Richard Blumenthal

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.

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. Madam President, in order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4894, Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act of 2020, a bill that requires Federal agencies to make budget justification materials available to the public--it is a transparency measure. It requires disclosure, and it requires the Office of Management and Budget to make certain details regarding the materials available to the public, including a list of agencies that submit budget justification. It also forces disclosure of the dates that materials are submitted to Congress and posted online and links to the materials--a basic disclosure measure. It was passed, again, overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives on September 14 of this year, without any action so far in this body. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on a unique Saturday, a day that is not normal, a day when the coronavirus is setting new records across the United States for infection--just yesterday, 85,000 new cases, which is the very highest since July-- ravaging the United States, and creating untold hardship and heartbreak. We are in the midst of a raging pandemic, but we are not considering measures to deal with the pain and grief and loss that it has created, the threat that it poses to many States across the country, providing memories for many of us in Connecticut who went through the worst of these ravages and still suffer, in Connecticut, the threat of a new wave. Economic crisis grips this country, people are out of jobs, and small businesses are failing, but we are considering a nominee who would threaten to decimate our healthcare system in the midst of a healthcare crisis as we go through this pandemic. It is a day that is sad, shocking, surreal, and it is not normal. It is not normal to rush through a nominee for the highest Court in the land--a lifetime appointment--while Americans are going to the polls in record numbers. Their voices should be heard, and the next Senate and the President should choose this next Justice. It is not normal because we are, in effect, ignoring and disregarding the duty we have to consider and pass real measures to address this pandemic and the economic crisis we face. It is not normal for real people whose lives are impacted so severely and potentially even more so in the weeks ahead and whose healthcare, reproductive freedom, protection from gun violence, workplace rights, civil rights, and civil liberties are all threatened by this nominee. We brought into the hearing room those real people from Connecticut and all around the country through the posters that we had, watching those hearings and the nonresponses that Amy Coney Barrett gave to our questions. We brought real lives and the real harm they will suffer into that hearing room. I brought Connor Curran, whose treatment has kept him alive only because his parents were able to use the Affordable Care Act for his preexisting condition; Julia Gonzalez, who is alive because she received treatment for her cancer as a result of the ACA making it affordable, protecting her as a preexisting condition survivor; Samantha, a rape survivor, who was able to get an abortion because of the protections of Roe v. Wade; Tracey, who was able to use in vitro fertilization because of reproductive freedoms that are guaranteed by Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny--Amy Coney Barrett has refused to say whether she thought Griswold was correctly decided; Ethan Song, who lost his life because of an unsafely stored firearm in a friend's home--his parents, Michael and Kristin Song, were with me, and so was Ethan; Janet Rice, whose son, Shane, then 20 years old, was killed in downtown Hartford; and, of course, the Barton family, who lost their beautiful son, Daniel, along with 19 other wonderful children, in Sandy Hook in that massacre, and sixth grade educators as well. Those lives and real people and real harms are what are at stake in this debate, and so this Chamber seems so surreal on this day, in the midst of hardship and heartbreak that would only be aggravated by the Justice who may be confirmed as early as Monday evening. She has been selected, screened, and vetted to be an activist judge who would strike down the Affordable Care Act and overturn Roe v. Wade. We know that she has passed that ``strong test''--the President's words, ``strong test''--to legislate from the Bench and accomplish through the Court what they have been unable to achieve in this body, in this Chamber, and in this Congress through the legislature. They have failed to overturn the Affordable Care Act because the majority of American people want that protection for preexisting conditions. We have stood strong on this side against those 10, 20, 40 efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Madam President, she has been vetted and screened for a position on gun violence protection that she herself has admitted in a speech she gave at Hillsdale College. It sounds kind of radical. It sounds kind of radical, as I said to her during the hearing, because it is radical. It is part of a radical, extremist agenda to deny the American people State and local laws that protect them against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, people who are dangerous and should be denied the purchase of firearms because they should be screened out through background checks and through emergency risk protection orders and safe storage laws, and repeal of PLCAA. That gives gun manufacturers near complete immunity from any responsibility. We are still in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence, and among those real people who have spoken out is a young woman, 19 years old, named Tabitha Escalante. I was on a phone call with her yesterday with other advocates. She is the judiciary advisory associate at March for Our Lives, and she is advocating, along with other groups, grassroots groups, that have created a movement--Giffords, Brady, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Newtown Action Alliance--along with March for Our Lives. They have created a movement that is prevailing, just as we prevailed and stopped the legislative branch from overturning the Affordable Care Act. The strength of this movement has caused the NRA and the extreme radical groups that are supporting it to go to the courts, as we documented in a report that we released just yesterday. I thank my colleague Sheldon Whitehouse for spearheading this effort. I have been proud to join in various efforts on captured courts. And the report ``What's at Stake: Gun Safety'' was the reason that Tabitha and I and others joined that call yesterday: ``How a Corrupted Organization Has Radically Transformed the Second Amendment.'' It shows how the NRA has been at the tip of the spear, working for special interests, the gun lobby--dark money channeled to put on the court judges, at every level, who will stop commonsense measures on protecting people against gun violence. Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett is only the most recent of them who have been screened and vetted to carry forward that agenda. These interlocking groups--the firearms industry, retailers, and private organizations like American Encore, American Future Fund, American Action Network, Judicial Crisis Network--have spearheaded this effort, and the NRA has been their tool and instrument, and judges in the Federal courts have been the result. The fact of the matter is that they are turning to the legislatures because of the strength of this grassroots movement--not its weakness-- and their efforts to repeal the ACA have failed. So have their efforts to block those measures in State legislatures and local governments. In fact, gun violence prevention was on the ballot in 2018, and gun violence prevention won. That is the reason that the House of Representatives passed a universal background check measure and other steps that are so important and should be done here. In the past 10 years, in fact, this scourge and epidemic of gun violence has continued with more than 236 mass shootings in this country. Those mass shootings have taken 1,300 lives, including those innocent children and educators at Sandy Hook. In the past 10 years, gun violence has taken more than 350,000 lives--in rural communities, urban communities, and every community across the United States. Gun violence is an insidious public health menace, a public health epidemic that affects every community. Amid this public health epidemic, Republicans have vetted and screened this nominee to take Justice Ginsburg's place on the Supreme Court because of her extreme views, as she articulated in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr. She showed an alarming willingness to stretch the founding-era history to support her extreme and expansive view of the Second Amendment. Her views are not only out of the mainstream; they are out of the position articulated by Justice Scalia, her mentor. But the fact of the matter is that the threat to these gun violence prevention measures is real and urgent. Cases are literally one step away--remember, one step away--from the Supreme Court. There are three cases challenging restrictions on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, two of them from California that are about to be petitioned for a review of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. Two cases challenging limits on open carry and three cases challenging background check and licensing requirements are one step away from the Supreme Court, possibly this term, when Amy Coney Barrett would take her seat. With her nomination, every single commonsense violence prevention measure at every level of government is in great peril. The public safety and health stakes of her nomination could not be greater. As Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' ``Nothing less than everything is at stake''--and not just now when these cases are one step away, but for decades to come. Tabitha's generation may have children, even grandchildren, who will see Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court Bench, if she is confirmed, and district court and appellate court judges whom we have confirmed through this effort to reshape the courts in the image of the far right, of what used to be the Republican Party--one step away from this disaster. Likewise, on the issue of reproductive freedom, Judge Barrett was also vetted and screened. At the hearing, she refused to say-- absolutely refused to say--whether Roe was correctly decided. As you know, Roe protects a woman's right to choose after being raped, as Samantha was. We presented her story. It is constitutional to make in vitro fertilization a crime if Roe is overturned. It is constitutional to make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions. She refused to answer that question as well. But, in a way, she didn't really need to answer those questions because we know where she stands. She described Roe's legacy as barbaric in a letter and ad that she aligned herself with. She has called, in effect, through organizations with which she was aligned, for the unborn ``to be protected in law.'' She aligned herself with a group on legal positions--I am not talking about moral beliefs-- pushing the most extreme legal views on reproductive care, which include criminalizing IVF, criminalizing doctors, ending legalized abortion in this country. Her extreme views on reproductive freedoms once were disqualifying, but it is the reason why Donald Trump chose her in the first place--his strong test on that issue. Right now, there are 17 abortion-related cases that are one step away from the Supreme Court. There are challenges to bans on abortion as early as 6 weeks into pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. There are 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. They are reason-based bans that merely exist as a pretext--and I say ``reason-based ban''--for interrogating and intimidating women who seek an abortion. They are redtape laws that require abortion providers to jump through hoops that serve no medical purpose but merely exist to burden them and make necessary abortion services harder and harder to obtain--and numerous other abortion laws designed to limit access-- strictly to limit access in the name of healthcare, particularly for poor, rural, and immigrant women who simply cannot afford to make trips to clinics hundreds of miles away. They are laws that impede racial justice, human justice. Access to reproductive care is already hanging by a thread across the country. Judge Barrett's nomination imperils what access remains. Those cases are just one step away--one step away--from decisions by the Court that Judge Barrett would join. So there is a great deal of our fundamental rights at stake here. As Tabitha said, ``Nothing less than everything is at stake.'' These cases that are one step away from decision are only 17 cases involving reproductive freedom, 14 cases involving gun violence prevention, and there are numerous others involving workplace safety. The Affordable Care Act will be argued a week after the election, when she would sit on the Court. Her hostility to the Affordable Care Act is well documented by now in her criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for his vote to uphold the act, saying he had to stretch the meaning of it to keep it alive, her saying in King v. Burwell, when she spoke about that case, that the dissent had the better of the argument. These are real rights for real people that would be lost. Instead of imperiling healthcare and other rights that should be enjoyed by the American people, we should be enacting measures that are before us right now that have been passed by the House of Representatives, by bipartisan majorities, that would actually address the needs and challenges of the American people during this extraordinary time in our history. They are before us right now. There is no need to write them anew. There is no need to invent the words or the purposes for these acts. In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act--bipartisan legislation to close the Charleston loophole, extending the initial background check review period from 3 to 10 days, and eliminating that loophole for gun purchases which enabled the Charleston shooter to get his weapon and murder people in the basement of a church and others around the country to endanger and kill innocent Americans, embodying the principle of ``no check, no sale,'' that must be the rule--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as more important as that health for veterans is, equally so is assistance for our election system. We are going through an election right now. Even as we consider this nominee, tens of millions of Americans are voting. The threat to our election security is well-known. We face not only foreign interference but also domestic threats, as has been documented. I have been through those absolutely chilling briefings in a classified setting; we are sworn to secrecy. But the malign foreign interference makes 2016, in my impression, look like child's play from Russia, Iran, the Chinese. In order to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2722, Securing American Federal Elections Act, a bill that would, in fact, make critical investments to upgrade our voting systems to protect against foreign interference in our elections and democracy by requiring all voting systems to produce a verifiable paper ballot and by authorizing funding for States to bolster election security--what could be more urgent and important at this moment in our history? It was passed by the House of Representatives on June 27, 2019-- again, more than a year ago. No action here. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in order to proceed to the consideration of the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act--because millions of women are still at risk as a consequence of this loophole in our present laws that enables dangerous, estranged spouses or partners to have access to weapons during the most perilous time in a domestic dispute right after separation, because that loophole endangers innocent women because it provides access to weapons to those dangerous people--I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here today on probably one of the most serious national security issues that we will confront. I say that as a member of the Armed Services Committee, having received a variety of classified briefings on threats to this country. Some of them regarding ongoing foreign interference in our election are truly chilling. But the threat to our national security from White supremacists, now operating so openly that the Director of the FBI has said they are one of the paramount threats and an ongoing security threat to our Nation, demands that there should be action now. The bill that my colleague Senator Durbin is offering passed unanimously by the House of Representatives within recent days. Let me repeat. It passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. It reflects the real and urgent danger of this threat. The President has refused to denounce White supremacists. The President has told one of the most prominent of those groups to stand by. That failure--an abject failure on the part of the Commander in Chief--to respond to an ongoing security threat demands this action now. We must stand up for the integrity of our elections, the security of our Nation, and the fundamental freedoms that we prize as American people. We will not allow this cancer to metastasize in this country and thwart the will of Americans who are going to the polls, in effect, right now. The ballots are being cast. The threat to our electoral will is ongoing. I am proud to join my colleagues who are here on the floor who represent an ideological spectrum, as did the House of Representatives in unanimously approving this bill. The paramount threat to our Nation and the integrity of our elections is White supremacy, violent extremism, and nationalism that potentially jeopardize the very pillars of our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4779 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this bill, H.R. 4779, ``To extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006,'' would reauthorize the U.S. SAFE WEB Act, which is an important tool for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and take action against the scams, robocalls, and fraud that may span international borders. It would save consumers the hardship and heartbreak, financial pain, and emotional travail of fraud, scams, and robocalls that may have international implications and impacts. The SAFE WEB Act has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis over many years. I am pleased to cooperate and collaborate with Senator Moran of Kansas, who is a great partner in consumer protection and this effort and is the chairman of the subcommittee on which I am the ranking member. We all know that fraud spawned by foreign criminal organizations, as well as domestic ones, has caused significant harm to consumers here. Therefore, this measure will provide the tools that are essential to the FTC in protecting consumers and in enforcing the law. I know of no further debate on the bill.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 46, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am delighted and honored to follow my great colleague from neighboring Rhode Island after that feisty, fighting speech, which also captures the spirit of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was deeply concerned about the corrupting impact of money on our political system. She was a longstanding critic of Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that opened the way to that dark money that has so corrupted our system. She was a believer in closing the gaps and loopholes because she was smart enough and curious enough to learn what the real facts were, as opposed to her colleagues on the Supreme Court who relied on the stereotypes of the political system that were outdated even when Citizens United was adopted. We live in a democracy that is threatened by exactly that dark money in every sphere of the public square and public office, never more than in our judicial system because it is even less visible and more easily disguised. In part, the reason is that people pay less attention to it. Another reason may be that the amounts of money by comparison seem smaller. The amounts of hundreds of millions of dollars seems small compared to the billions involved in legislative or Executive races. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew that the power of the dollar, whether it is judicial selection or legislative campaigning, can be easily corrupted on a system that lacks limits. So I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for reminding us about part of the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which was to stand for principles and people--the constitutional principles that animated her whole life and gave breath to her matchless advocacy, the sense of righteousness that could capture attention in a courtroom. Even though it seemed to be surrounded by technical legal language, she made that language accessible to everyday Americans. And she chose her plaintiffs wisely. When she was arguing a case or mounting against gender discrimination, she chose a male plaintiff who was denied Social Security simply because his wife, a woman, was the one in the military. And she knew the power of hard work. Her work ethic was second to none, but her commitment to her family and most especially to her husband Marty--also a brilliant lawyer, a wonderful, warm human being-- was legendary. I was really privileged and honored to know Justice Ginsburg casually, informally. I knew her warmth, her compassion and caring, sometimes to her law clerks or other friends. I was also privileged to argue three cases before her on the U.S. Supreme Court. I argued four as attorney general of Connecticut, and I can tell you that I feared nobody more on that Court because her incisive, piercing, penetrating questions cut to the core of the issues. Sometimes they actually could rescue an arguer from a rabbit hole that some other Justice drew the plaintiff or defendant, appellant or appellee down because she would go to the heart of what the case really concerned. She was straight to the point. And that is why, straight to the point now, we need to carry on the fight on so many of those principles. Yes, she was an icon and a giant. She broke barriers from the classroom to the courtroom. She demonstrated courage and conviction in her career that were unexcelled, but she stood for principle, and that is ultimately her legacy. Maybe it is no coincidence--a sad and tragic coincidence that this Nation has just passed the 200,000 mark of Americans who have died from COVID-19. That number is due to the administration's callous indifference to science, its cruel disregard for human life. Donald Trump's self-absorption has led to countless lies about the dangers of this pandemic--the latest and most outrageous being that it has affected nobody. Well, it has affected everyone in this Chamber. Think about it for a moment. Every one of us knows someone, has worked with someone, has a loved one or a friend who has been affected. A friend of mine whose children grew up playing with mine passed away 5 days from getting the virus. Yet, at this moment when we are threatened with a continuing, raging pandemic in this country, a persistent public health crisis greater than any in our lifetime, and an economic crisis that prevents people from putting food on their family's table, and small businesses are going under, we are going to rush through a nominee who would decimate protections for preexisting conditions--which, by the way, now includes COVID-19, because COVID-19 does great damage even to survivors' lungs and heart and brains and other organs. It is a preexisting condition, and along with other benefits in the Affordable Care Act, like the ability to stay on a parent's coverage for a young person up to 26 years old, all will be decimated because the Trump administration is in the Supreme Court in a case that will be argued on November 10 seeking to destroy it. That protection for preexisting conditions will be gone, in part because this new Justice, we know, is committed to eliminating it. How do we know? Because the President himself has said a strong test will be applied. So those groups, like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation and others who do the vetting and screening for this administration--the choice has been outsourced to them--have vetted and screened that short list, and every one of them you can bet has passed that test. The second part of that test is women's reproductive rights. Donald Trump has said another part of that strong test will be overturning Roe v. Wade. Now, I was a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun in the 1974- 1975 term right after Roe was decided. So I have lived with the efforts to overturn Roe. I have fought against those efforts. I have seen the campaigns in the State legislatures, and they are even more present and threatening than ever before. The threat to Roe v. Wade is very much with us. In fact, we were concerned even after the last Supreme Court decision on reproductive rights that, in fact, Roe was in danger. Just 3 months ago, we held our breath waiting for the Supreme Court decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, the latest attack on reproductive rights, because we knew there was more than a chance that the Court could strip away those rights from women across the country. The Court on the slimmest of margins upheld Roe--the narrowest of legal readings. It was a landmark legal victory against the radical politicians who continue to attack reproductive rights notwithstanding Roe v. Wade, but those principles of Roe are now more in danger than ever before. The administration and the Republican majority, instead of dealing with this pandemic, are rushing to approve a nominee who would decimate protections for women's reproductive rights. And there will be real consequences for real people, as there are in many other rights that would be at stake and at risk--voting rights, marriage equality, gun violence protections, civil rights and civil liberties, and protection against gender discrimination, the threat to protection from preexisting conditions like cancer, substance abuse disorder, diabetes, kidney disease, Parkinson's or pregnancy, and now, for an increasing number of Americans, COVID is most striking. An example is Conner from Ridgefield, CT. I have spoken about him previously on the floor. Several years ago, Conner was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a degenerative, life-threatening disease with no cure. He was 4 years old when he was diagnosed. His parents sought treatment and learned it would cost tens of thousands of dollars each year, which they couldn't afford, but because of the protections for people from preexisting conditions, it was a life saved. Conner is in school. Conner is thriving. Conner is a fighter, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a fighter. Conner never gave up, and neither did Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Conner endured the harsh reality of physical illness and emotional trauma. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg reached out to people like Conner and offered them hope. She reached out to women and she inspired a whole new generation of women and many of us know them because they are women in our families who decided to pursue a career in law because of her example. She was small in stature, soft in voice, but she packed a powerful punch, even before she was a rock star and a pop icon, because she never gave up. She was a fighter. We cannot give up now. We must fight for a process that is fair and gives the next President and the next Senate the choice about the next Supreme Court justice. That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish. We should fight for that principle because it is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of people keeping their word. In this place, there are almost no unwritten rules. There are no written rules. There are more unwritten rules, and one of those rules is people keep their word. So we need to fight and make sure that the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is upheld, that these constitutional principles that matter in the real lives of real people are upheld, and we cannot give up. Her memory should always inspire us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Mrs. Liliane Coucke Smith, a remarkable woman who served as a nurse during World War II and turns 100 on October 3. Born in Belgium, Mrs. Smith joined the Belgian Resistance at age 20. As a wartime nurse, she entered Germany alongside the advancing Allied Forces. Her outstanding commitment to serving others continued afterward, when she worked as part of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and the International Refugee Organization to help resettle over 10 million people displaced by the Second World War, including former slave laborers and concentration camp survivors. Mrs. Smith also oversaw the establishment of six refugee camps in the American occupation zone. While working as a French-English translator in Naples, she met her beloved husband, Dudley C. Smith, a U.S. Naval officer. The two split their time between Europe and the United States, before settling permanently in Groton Long Point, CT. Her tireless dedication to helping others in even the most arduous times is a credit to her generous spirit. A deeply considerate and unfailingly driven person, Mrs. Smith sets an inspiring model for all of us through her readiness to embrace new challenges and serve those in need. Her incredible legacy will be enduring. I applaud her many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Mrs. Liliane Couke Smith on this milestone of her 100th birthday.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the Healy Foundation as it celebrates 10 years of supporting and facilitating the quality education of remarkable students across the country. The James P. and Debra Fitzgerald Healy Foundation was created in 2010 by Jim and Debra's 10 children in honor of their parents' lifelong devotion to education. The couple dedicated their lives to ensuring their children received an outstanding education. Both Jim, who passed away last year, and Debra unfailingly demonstrated the importance of a strong work ethic through their tireless efforts on behalf of their family at work and at home. Based in Naugatuck, CT, the foundation provides assistance to high- achieving college students who encounter unexpected hardships and subsequently need financial help to continue their education. This support has been essential for countless students who deserve to finish their degrees, regardless of any obstacles they have encountered. Now, as COVID-19 poses unprecedented health and financial challenges in Connecticut and across the globe, the Healy Foundation's work is more necessary than ever. It is critical that education remains equitable and accessible to everyone, and the foundation continues to uphold that mission, awarding scholarships to 11 new students this year. Committed to furthering a family legacy by bolstering bright, deserving young scholars, the Healy Foundation sets a positive example of encouraging and advancing well-earned education. I applaud their accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Healy Foundation on 10 years of helping others achieve their academic dreams.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to follow my colleagues who have spoken on the floor, particularly Senators Carper and Duckworth, and to join them today, for they are in the great tradition of this body--Bob Dole, Daniel Inouye, Tammy Duckworth, Tom Carper, and John McCain. We have known our share of heroes, and I am here to say thank you to them and to the others among us who have served. I am proud to be here as a dad of two veterans--one a combat infantry officer in the Marine Corps, another a special operator in the Navy. Both are deployed. I myself served in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. I am here to say to the other moms and dads and loved ones that Donald Trump does not speak for me; that Donald Trump does not speak for us; and that Donald Trump does not speak for America. When he called those brave heroes who laid down their lives ``suckers'' or ``losers,'' my first reaction was disbelief. Then, in an instant, it was totally to believe that he had said it because it was so much in character for Donald Trump. For him, it is all about Donald Trump. If somebody else can serve and take his place without there being sacrifice on his part, so much the better. Donald Trump does not speak for the America I know and love or for those who have given of themselves or risked their lives, like my colleagues who have spoken today. When Donald Trump talked about the heroes of Belleau Wood, he could have used a history lesson because, clearly, the marines at Belleau Wood were not suckers. In fact, the relentless tenacity of their fighting earned them a nickname from the German soldiers who were their adversaries. The Germans called them ``Teufelshunde,'' meaning ``devil dog.'' This proud moniker has stuck with them all of these years, and they use it when addressing each other--``devil dog.'' That is what they were. One of their commanding officers, Maj. Thomas Holcomb, wrote a letter to his wife 2 days into battle, which reads: The regiment has carried itself with undying glory, but the price was heavy. . . . There never was such self-sacrifice, courage, and spirit shown. In the 3 weeks of fighting, the 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade suffered a 55-percent casualty rate--55 percent. His battalion alone suffered 764 casualties out of 900 men. He became the 17th Commandant of the Marine Corps and Belleau Wood became part of Marine Corps history. That battle was one of hundreds, even thousands of battles, where soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines distinguished themselves with uncommon valor. For every Belleau Wood, there are other battles for each of those services. None of them fought like suckers or losers. The cost of war is unspeakably high, and we know that from our own work on the Armed Services Committee and on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I had just come from a hearing of the Veterans' Affairs Committee where we were discussing the problem of veteran suicide. Twenty of our heroes take their own lives every day. Yet we in this body have failed to provide effective solutions to those invisible wounds that caused those deaths. That is a national disgrace. So, to the loved ones of those who have risked and given their lives, we are here to make a point. This resolution makes that point eloquently and powerfully. Donald Trump speaks for no one in this body, as far as I know, and it is a shame that our Republican colleagues are literally absent. They are absent without leave. They are AWOL from this moment in history that calls upon them to stand up and be heard in the name of our Nation's heroes. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would be happy to listen for much longer to that kind of eloquence and enormously powerful and significant comment on the blanket shield that some of our Republican colleagues seek to provide to wrongdoers, whether they are corporate wrongdoers or others who have severely harmed innocent people. And it is not just about the rule of law that provides accountability for victims and survivors of wrongdoing, it is also an important part of the deterrent function of our legal system. Accountability and penalties for wrongdoing are essential to protecting vulnerable people in the future, and so our side will stand for keeping the courthouse doors open. Those rights that some of our Republican colleagues would destroy are essential not only to the Anglo-Saxon concept of rule of law, they are also important to vindicating right. And some of the folks who lived in nursing homes and who passed away as a result of this virus are veterans of wars. They fought for these rights. They risked their lives and sacrificed, and many were wounded, and they have now reached an age where they are in nursing homes. But one of the reasons they fought was to preserve these very rights that some of our colleagues would sacrifice so needlessly and so readily. Today, we are here not to look back and to lay blame. There will be time enough to establish a commission, as I hope there will be, a 9/11- type commission, to learn from the mistakes that were made. Obviously, we need to hold accountable other countries, including China, who may have failed to reveal the extent and magnitude of the health threat posed by this pandemic. We need to hold accountable officials in this country who may have failed to warn and who denied the severity of this pandemic. We need to look forward, and right now, in this relief package, save America from the raging pandemic that continues, a health crisis, and from the collapse of our economy, happening before our eyes, an economic crisis. And part of our package must be to provide funds for those nursing homes where those veterans live, where grandparents live, community leaders, people who have served our Nation in all kinds of capacity, raised our children, served in our religious places of worship, and been there for us. They have served and sacrificed, and we owe them places that are safe and clean and, yes, healthy--at least conforming to standards that we know are necessary to preserve them from disease. And here is the blunt truth: A disproportionate number of the deaths have occurred in these nursing homes. In Connecticut, as is the case in many other States, the pandemic has hit nursing homes especially hard. Of over 4,400 COVID-19 deaths in Connecticut so far, about 65 percent of all of them--that is 2,900--have been amongst individuals living in nursing homes. That is a searing indictment of our society. It is staggering. And so I am proud to join with my colleague, Senator Casey, others who have come to the floor, like Senator Whitehouse. I especially want to thank Senator Casey because his leadership has been so instrumental in this effort. We need now to make nursing home reform and funding part of the next package we pass here. We have all seen the signs ``Heroes Work Here'' outside nursing homes, and they are well deserved. I have visited a number of them. Most recently, the Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center in East Hartford and the Mary Wade facility in New Haven. What struck me most was, in fact, the heroism of these workers. Heroes do work there. They have put their lives on the line. They have reported for duty, despite the threats to their own well-being and the threats to their own health and safety and their families. They have been there for the people who live in those nursing homes. They deserve to be recognized and rewarded, not just in work but in money, in hazardous duty pay. The $13 per hour on top of regular wages that is part of the HEROES Act. It is known as the Heroes Fund. It should be part of what we do next as a relief package. We need to put our money where our mouth is in saying we support those essential frontline workers. Let's recognize and reward them but also retain them and make sure we recruit more of them because we need more of them. Let's put our money where our mouth is, not just for our frontline workers, not just for the hazardous duty pay, not just for the Heroes Fund but for the people they serve in the conditions and care that prevail in these nursing homes. The heroes are not only the workers, they are the residents because they are veterans, teachers, firefighters, nurses, parents and grandparents, friends, community leaders, mentors. They are the Little League coaches who are now at an age where they are not going to the baseball field. They are the firefighters and police who once stood proudly in protecting our communities and now depend on others to help them stand. We know that older Americans are more vulnerable to this insidious virus. We cannot simply surrender. We must act and we must protect those nursing home residents. Let's also be blunt about where the effects fall because these health disparities also have a racial equity component. They not only affect older people who are more vulnerable, they also affect older people in communities of color even more heavily. Those disparities are unacceptable. A New York Times analysis of nursing homes found that nearly all--97 percent--of Connecticut nursing homes where at least a quarter of the residents are Black or Latino reported a coronavirus case. So there is a gap between homes with significant minority populations and homes that do not have them. Addressing this crisis in our nursing homes means we must address the racism that accounts for those disparities and mars our Nation. We can never forget that these residents of nursing homes are more than numbers, more than statistics; they are real people. As shocking as the numbers are, they are less dramatic than what you and I have seen when we visit those nursing homes. And my guess is, everybody listening to me now, almost all Americans are touched by the deaths that have occurred there in one way or another, directly or indirectly. So I am proud to join Senator Casey in fighting for the Nursing Home COVID-19 Protection and Prevention Act. It would provide $20 billion in emergency funding specifically targeted for protecting those nursing home residents and providing the kind of personal protective equipment, training, and other kinds of resources that are necessary for making sure that the heroes, the frontline workers, have the capacity to do their jobs and the heroes who live in those nursing homes both receive the care and resources they need. I am also proud to have introduced legislation with Senator Booker, the Quality Care for Nursing Home Residents and Workers During COVID-19 Act, which would provide for additional reforms to address the egregious number of nursing home deaths in Connecticut and throughout the country. It would require weekly tests of every resident and testing for every shift for healthcare workers. It would also mandate that all healthcare workers have sufficient PPE and comprehensive safety training around COVID-19, and each facility have a full-time infection-control preventionist on staff to keep residents and workers safe. It would guarantee that sufficient staff is available to facilitate weekly virtual visits between residents and their families. The sense of isolation of many of these nursing home residents is one of the major failings of how they have been treated during this pandemic. We need to move forward without delay. There is no excuse for spending time debating this issue. We all know that these steps are necessary. There should be no politics. Nursing homes do not provide care for red or blue residents. They do not employ red or blue frontline workers. This cause should be bipartisan. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal fails to provide virtually any resources--certainly nothing like the $20 billion that we are asking. So I hope we will move forward, as reasonable, caring minds and hearts must do, and make sure we provide the resources necessary to do justice to these heroes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to follow my very distinguished colleague from Maryland after those very powerful and eloquent remarks, and I subscribe to literally every point that he has made in representing Maryland. We are joined by Senators from all over the country, Senator Reed, and Senator Cortez Masto. This issue is truly national in scope. It occurred to me as I was listening to Senator Van Hollen: We would not ask students to go through an education where they had no books, where they had no desks, where they had no writing instruments, where they had no teachers. The internet is as fundamental to education today as the basic building blocks of desks and teachers and books. They are our future. Our students are our future, and the internet is part of their present and future. I want to bring this issue home to Connecticut. I convened a roundtable--as I have done in many parts of the State--in Hartford a week or so ago with the superintendent of schools, the mayor of Hartford, and parents and community groups to talk about the digital divide--or the homework gap, as it is now known so widely and colloquially. The stories they told me about attempting to connect during this time when their students were learning remotely were absolutely heartbreaking. Students who wanted to learn and sought to participate did not have that basic opportunity because either they weren't connected or they couldn't afford it or they didn't have the computer or, in some instances, their parents couldn't connect, lacked the expertise. Many of us have been there. It is about connectivity, written broadly, but it is also about the affordability of that service; it is about the mechanical instruments, the computers, necessary to do it; it is about parents having the expertise; and it is also about the learning habits of sitting in front of a screen and absorbing knowledge in that way--not playing video games but absorbing knowledge through distance learning. In the absence of a robust and adequate governmental response, private groups and philanthropists are filling some of the gaps. I want to cite one in particular because it arose during that meeting. The Dalio Foundation--specifically, Barbara and Ray Dalio--along with the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, have provided computers to schools in the Hartford area. In fact, Barbara and Ray Dalio have provided thousands of computers to schools all around Connecticut, filling that gap through their enormous generosity. They are people of vision who know that students need this basic instrument of learning. It is about access to the building blocks of education. They are providing it, but private sources of funding and philanthropy go only so far, and that is why we are here today to talk about this really urgent issue. It is urgent for Connecticut but, literally, for every State. There should be nothing political about it. We have the wherewithal. We need the will. It is not a red State or a blue State issue. It is the United States that has to come to the rescue of American education and provide broadband connectivity. The COVID-19 pandemic has literally exposed deep inequities--and one of them is in education--in connectivity. There are inequities in housing; redlining still exists. There are inequities in healthcare, which is the reason why the burden of this pandemic has fallen disproportionately on communities of color. In Connecticut, if you are Black, you are 2\1/2\ times more likely to die of the coronavirus, but one of the most pernicious injustices are the barriers that prevent access to virtual learning and online education. Schools in communities across Connecticut and the country are grappling with this unprecedented question: When is it safe to reopen? That answer will depend on local circumstance, the opinions of scientists, public health experts' views. Listen to the epidemiologists and the scientists, not to the politicians. Undoubtedly, there will be, in some cases, virtual learning and, in others, a hybrid of virtual and physically present learning. We have to recognize that the internet is going to be essential in many, many communities in Connecticut and around the country, and some communities will choose virtual learning in order to keep their students, their teachers, and their parents safe, but the digital divide will plague it, and it will plague almost every community. We have this notion that somehow it is limited to rural areas or it is limited to some States. It is, in fact, endemic to almost every community in our Nation that some students are isolated and divided and that some of our young people experience this homework gap. As my colleague Senator Van Hollen said, one-quarter of all students nationally are at risk of losing months of education because their homes still lack adequate home internet. We take broadband for granted. We rely on it every day in this building and in many others around the country, in office buildings and in many schools; but for some parents and children, it is absent, and that is why the measures that we have suggested are so vital. As with far too many of our divisions, the weight of these inequities falls disproportionately and dangerously on communities of color. In fact, at least 30 percent of African-American students lack access to broadband, as well as 35 percent of Native Americans. We are leaving behind those students who most need the help, and in this time of national reckoning over racial justice, these barriers to education and opportunity are even more dramatic, more profound, and more lasting. We have to take the kind of significant steps now that we took after Hurricane Katrina. The FCC took sweeping action to make sure that individuals whose lives were upended by disaster were connected. Within 1 month, the FCC dedicated more than $200 million to fund connectivity efforts and aggressively expanded Lifeline and E-Rate programs. We are not even close to matching that commitment. Remember, the bold plan in that instance was from George W. Bush and from the FCC majority he appointed. This time, again, we must take bold, bipartisan action. We can help bridge this divide and close the gap. I have joined my colleagues in pushing for emergency funds for broadband access, for the Lifeline program, for E-Rate; yet, when I asked the chairman of the FCC at a most recent Commerce Committee hearing, he was unwilling to commit to the billion-dollar program that I have suggested in various proposals, along with colleagues, is a minimum that we should set forward. These proposals should be a first step toward congressional action, a kind of rubric. I was proud to introduce the Emergency Broadband Connections Act with Senator Wyden to provide families with assistance so they can afford broadband connections and to reinforce the Lifeline program. I am also proud to work with Senator Markey and others on the Emergency Education Connections Act to ensure that the FCC's E-Rate program can help all K- 12 students obtain broadband and devices. As a country, there have been so many sacrifices made by so many and so much heartbreak and hardship. This absence of broadband should not be one of those sacrifices that we impose on our children. We have the opportunity and the obligation to act now. I urge my Republican colleagues to take this stark reality and include funding to address the Homework Act within the long-overdue COVID-19 package. We need to take this obligation seriously. We need to seize this moment. It is a moment of reckoning, and we cannot fail to meet the challenge. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here with profound gratitude and pride--first of all, gratitude to Senator Moran for his leadership, his vision, his courage, and his steadfastness on a journey that had many bumps. This task was far from easy intellectually, legally, politically, and emotionally. He stayed with it, and he demonstrated the spirit of bipartisanship that I think will enable us, as partners, to achieve more but also perhaps to reflect a model that this body may take in the future, even as we go through one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Senate. I hope that the work that we have done on this bill, which affects real lives and real people who suffered such grievous harm--and I will begin where he ended and say that the heroes here are really the athletes and survivors. As extraordinary as is their performance on the field of athletic endeavor and as wonderful as is their prowess and their grace, what will last in history as their enduring legacy will be the courage and strength they showed us again and again and again. They relived one of the most deeply tragic and painful chapters of their lives. As much as they celebrated victories in gymnastics and other sports, they endured the abuse--emotional, physical, and other abuse--from coaches and trainers whom they trusted. They put their trust in people who betrayed them. It was more than just one coach--Larry Nassar. It was more than just one sport--gymnastics. It was more than just 1 year or one episode, and it was more than just one form of abuse. Larry Nassar became the face of a pattern of systemic failure and abuse, and he reflected a culture of putting medals and money above the lives of athletes, prioritizing those tangible signs of victory above the human lives that were impacted so adversely. Systemic failures were reflected in Larry Nassar's success in terrorizing these young athletes, and it affected other trainers and other coaches who similarly betrayed trust. It affected other sports: figure skating, swimming, as well as gymnastics. None were immune from the sexual, physical, or emotional abuse. Almost exactly a year ago, Senator Moran and I issued the report that he just showed on the floor of the Senate showing that this investigation into sexual abuse in gymnastics and the Olympic movement should lead to a bill. I thank not only Senator Moran for his partnership but also other colleagues, as he has mentioned: Senator Wicker, Senator Thune, Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein, as well as Senator Peters and Senator Cortez Masto. Each of them provided very important assistance in this effort. But most importantly--and I simply cannot say it enough times--the real heroes here are the athletes who shared their stories and stood steadfast in the face of betrayals from the very organizations that were supposed to protect them. These survivors were failed at every level by their doctors, by their coaches, by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and by the national governing boards of their individual sports. The gymnasts who survived Larry Nassar's abuse were also failed by Michigan State University, by the FBI, and by local police departments. Given the monumental abdication of responsibility from countless people in power, no one could have blamed them for surrendering hope that change was possible. But against those odds, they persevered, and they are the reason that we have passed this bill today. They stood with us--physically stood with us--on so many occasions, evoking their suffering and pain. I ask unanimous consent that the names of 140 of the Larry Nassar survivors be printed in the Record with my remarks so that history will forever remember their bravery and strength

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the 193 additional survivors who have chosen not to be identified publicly by name. They, too, contributed to this cause, and they, too, deserve to be recognized, as do survivors in the future who will come forward under the tools and mechanisms that we are establishing today. They should be recognized, valued, and cherished for their courage in the future, as well as the past. Over these past years, Senator Moran and I heard again and again and again that the USOPC and the NGBs have failed their athletes at every turn. Men and women in these organizations knew what was happening, and they did nothing. They already had a legal duty under the law to report what was going on. Clearly, laying out in the law what should be obvious--that you must report allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors--was not enough for them. They betrayed not only their trust to these athletes but their legal and moral responsibilities. The bill that we have passed today provides for enforcement and deterrence, and it gives Congress essential oversight tools to assure that the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and NGBs will comply with the heightened standards that this bill spells out. No one in these organizations can plausibly claim ignorance now of the duty to report these heinous crimes, and, if they try, Congress has the ability and responsibility to intervene. This bill also ensures that SafeSport, the organization tasked with investigating and adjudicating reports of athlete abuse, has the resources and independence it needs to do its vital work. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee should play no role in determining how much money the organization charged with investigating its members' worst crimes will receive each year or how that organization is run. Once this bill is signed into law, SafeSport will be independent of the resource and other powers that have prevailed in the past. The bill enacts numerous other reforms that ensure that athlete safety and well-being are prioritized in the Olympic movement. It assures that morals and athletes' interests are put first and that medals and money do not take the place of athletes and their interests. I want to finish by stressing the urgency of this task. I urge the House to follow our model here and move in a bipartisan way to enact these measures. The Tokyo Games have been delayed until next year, but it is essential that our framework go into effect as soon as possible and that athletes be given the protection they need and deserve. The urgency of this task should be shared by the House. My hope is that the survivors of these horrible abuses, who have waited years for this act, will see it happen during this session and as soon as possible. I want to say finally how grateful I am to my staff. Thank you to Anna Yu, Madeline Daly, Adam Bradlow, Subhan Cheema, Natalie Mathes, Charlotte Schwartz, Colleen Bell, and Maria McElwain. I want to join in thanking Senator Moran's staff. Our staffs worked together with the teamwork that I think can also provide a model for this body. Finally, this act is profoundly important to the future of Olympic athletes and sports generally in our country. In effect, it says that trainers and coaches, the organizations that represent them--the organizations that are supposed to care for athletes should do their jobs and keep their trust for these athletes; protect them, not betray them; put them ahead of whatever the other tangible signs of success may be, medals or money. It would depend on protective, strong enforcement and on deterrence. My hope is that we will look back on this day and say that it transformed this athletic endeavor; that it was a transformative moment; that it changed the culture, not just the rule; that it changed the way sports in the United States are played; and that it embodied the best values of competition and athletics in our great country. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his eloquence and for the power of his remarks. He speaks not only for Oregon but for America. He speaks for every one of our communities and States that ought to fear this overreach. It was, indeed, one of the main fears of our Founding Fathers that the misuse and abuse of our military and policing power--of violating fundamental rights--would encroach on our basic liberties. Now, let's be very real. Federal forces were used before to restore order in the face of violence after the Rodney King incident, after the killing of Martin Luther King in 1968, in Little Rock in 1957, in Oxford, MS, in 1962, and in going further back in our history, after the Pullman Strike and after the Detroit race riots in 1943, but this time is different. This time is fundamentally different. As my colleague has so powerfully described from the descriptions and the photographs that he has brought to the Senate floor, what we have here is not some violent encroachment by one group against another and not just some use of violence. We have peaceful protests. In fact, the purpose and effect of the use of Federal forces here has been to incite and fuel violence. It was the same purpose that Richard Nixon sought to use Federal force when protesters against the Vietnam war came to Washington. It was Richard Nixon who said that law and order was the political issue of his day, but the use of Federal forces here is not to restore order or to enforce the law. It is, instead, to incite lawbreaking and violence. What is different also is the use of unidentified, military-like forces. We have seen a growth over the past years in the form of such forces that are available to the President to use. The Customs and Border Patrol, the Department of Transportation, and other agencies have militarized Federal law enforcement agents. They have put them in camouflage, and they have given them armaments. They have taught them tactics that, in effect, turn them into military-style forces. They have become secret police when they are unidentified. They are like the little, green men in Russia who show up at demonstrations and throw people into vans to disappear them. That is what they have been doing in Oregon. So whereas before the National Guard might have been called out as a show of force to restore order, now we have a perniciously different use of military force in the name of law enforcement. I will say, as someone whose career as a U.S. attorney and then as an attorney general for 20 years was involved in law enforcement, I am ashamed and embarrassed to use, in effect, secret police in this way, supposedly in the name of law enforcement but, in reality, as a political tool. If you have any doubt about the political purposes here, just watch the latest Trump ads, which are the other side of this coin--raising fear, exhorting people to panic, and then responding on the streets in communities with this excessive use of force. Exactly what our Founding Fathers feared was this unchecked use of military power. That is why the bill that my colleague from Oregon has introduced and that I have cosponsored is so very important, because there must be a check. Accountability is vital. Identification is key. People need to know who these people of law enforcement supposedly are, and we need accountability from them. We also need accountability through the Insurrection Act. In having been joined by many of my colleagues, I have offered a bill, the CIVIL Act, that would apply these same checks on the President's power as apply when the President uses military abroad. He must be accountable to Congress. He must come to Congress and explain the purposes and the reasons for his use of military power. He should have no more leeway when he uses troops abroad than he would at home and vice versa. If he uses American troops against American citizens, he ought to be accountable no less than when he uses them abroad. The same is true of this policing power. The importance of this moment cannot be underestimated. It is a moment of reckoning for racial justice, but for justice in our entire country. I believe that we must act on both sides of the aisle. We have an obligation to assure that this power is checked, because those police forces are coming to your city and your community--to Albuquerque, to Chicago, and, potentially, to Hartford, Stamford, and New Haven, CT, without the permission or invitation of our local officials. Again, it is a fundamental difference between many past uses of political power and this one. And it may be rationalized or disguised as an effort to combat violence in the streets, but we know the purpose and intent and effect of the use of these policing forces. So whether they are the Department of Justice or Homeland Security or Department of Transportation or the Secret Service, the goal is the same--to intimidate and incite, not to restore order. The shame and disgrace to this Nation is palpable. When our allies, when people abroad look to the United States, they see us as an exception to the rule of force unchecked by the rule of law. Too often, force, not law, applies to subjugate rights. We are an exceptional nation because we believe in the rule of law, but what we are seeing right now is a corruption of the rule of law, in fact, using the disguise and misusing the name of law and order to push forward an agenda of hatred and bias and subjugation of basic rights. It is a shameful and tragic time for America. My hope is Americans will rise up, that they will object with their voices and, ultimately, with their votes. I yield the floor back to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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