't provide one single measure for which he would advocate. He couldn't answer even basic questions from Democrats and Republicans. His answers were inadequate, incomplete, and evasive. I asked him again, in the questions for the record, to say three steps that he would take to provide and prepare for those millions of students who are out of the classroom and lack connectivity to the internet, which now is like lacking connection to the classroom. A student without that connectivity is, in effect, barred from the classroom. He couldn't provide one meaningful response or step, even in writing, and that is plainly alarming. It should be disqualifying. This nomination, though, is dangerous on more than any single issue because it threatens the independence and political integrity of the FCC. The political independence and integrity of the FCC depend on its balance. Normally, nominations are paired politically to reflect the bipartisan balance of the agency. What we will have at the FCC now is potential gridlock. One month ago, voters overwhelmingly elected a new President, and he has promised to close the homework gap, the digital divide, to reinstate net neutrality, and to renew our commitment to consumer protection. This nomination threatens all of those goals for a new administration. In fact, the Senate has traditionally moved these nominations in bipartisan pairs, which is lacking here. In fact, it is contradicted by this nomination. I think the purpose of confirming this nominee, very simply, is to deadlock the Commission and undermine the President-elect's ability to achieve the mandate the American people have given him and his administration in going forward. That may be what the giant telecommunications industry wants. It may be what the media companies hope to achieve--an FCC that is absent or neutralized, an FCC that is gridlocked and dysfunctional. I hope it is not the result of this nomination if he is confirmed, but my fear is that it will be, and if it is, this body bears a responsibility. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee for the sake of those 16 million students who are now lacking in having a connection to the internet. That connectivity is essential to their lives and their educational progress. I urge this body to vote against him because he is dangerous to an agency that is supposed to be independent and above politics I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mark Davis on the occasion of his retirement. Mark dedicated over five decades to broadcast journalism, including an impressive near 37 years with News 8. An award winning-radio news director in Boston, Mark quickly adapted to TV news when he arrived in Connecticut. Throughout his career, he set an example with his honest, unstinting reporting. Mark covered the administrations of seven Connecticut Governors, always speaking truth to power. His thorough, efficient responses to stories earned Mark the respect of his colleagues. Holding himself to the highest standard, Mark was always a consummate professional. Mark's outstanding and reliable work leaves a remarkable legacy in Connecticut journalism. As chief political correspondent, Mark remained nonpartisan while demonstrating tireless grit. He was courageous and never shied away from asking the tough questions. At the same time, Mark had an uncanny ability to put politicians at ease, facilitating discussions and ensuring he could provide a thoughtful, complete story. Trusted by constituents, he was voted our State's best local TV reporter 2 years in a row by Connecticut Magazine. Mark's exceptional record as an insightful, driven, and honest reporter leaves a historic mark and emphasizes the vital role he and his fellow reporters play in keeping people well informed in Connecticut and across the Nation. His professional partnership with Joe Sferrazza established a model of unmatched teamwork that will have an impact for years to come. I applaud his lifetime of tenacious commitment to comprehensive, fair work focused on uncovering the truth, and I know my colleagues will join me in thanking Mark for his extraordinary contributions to regional reporting.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as august and impressive as this setting is, what is happening today is not normal. We have said it numerous times, but we should say it again because we need to prevent it from becoming normal. In fact, what is happening today is sad, surreal, even shocking. We are 8 days away from an election. In an unprecedented rush to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, we are taking the place of the next President and the next Senate in confirming the next Justice, even as the American people are denied a voice and a say in that decision. What is happening here is not normal because our Republican colleagues have explicitly broken their word. We have submitted to the Judiciary Committee quotes from 17 of them promising that there would be no confirmation of a next Justice during an election year. It is not normal because, in fact, historically, no Justice has been confirmed after July in an election year. It is not normal because we are here, in the midst of a pandemic, confirming a Justice who would potentially decimate our healthcare system now in the middle of a healthcare crisis. It is not normal because the administration has said, as recently as Sunday, through its Chief of Staff, there is no control over this pandemic. This abject surrender is shameful and disgraceful. And it is not normal because the American people have a right to expect from us in this body that we would address that pandemic and that we would pass another pandemic relief bill. It has passed the House. All we need to do is vote. In fact, on Saturday afternoon, I came to the floor with a number of my colleagues and offered, by unanimous consent, measures that have passed the House by a bipartisan majority, but there was objection to moving forward. My Republican colleagues, in objecting, said it is procedural harassment. I beg to differ. It is democracy. It is democracy to address the needs of the American people. That is what is normal in the Congress of the United States, or at least it should be. The fact is that our Republican colleagues are shattering the norms and breaking the rules and breaking their word, and there will be consequences. There inevitably are consequences when one person breaks her or his word to another. But there is a larger significance here, which is that Amy Coney Barrett, as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, will shift radically and dramatically the balance politically on that Court. It is an unelected body with lifetime terms, which is the antithesis of the elected bodies that serve in the U.S. Congress or the elected President, and this radical shift will shatter the legal fabric of that Court. Now, I know that my Republican colleagues will refuse to acknowledge it, but, in fact, it is part of an agenda--a rightwing agenda--that has existed for some time to move the Court to that radical extreme fringe. In fact, they have turned the U.S. Senate into a kind of conveyor belt of judicial appointments not just to the Supreme Court but to Federal courts at every level. Dark money is the vehicle for turning the U.S. Senate into that conveyor belt. As we have documented as recently as Friday, through a report that we produced, showing how the NRA has been at the tip of the spear of a movement involving shell entities making contributions, receiving money, and channeling it to Members of this body who have confirmed those nominees so that that dark money produces appointees to the Federal bench. Amy Coney Barrett is part of that conveyor belt. She is only the latest of the appointees who threatens to shift not just the Supreme Court but the Federal judiciary radically to the right. The purpose is to achieve in the courts what our Republican friends and the radical right and the fringe elements of the Republican Party couldn't accomplish in the legislatures. They couldn't achieve in the State legislatures or in the Congress what they now seek to do by legislating from the bench through activist judges who will tilt our entire political system against the majority will. The agenda is essentially to constrain and constrict and even cripple the healing and helping power of our Federal Government under the guise and the smoke screen of originalism. They want to restrict and constrain the vision of an expanding individual's right to essential liberties. They want to constrict, instead of expand, an increasingly inclusive America. And that judicial philosophy is what underlies disappointment of Amy Coney Barrett. They want to legislate from the bench and achieve in the courts what they couldn't achieve in our elective bodies because they are losing in those elective bodies. As Shannon Watts, a leader of Everytown, said to me the other day: They are going to the courts, not because we are weak in achieving measures against gun violence but because we are growing stronger and stronger. In fact, there is a grassroots movement composed of Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Gifford, Brady, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Newtown Action Alliance, and Sandy Hook Promise-- all part of a grassroots movement that is moving America toward protecting against gun violence. But Amy Coney Barrett has a view of the Second Amendment that she has acknowledged in a speech ``sounds kind of radical.'' That is a quote-- ``sounds kind of radical.'' It sounds kind of radical because it is kind of radical, and that radical view is losing in elective bodies, in State legislatures, and in local governments that are moving to protect people against gun violence. We see the same phenomenon on healthcare, on reproductive freedom, and on voting rights. The majority of Americans want to expand the inclusiveness of America and the vision of individual rights and liberty, not roll them back, not turn back the clock to this originalistic textualism that underlies Amy Coney Barrett's philosophy. She will bring that philosophy to the Bench, as she has done on the Seventh Circuit as a member of the court of appeals there. That is the danger, and that is the alarm we are sounding here. The Affordable Care Act is about protecting people who have preexisting conditions, but it is also about protecting children who are on their parents' healthcare policies until the age of 26. It is about lowering the cost of prescription drugs. It is about making more widely available healthcare by providing subsidies to folks who need the help. It is about banning insurers from charging women more just because they are women. Preexisting conditions affect 130 million Americans; in Connecticut, 1.5 million residents of our State--52 percent of our population. Preexisting conditions are diabetes, asthma, heart disease, high blood pressure, and now COVID-19. Yes, COVID-19 is a preexisting condition because of the damage that may be done to lungs, hearts, livers, and other organs. In the midst of a pandemic of COVID-19, this administration is putting on the highest Court in the land a Justice who would strike down that protection. Of course, they have a ruse. It is called severability. Our Republican colleagues say: Don't worry; the Court can strike down one provision and keep the whole law--or the rest of it in place. Severability--you sever the part that is unconstitutional. It is a doctrine of law. But that is not what the U.S. District Court held in striking down the Affordable Care Act in the case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court--the same case that will be argued on November 10, where Judge Barrett will sit, assuming she is confirmed today. The U.S. District Court didn't hold that it was severable. On the contrary, it struck down the whole law. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit didn't hold that it was severable. The administration is not looking for severability. It says: Strike down the law. The President of the United States says: It couldn't come soon enough. Eliminate the Affordable Care Act in total, including the protection for people with preexisting conditions. They promise to replace it. The President's Press Secretary handed to Leslie Stahl, after his ``60 Minutes'' interview, the supposed plan, a replacement, which was absurdly a collection, apparently, of past Executive orders, other documents-- completely irrelevant and inadequate as a supposed replacement. So this idea of severability is another ruse. Our Republican colleagues also say our fears are ``apocalyptic.'' The majority leader used that word yesterday--``apocalyptic.'' It is not apocalyptic if you have a preexisting condition. It is not apocalyptic if you care about the people who have preexisting conditions. It is not apocalyptic if you have lived through the excruciating pain and anguish and anxiety, as the Curran family has, of having a child with a preexisting condition. Let me introduce you to Connor Curran, a 10-year-old--in fact, he just celebrated his 10th birthday in Ridgefield; I was with him that day--who has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I have told his story on the floor in this place numerous times over the course of these past years since I first met him about 5 years ago. Connor is a hero. There are few in this body who could claim to have had his courage and perseverance at that age--maybe at any age. His smile lights the world. His courage is matched by his parents. I introduced Connor to Amy Coney Barrett at the hearing because I wanted her to know the impact on real people and real lives, the real harm that would be done if the Affordable Care Act is struck down. Connor has survived this debilitating disease because of treatment his parents couldn't have afforded without the Affordable Care Act. It is that simple. They wrote to me asking me to make a plea to Amy Coney Barrett: Please don't take away Connor's healthcare. They asked me to ask her to make a pledge--doctors make this pledge--first, do no harm. First, do no harm. I don't know whether Amy Coney Barrett heard or saw Connor. Of course, his poster was there when I told his story. I don't know whether the impact of that story will move her, but my hope is that it will, and my hope is--or was--that it would move my colleagues, because the real harm to real people is not only about Connor Curran, this brave boy who will lose his ability to walk and his ability to hug and then to hold hands, to play with his brothers. And in spite of all of it, he has demonstrated that perseverance and courage that I hope will move this body, even in this closing hour, to respect the importance of the Affordable Care Act. Others, like Julia Lanzano, who has treatment for a brain tumor because of the Affordable Care Act, and countless others who have that kind of treatment, are enabled by the Affordable Care Act to do so. It may seem to my Republican colleagues apocalyptic but not to Connor Curran and his family. Tens of times, Republicans in this Senate have sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They failed. Now they are trying to do it from the courts--legislate from the bench through an activist judge like Amy Coney Barrett. They are rushing this nomination not only to strip away healthcare from people like Connor, but they also want to end a woman's right to decide and choose when and whether and how to have a family. I want to emphasize something to my Republican colleagues that I hope they hear. When you take away a woman's right to make that decision, when you turn women who seek an abortion into criminals, when you make doctors performing abortions guilty of crimes, you don't end abortion. You make getting an abortion more costly. You make getting an abortion more excruciatingly difficult. Most importantly, you make it more dangerous--literally dangerous. Hundreds of women died every year seeking unsafe abortions before Roe v. Wade protected their right to choose. I remember that era because I was a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after he wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, and we thought the issue was resolved: Women have the right to make that choice, legally. But far from resolution, what we see is a continued assault on that right. Now Republicans have stacked the bench with activist judges ready to chip away at reproductive rights and even reverse Roe, chipping away at it through State legislatures--restrictions on clinics, the width of their hallways, the requirement for admitting privileges. We can be sure that victims of rape or incest will be forced to carry an abuser's child if those restrictions are upheld or Roe is reversed. If you doubt it, let me introduce you to Samantha. One night in January 2017, Samantha went out with a few friends and coworkers. She woke up the next morning in a coworker's home, confused, scared, and covered in her own blood. She had been raped. After she was raped, Samantha was, in her own words, a zombie. She just wanted the event to be erased from her memory. That March, Samantha took a pregnancy test, and then another, and then another. They kept coming back with the same result--pregnant. After the horrible violence she faced, she simply couldn't process that she was now pregnant. She chose to have an abortion. When Samantha shared her story with me, she wrote: ``I knew that, if I couldn't end this pregnancy, it would end me.'' Reversing Roe v. Wade will matter for Tracy, also from Connecticut, a woman I met, also courageous and honest. Tracy was diagnosed with stage IV endometriosis, which caused an ongoing inability to have a healthy pregnancy. But she was, as she describes it, ``one of the lucky ones.'' She had access to care and was able to receive in vitro fertilization treatment to assist in getting and staying pregnant. But Tracy was scared when she saw that a group that sponsored an open letter, signed by Judge Barrett, had recently stated that they wanted to criminalize having a child through IVF. In a world without Roe, there will be nothing to protect against a law making it a crime for a woman to do what Tracy did and for a doctor to perform that medical procedure which enables her to achieve her lifetime dream of having a child. Sadly, we don't have to wonder what Judge Barrett's position on a woman's right to choose will be. She signed a letter calling Roe v. Wade ``infamous'' and called for ``the unborn to be protected in law.'' That is her legal view, her position on the law. I didn't ask her in the hearing about her personal views or her religious faith--those issues are private--but her position on the law, just as she left no doubt about her view of the Affordable Care Act when she wrote that Chief Justice Roberts stretched that measure beyond its true meaning in order to uphold it--I am paraphrasing--or said about King v. Burwell, upholding the Affordable Care Act, that the dissent had the better of the legal argument. In another letter signed by Judge Barrett, she called Roe v. Wade's legacy ``barbaric.'' We know what Judge Barrett will do about the Affordable Care Act and about reproductive freedoms because she has been screened and vetted. There is no mystery. Donald Trump has said he would impose a strong test--his words--and that strong test was to strike down the Affordable Care Act and overturn Roe v. Wade. We cannot go back. We cannot roll back these rights. We cannot turn back the clock to an America that banned abortion in many States, drove it underground, and made vital healthcare services dangerous and even deadly. We can't go back to an America where the rich and privileged can find a way out of unintended pregnancy but the rest of America is denied that access to healthcare. There is a racial justice element here because the ones who will suffer, predominantly and disproportionately, are women of color, women of lesser means financially, who live in those States and cannot travel to others like Connecticut, where Roe v. Wade was codified in statute when I was in the State legislature as a State senator. I helped to lead that effort to codify it in statute. But Connecticut's law won't help the woman in Texas or Louisiana who is denied that right. Make no mistake, this threat is not some abstract, hypothetical notion in the future, some apocalyptic vision of what might happen in the United States of America. We are one step away. In fact, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are literally one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court. There are cases like SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Kemp, a case currently before the 11th Circuit involving a challenge to a ban on abortion as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are cases like Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery, a case challenging an escalating ban on abortions at 6, 8, 10, 12, and so on weeks into pregnancy, depending on where the Sixth Circuit deems it appropriate for a woman to lose the right to choose for herself when and whether to have a child. There are additional cases involving bans on abortion later in pregnancy, when women can face the most severe health risks and rely on their doctors for accurate information and compassionate care. There are ``reason-based bans'' that merely exist as a pretext for interrogating and intimidating women who seek an abortion. There are cases like Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast v. Rebekah Gee, which challenged years of inaction by the State of Louisiana on a Planned Parenthood affiliate's application for a license to provide needed abortion care. There are other challenges to redtape laws that require abortion providers to jump over obstacles--needless, senseless hurdles that serve no medical purpose but exist just to burden them and make necessary abortion services harder to obtain--and numerous other abortion laws designed to limit access, strictly to limit access in the supposed name of healthcare. Access to reproductive healthcare is already hanging by a thread in many States across the country. Judge Barrett's nomination imperils the access that remains, and these cases are just one step away from the highest Court--at least 17 of them, one step away from the Court that Amy Coney Barrett will join. Reproductive rights are not the only rights at stake in this nomination. Voting rights hang in the balance as well. For years, Republicans have decided that they are willing to suppress the vote if it helps them to win election. This fundamental assault on our democracy has taken many forms, and we have seen them across the country as recently as this election, ongoing, in realtime. Republican-appointed judges have worked with Republican elected officials to allow suppression action to take effect and be sustained. These judges proclaim themselves to be originalists, but they betray provisions of the Constitution, the 14th and 15th Amendments, that our ancestors fought a civil war to secure: equality and the right to vote. A civil rights movement, a century later, secured the passage of the Voting Rights Act and made those rights real for many Americans. People marched, some died to pass that law. But this conservative Supreme Court betrayed the legacy of Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and John Lewis when it gutted the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case, and this Court continues to attack voting rights and it will continue under Amy Coney Barrett. Howard Porter, Jr., a Black man in his seventies with asthma and Parkinson's disease, was a plaintiff in one of those cases decided just this month. Howard simply wanted to be able to cast his vote safely, without contracting COVID-19. He wrote to the court: So many of my ancestors even died to vote. And while I don't mind dying to vote, I think we're past that--we're past that time. On a partisan vote, the conservatives on the Supreme Court disagreed. Amy Coney Barrett will join them, and rushing this nomination on the eve of the election means that she will join them possibly to vote on the election itself while on the Court. Is that view apocalyptic? Not if you believe Donald Trump, who said the reason why he wants a ninth Justice is to decide the election, not the voters--the Supreme Court. He said the quiet part out loud--and so did a number of my colleagues in our Judiciary Committee meeting. He said: This election will end up in the Supreme Court, and ``I think it's very important we have nine Justices.'' And when I asked Amy Coney Barrett if she would recuse herself from a case about this election as a result of these comments, she refused to answer or commit. I call on her to postpone her taking the oath of office until after the next President of the United States is inaugurated. Why not remove any doubt about conflict of interest, any question about the legitimacy of whatever decision may be necessary by the Supreme Court by postponing her investiture. I ask her to make that commitment and for my colleagues to join in that call and for the President to respect it. This nomination is not just about healthcare; it is also about the assault on a woman's right to choose, on voting rights, and it is about whether governments can enact reasonable, sensible gun violence protection laws to keep America safe. I want to tell you, finally, about Natalie Barden. Natalie is 18 years old. She was 10 when her little brother Daniel was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, on December 14, 2012. Daniel was 7 at the time. He was one of 20 innocent, beautiful children and a sixth grade educator who were killed that tragic morning. I was at the firehouse not long after. I witnessed the unspeakable grief on the faces of parents and families whose children were gunned down, families who realized that some of those children were not coming home. Eight years later, Natalie says that her grief is still real. Her crusade for gun violence prevention measures inspires me. So does the work of her parents and other families there in Newtown and across the country--survivors I have met, families I have come to know and respect and admire. What happened at Sandy Hook, sadly, was not an isolated abhorrent incident; it is part of an epidemic, a scourge, a public health menace of gun violence. In the last 10 years, gun violence has taken more than 350,000 lives in rural communities and urban communities and every community in between. No community is immune. None of my colleagues' communities can claim they are immune. Judge Barrett's view of the Second Amendment--that it would give felons, for example, the right to buy or possess firearms; that it would put the burden on the government to prove they are dangerous; a view that she acknowledges sounds kind of radical--would potentially result in striking down the laws that Natalie has crusaded to achieve; that Janet Rice of downtown Hartford, who lost her son Shane, believes can help save lives because, in fact, those gun violence prevention measures can save lives. Universal background checks; closing the Charleston loophole; Ethan's Law, named after Ethan's Song, who perished because of an unsafely stored weapon--these measures can help save lives. A ban on ghost guns, untraceable because they have no serial numbers; a ban on high-capacity magazines--these laws can help save lives. But with Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, every single gun violence prevention measure at every level of government is in grave peril because she will join others on that Court who believe with her in this radical agenda of striking down those measures. Tabitha Escalante of March for Our Lives said to me the other day: ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' And that is because, again, there are cases literally one step away from the highest Court, including Duncan v. Becerra, where Judge Kenneth Lee on the Ninth Circuit became the first Trump-nominated judge to rule that a ban on high-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment. That outlier opinion flouted the unanimous consensus of other Federal appeals judges who have upheld large-capacity magazine bans in their State. There are numerous other cases that involve measures that help save lives--one step away from being struck down. My Republican colleagues have the majority. They may have the votes to push this nomination through today, but they don't have the American people, and they don't have history on their side. They are doing it because they can, because they have the votes, but Americans can do something too. They can vote. They can show they want gun violence protection measures and reproductive freedoms and the Affordable Care Act and voting rights and workplace safety. They don't want an America that rolls back to an originalistic view, a smokescreen that constricts rights and liberties. There is something larger than just one Justice and one vote at stake here. Nothing less than everything is at stake--a shift in the balance of the Court that will last for decades if we do not act to correct, and believe me, there are appropriate measures that should be considered. The American people have the power in this election to speak out and stand up to protect their own health, the public health, and the health of our democracy. I fear for the Supreme Court's legitimacy. I revere the Supreme Court, having argued before it, having clerked on it. Its legitimacy depends on faith and trust. We must act to restore the credibility and legitimacy of the Court, which has been so gravely imperiled. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis.) The Senator from Washington

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, what my colleague calls procedural harassment, it is actually democracy. It is legislation. It was passed by the House. It is bipartisan. The majority was bipartisan. It will save lives. I fail to understand why my Republican colleagues will not allow this loophole--it is a fatal and defective loophole in our current laws--to be repaired.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That measure was a basic disclosure step proposed to address secrecy in government. Nothing is more fundamental than transparency in a democracy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The people of the United States deserve that information, and so, too, they deserve all of the information about Amy Coney Barrett. Even on the morning of her approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee, new documents were disclosed, new statements and speeches by her, adding to the ones that hadn't been disclosed properly previously. This process is a sham. It is rushed. It is not normal. As I said during our hearings, my great fear is not only the damage and the harm that this nominee can do, but the damage and harm to the Court itself. The President said the quiet part out loud. He wants this nominee rushed to the bench so she can decide the election, not the voters--so she can sit on the Supreme Court when the election goes to the courts. Well, my Republican colleagues have the majority. They may have the votes, but they don't have the American people, and they don't have history on their side. Might does not make right. They can do it because they have the votes. They are doing it because they can. Amy Coney Barrett could stonewall our questions because she could and establish a new standard--call it the ``Barrett rule''--of not answering. But the damage to the Court will be great. The Court has power because of its legitimacy. The trust and confidence of the American people are in its independence. Our Republican colleagues are whittling away and eventually devastating not only the authority of the Supreme Court, but all of our Federal courts, by politicizing and polarizing it. She would not even commit that she would recuse herself in the event an election case went to the Supreme Court. I have tremendous respect-- even reverence--for the Court, having served there as a law clerk with Justice Harry Blackmun, having argued four cases before the Court, including three with Justice Ginsburg. This imperils the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, is a grave, lasting, potentially devastating disservice to the American people. It is a dagger at the heart of the Court and of our democracy. Therefore, I will continue to oppose this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Scott has sought unanimous consent for a bill that would restrict the issuance of nonimmigrant visas to Chinese journalists and a number of other steps that, frankly, are already within the President's power to do. The bill, in many ways, is an attempt to codify authorities that the State Department already has. In that sense, there is no reason to take legislative action. If the President wants to use this power, he can. But I want to emphasize the point that we share the goals that are behind this measure. No. 1, the goal of increasing transparency around the pandemic has to be done so that the Chinese and other authorities around the world--states that suffer from the pandemic--make the facts known to this country and the world health authority. We share the goal of condemning China's absolutely despicable human rights abuses, its deplorable record of subjugating human liberty, including the Uighurs, at least 1 million of whom are being held in Chinese Government-run detention centers that the President of the United States has completely ignored. But this legislation would really do nothing to address these incredibly oppressing issues. It uses the pandemic and China's human rights abuses as a pretense for deflecting blame for the President's shameful mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis. The President's ineptitude and incompetence are widely known to the American people. We share the goals of stopping Chinese human rights abuses, of making them more honest and accurate in what they disclose, and other goals, but to this measure, I object.