Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am so honored and proud to join my colleague from Minnesota, who has been such a champion on this issue in all kinds of constitutional weather. She has been a leader for all seasons on this issue, tireless and steadfast in her advocacy. And my colleagues who are here today with us are strong allies and partners, and I am really proud and honored to join them today. The name of this act is the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act. We are in a disaster for our democracy if we do not act, if we fail to take the initiative within days, literally, to protect the ballot. You know, sometimes I think about voters in other countries who literally brave death to vote. In one or more countries their hands are marked so that they can be identified as having voted, but also, they could be identified by opponents of those rights and potentially punished for voting. Here in this country, there are no such obstacles in the way of physical harm, until now. Now we face the threat of an epidemic which can deter people from coming to the polls, but it has simply added to an ongoing threat from suppression that has existed for years and years and years in some parts of the country. We need to do everything now to protect voters. It is a shared responsibility--Federal and State. In the Federal Government, we know that this right is in peril. Look at what has happened in Wisconsin and in Georgia: the lines, the closed ballot places, the other kinds of confusion and deterrence that have been created. In Kentucky's recent primary, fewer than 200 polling places were open instead of the 3,700 usually there in a typical election year. That is unacceptable. But that State is hardly alone, and we will see that pattern repeated unless we act soon. In the last decade, 25 States--literally, 25 States--have enacted new voting restrictions, including strict photo ID requirements, cutting back on the availability of early voting, and registration restrictions. These constraints should be of paramount concern. The Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing States with long histories of voting discrimination to make it harder for voters of color to cast ballots. Coronavirus has added an additional layer of voter suppression, which will further result in mass disenfranchisement. A secure and resilient electoral process is critical to our national interest. It should be a matter of pride to all of us, and we should all be ashamed and embarrassed that a free, fair, safe, secure, and accessible process may be made impossible either by health threats or suppression threats. States should allow no-excuse, mail-in, absentee voting, expand voting periods, and improve the safety of in-person voting. The money that is necessary to assure free, fair, accessible balloting--that $3.6 billion--ought to be a matter of bipartisan acceptance Connecticut is known as the Constitution State, but Connecticut has work to do, and its State legislature will, in fact, do that work-- hopefully, this month, in July--by expanding mail-in balloting. Those kinds of changes in State law may be necessary across the country, but here we can make it possible, on our watch, to assure that obstacles to fair and full voting are removed. We simply can't continue to be unprepared. The fight for voting rights remains more critical than ever before. It is a matter of integrity and credibility for our democracy. As we look around the world, we should be leading by example, not by suppression and obstacle. We need solutions now to protect Americans' health, but the health of our democracy depends on this measure. I am proud to join my colleagues. I urge that we have bipartisan support for it and that it be expanded. I yield the floor to my colleague from Delaware, who has been, also, a great advocate in this cause.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleagues Senators Shaheen and Hassan from New Hampshire and Senator Whitehouse of my neighboring State of Rhode Island--great advocates and steadfast champions of our elderly, our nursing home and assisted living facilities, and, most important, my wonderful friend and colleague, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, who has been such a tremendous champion as the ranking member on the Aging Committee, where I am also privileged to serve. I have been reading about the 1918, 1919 pandemic which killed Americans and people all around the world with such terror and such relentless cruelty, and it hit particularly hard young people in the prime of their life, in their twenties and early thirties, most especially members of the military who were bunked together and confined on bases or on troop ships on their way to the war. Almost as many American troops died of disease during World War I as they did of wounds they suffered in combat. Today's pandemic is different. It has hit particularly hard our elderly, and they too have been struck with vicious cruelty because, in many instances, they are confined to facilities or living spaces where they are together, and the disease is transmitted so efficiently. Today, we have less excuse than the public officials a century ago. They had no idea what this organism looked like, how it lived, what it did, or how it was transmitted. We know. We have pictures of it. They are on the news every night, and we know that transmission is accelerated and exacerbated when people live together in close confinement without the kind of staff and protective gear and treatment and therapeutics and preventive measures that, hopefully, we will develop through research that is ongoing right now. They had no cure, and they had no prevention back then. We are working to develop it now, but we know, in the meantime, steps can be taken to protect our elderly, especially our elderly who live in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. We have no excuse, none, for the death rates we have seen in those facilities. In fact, at the height of this pandemic in Connecticut, 70 percent--literally, 7 in 10--deaths were among people in nursing homes and other senior care facilities. That percentage was among the highest in the country. It wasn't the 80 percent of New Hampshire, but 70-plus percent was among the highest. This death rate nationally is a national scandal and disgrace because we knew enough, and we certainly now know enough to prevent these kinds of deaths. Now, the numbers of COVID cases and deaths have slowed down in Connecticut as a result of social distancing and mandatory mask wearing, but the pain is still felt in nursing homes. Just last week, another 20 nursing home residents died, and in that same week, 64 nursing home staff contracted COVID-19. In fact, although we talk about the residents of nursing homes, the staff--the doctors, the nurses, the clinicians, the caregivers, the maintenance workers--were also among the most heavily impacted. Working in a nursing home is not a picnic. Working in a nursing home is tough physically and emotionally, and it was made all the more so by this pandemic. That is why I am supporting, avidly, the Heroes Fund, part of the Heroes Act, which would provide hazardous duty pay to those frontline workers who have been on the job reporting for duty despite the risk and the extraordinary emotional and physical toll it has taken on them and their families. That hazardous duty pay is a reward. It is a recognition for what they have done in service to not only their patients and clients but also to society in Connecticut as a whole. They deserve it, and we need to provide it to retain them and to recruit others, the same as we do for police and fire and first responders--others who work in grocery stores, supermarkets, delivering, postal workers--the unsung heroes of this pandemic. None has been more courageous and perhaps less appreciated in the way they deserve than those strong and courageous workers in nursing homes in Connecticut and elsewhere. I know, from having talked to them--many of them in Zoom calls, personally, in meetings, on the telephone--they grieved for those losses. They genuinely felt the pain and suffering that they saw. The losses the families suffered were their losses, too, and when their facilities endured a higher than expected rate of fatality, they grieved along with brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends, family, and others. They experienced the kind of physical isolation and sometimes emotional isolation that those patients endured when they were separated from their loved ones, cut off from human contact. So we need to focus--we have an obligation to do so--on our nursing homes because of the fatalities and the other suffering that is endured there. We need to learn from some of the best practices that were finally put into place in Connecticut, such as expert strike teams that focused on testing, the larger numbers of personal protective equipment--masks, gowns, other kinds of equipment necessary to protect the staff as well as the residents--and sometimes cohorting, which has worked in some circumstances, so that the infected are separated from others. I am proud to support Senator Casey in fighting for the Nursing Home COVID-19 Protection and Prevention Act, which would provide $20 billion in emergency funding specifically targeted toward protecting nursing home residents as well as individuals in intermediate-care facilities and others in psychiatric hospitals. This legislation is not a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity. If you care about those extraordinarily vulnerable individuals who cannot care for themselves--that is why they are in these facilities-- then we must pass this legislation. If we have any measure of self- respect as well as regard for those brave individuals who work there and the loved individuals who live there, we must take this step. I have also introduced legislation with Senator Booker--the Quality Care for Nursing Home Residents and Workers During COVID-19 Act--that would immediately address the egregious number of nursing home deaths happening in Connecticut and throughout the country by implementing much needed reforms. These reforms and practices are part of the work that must be done, especially for the families of the over 2,500 nursing home residents who lost their lives. I am pleased that Connecticut has committed itself to a full probe of how COVID-19 impacted nursing homes, how it killed, but Connecticut should not need to go it alone. No State should need to go it alone. This kind of measure puts the full weight of the Federal Government in funding and best practices and reforms behind States like Connecticut that want to do better and feel we must do better. We all bear that responsibility. It is common to all of us. It is on us, and these two measures are a way to fulfill that responsibility. We should not leave the Capitol for a 2-week recess while nursing home residents remain vulnerable. We should not abdicate our responsibility while those residents in the care of assisted living facilities remain susceptible, and they are continuing to be susceptible. We need greater preparedness in every way, most especially where we know the most vulnerable are right now, and that is our nursing homes and assisted living facilities. As this administration continues to attack the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court of the United States and elsewhere in abhorrent defiance of the need for more healthcare, not less, in the midst of a pandemic, we can send a message to the country that we will stand strong for better healthcare. We will protect senior citizens in nursing homes. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am honored to follow the Senator from Nevada who knows so well the importance of public service and public servants. One of the reasons why we are here is because many of those public servants doing such great service for our communities will be laid off or furloughed to the detriment of their communities and their States. As the Senator knows in Nevada, and I know in Connecticut, what is necessary for them to continue their work is, in fact, the Heroes Act. We have been talking a lot about the frontline workers, the heroes, like first responders, police, firefighters, the doctors and nurses, the grocery checkers, the delivery people far and wide, high and low. They have been doing great work. Many of them are going to be directly affected if we fail to pass the Heroes Act. Many of them and their work will be for naught if we fail to support the Heroes Act and enable State and local government to continue to employ them and support them. I have been traveling across the State of Connecticut over these last 2\1/2\ months. What I have found is unparalleled hardship and heartbreak. Yesterday, I visited a small business, a restaurant in Norwalk called No Leftovers, offering Caribbean food. It has been in business for 3 years. Its owner has received no Paycheck Protection Program funding, and it is hanging by a thread. That story is repeated again and again and again. One of the reasons he is so fearful about the future is that zoning in Norwalk has been delayed because people are not at work. What happens to Norwalk and its Zoning and Land Use Department if there is no money to pay for it? That story writ large is about the future of America and the American dream that No Leftovers and small businesses like his exemplify, and it is a Black-owned business. The tragedy of the Black-owned businesses going under is one of the unwritten stories of this pandemic. Forty-one percent have failed during this pandemic-- often through no fault of those business owners--because they face this economic crisis, and they face the loss of service if State and local governments, in effect, have to cut their workforces and their services to those businesses. This is not only Black-owned but businesses owned across the board by all Americans and employing Americans. Small businesses, as we know, no matter who owns them, are the major job creators today in the United States. There are linkages here, as I have been hearing. I go around the State talking to those business owners--not only the big contractors, the defense providers, like Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney, but their supply chain. Those small- and medium-sized businesses will be disastrously affected by a failure to keep faith, move forward, and pass the Heroes Act. Those frontline workers deserve the Heroes Fund--hazardous duty pay up to $25,000, retroactive to the beginning of this national emergency. Again, recognizing public service, not only rewarding it but also retaining and recruiting more of them. State and local governments depend on those frontline workers whom we talk so glowingly about. Now is our chance to put the money where our mouth is, and we have not only a moral obligation, we have an economic duty and a patriotic duty as we go into July 4. Finally, let me just say--and I said it last week--that the U.S. Senate is about to leave town for 2 weeks, wanting America to believe that we have done our job. The fact is, we will have failed to have done our job unless we will have acted on the Heroes Act. Failing to act on the Heroes Act is an abrogation of our duty. We cannot go back and talk about the spirit of the Fourth of July and about the resilience and resoluteness of the Founders if we cannot be sufficiently determined to do our job here. That aid to State and local governments is not a matter of convenience or luxury; it is a necessity for us to finance the public health departments that conduct testing and contact tracing as well as those economic development departments and land use departments, health, firefighting, policing, teaching. These are the core functions of our government, and there will be layoffs--massive layoffs--across the country if we fail to do our job. I have been reading a book called ``The Great Influenza'' by John Barry. One of the lessons of that pandemic is that the failure to tell the truth is itself a failure that can lead to disaster. It can spawn fear and even terror. It can lead to complacency and inaction. The failure to tell the truth is all too common these days with regard to this pandemic. The numbers tell, with much greater accuracy, the story of this pandemic than what we have been hearing from the White House. Yet now we have an obligation to make sure the truth is told, and that means facing the obligation to act. The way we can act is on the Heroes Act. The way we can tell the truth is to squarely lay before the American people what the challenges are and what the costs will be if we fail to act. The other great lesson of that book is of the failure by local health departments and by local leaders to command the resources and devote them to fighting the pandemic itself. This contributed to it. We need to learn the lessons of history. They are sometimes so simple and powerful that we look the other way. Before we leave town, let us look squarely at the Heroes Act and do the right thing--pass it and make sure that America moves forward to conquer this public health emergency and economic crisis that has been made all the more severe by the unfinished business of this country in dealing with racism and discrimination. We have that opportunity. The July 4 holiday should not be a time off; it ought to be a time on for us to do the right thing, and it is on us. I yield the floor

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the committee is closely monitoring upgrades to F-35 software and other capabilities under the continuous capability development and delivery C2D2 stragetic modernization framework. The principal purpose for C2D2 is the development of Block 4 software and weapons system upgrades, which also includes other elements like Technical Refresh-3 and dual weapons capability, to ensure the F-35 maintains it operational advantage. However, the committee is concerned the planned F-35 air vehicle capability growth, associated with Block 4 weapons systems enhancements, will exceed the established thrust, power, and thermal management capabilities of the current F135 propulsion system beginning with the delivery of Lot 18 aircraft. Such a capability gap between the current F135 performance and future requirements could significantly constrain the operational capabilities of the F-35 weapons system. The committee is aware of a recent agreement to conduct a 6-month propulsion study and operational assessment to determine the specific F135 propulsion growth requirement that would address this capability gap. The study to determine the future propulsion requirement is expected to conclude in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021. The committee strongly endorses this approach and encourages the Department of Defense to submit recommendations to Congress following completion of the study. Further, the committee strongly supports a long-term focus on propulsion improvements over fiscal years 2021-2025 necessary to support engineering and manufacturing development for upgraded engine production supporting the planned delivery of Lot 18 aircraft. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense and Joint Program Office to establish an F135 Propulsion Growth Program that ensures propulsion growth requirements are aligned with and support weapons systems upgrade requirements. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include funding in the fiscal year 2022 budget request to support the F135 Propulsion Growth Program across the Future Years Defense Plan.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have been doing a lot of listening over these past months. Like Americans across this country, I have been doing a lot of listening to the dedicated and passionate people, our fellow Americans, who have marched in the streets and our communities with passion, but peacefully, in their cries for justice. In fact, I have marched with them in 15 or more demonstrations in Connecticut--big cities, Hartford, Stamford, New Haven; smaller cities, Lyme, Marlborough, Trumbull, Windsor, Glastonbury; and then places like Torrington, East Hartford, Danbury--all across the State, proud to be with people from Connecticut, led by our young people, as are many great social movements and revolutions of our time led by young people who have the audacity and hope to cast aside the normal and say: There is no going back. There is no rolling back to the old normal. What we need is action That has been the common theme in these cries for justice--the demands for accountability, the pleas for an end to racism, generations of racial justice, and racism with historic roots in so many of our institutions, including some of our law enforcement. But they are demanding more than just our listening and more than just our speaking. They are demanding action--real action, real reform, real change with real teeth and new laws. The time has come for us in this Congress to heed those calls. We need legislation that honors the memories and the lives of those who have lost their futures: Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Sandra Bland, and countless others added to George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and Rayshard Brooks. Some are in the headlines. Some of their deaths have been caught on video--but so many thousands never on video, never publicized, and never known to the public. In their memory, but also for the sake of our future, we should move forward with action. We are here today because, simply and starkly, the Republican JUSTICE Act fails to meet this moment. It fails that test. I have been listening not only to the folks in the streets and our communities but also to my great colleagues Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. Clearly, from what we have heard from them and the work they have done, along with many of us, to fashion the Justice in Policing Act, the Republican proposal is a shadow of what it should be-- unacceptably weak, nibbling around the edges of this problem, without any guarantee that Black Americans will not again ask us whether their lives are worth $20. The JUSTICE Act fails completely to address the harmful policing practices that we know have cost lives. The deaths of Breonna Taylor and Eric Garner are not anomalies. Choke holds and no-knock warrants are known to be costly. They have cost Black lives. The JUSTICE Act ignores this truth. Americans are not marching in the streets so we might ``study'' these phenomena. They are not begging us to design programs ``disincentivizing'' practices that are literally killing Americans-- Black Americans--Americans who deserve justice. The notion we could respond to this moment with a commission or several commissions and incentives to do better is insulting to all of us. We need legislation that explicitly bans the use of choke holds and no-knock warrants in drug cases so we can credibly tell the American people we hear you, and we will act. Communities of color must be able to trust that law enforcement will be held accountable if they commit criminal acts. The Republican JUSTICE Act completely lacks any mechanism to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for their misconduct. It makes no change to section 242 of title XVIII, which makes it a Federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights. This criminal statute can be used to hold officers accountable for the use of excessive force--something we all know led to the deaths of far too many Black and Brown people in this country. I believe that criminal liability is a critical tool in the law enforcement accountability toolbox but only if it is used. Right now, civil liability is available, albeit an inadequate remedy so long as a qualified immunity is not reformed. But very often, in 99 percent of the cases, any civil remedy involves indemnification by the municipal government. Indemnification means the individual officer feels no financial penalty and very often little other penalty. Criminal liability involving potentially prison concentrates the mind. It is a strong deterrent. As I said in a hearing that we conducted in the Judiciary Committee, we need change to make it a real remedy and a real deterrent. When Officer Chauvin held his knee on George Floyd's neck for 8 minutes 46 seconds, he looked straight into those cameras with impunity because he assumed he would never be prosecuted criminally. He never imagined that justice would find him, and justice still must find him in a criminal court. He ignored the pleas of bystanders telling him to stop. He ignored George Floyd, as he begged for his life. These kinds of actions by an individual in a system that has shielded people like them simply encourage more of them. Section 242's change in the standard of criminal intent will provide real criminal culpability for police who deserve it. The Republican JUSTICE Act relies mainly on data collection, which may be used to inform policy proposal at some later time. It pushes down the road any real action. We already have statistics. Since 2015, there have been 5,000 fatal shootings by on-duty police officers. In the past year, over 1,000 people have been shot and killed by police. Black Americans account for less than 13 percent of the country's population, but they are killed at more than twice the rate of White Americans. Data is important. In fact, I was the lead sponsor of the Death in Custody Reporting Act, passed about 6 years ago. Regrettably and inexcusably, that measure has never been enforced so that it has never really been effective. We must make it so. But it shows the limitation of any data collection system. The fact is, systematic racism law enforcement has gone unchecked for too long. The time for accountability is now. It is long overdue. Let me say, finally, for most of my professional career, I have helped to enforce the laws. I have been a trial lawyer, yes, but I also served as the chief Federal prosecutor--the U.S. attorney--for Connecticut for 4\1/2\ years and then as attorney general of my State for 20. I have seen some of the best in law enforcement and some of the worst. We need a higher standard, not just in words or paper but in fact. We need a standard that is worthy of the people who have marched and cried for justice throughout American history, who have tried to dream of a better system and a fairer country. There is so much work for us to do. At this moment, we must seize the opportunity, a point of consensus, to come together and act in a way that is worthy of this great Nation. We have proposed exactly that action in the Justice in Policing Act. We should be moving forward on it now, not on a bill that is truly unacceptably weak and inadequate and unworthy of this historic moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the nomination of Justin Walker to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but let's start with Conner Curran. Justin Walker actually has met Conner--not really, but I introduced him to Conner through this picture during his nomination hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Several years ago, Conner was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a degenerative life-threatening disease which presently has no cure. Most people who have the disease die by their mid-20s. Conner was diagnosed at age 5. I met Conner a couple of years later. There is probably nobody who has inspired me more with his courage, his energy, his strength of character than Conner Curran and his wonderful family who live in Ridgefield, CT. His parents were told, at the time of his diagnosis, that this beautiful young sweet child would slowly lose his ability to run, lift his arms, hug them, and he would need complex care for the rest of his life. He would need multiple specialists that would cost tens of thousands of dollars each year, which they could not afford. But they made it possible or, actually, it was made possible by the Affordable Care Act. Now, because of that act, he cannot be denied care. He is alive. He is not giving up. He is fighting for both a cure and the Affordable Care Act. He is not the only one. There are 1.5 million people in the State of Connecticut alone and millions more around the country living with preexisting conditions. There are 182,000 children among those 1.5 million people, just like Conner, living with the potentially debilitating and even deadly effects of preexisting conditions, and there are millions more around the country. For them, for Americans, the Affordable Care Act is more than a law; it is a lifeline. Each of them can get the affordable care they need because of that lifeline. Right now, we all know that healthcare has never been more important. We talk about it every day. We are full of rhetoric on the floor of this Chamber about the healthcare crisis, which has precipitated an economic crisis and about the disproportionate effects of that healthcare crisis--a pandemic of an insidious, deadly disease on poor and, often, communities of color. At the time of this crisis, the President of the United States has nominated Justin Walker to be an appellate judge, a present district court judge who has said that his main mission is to destroy the Affordable Care Act. Of course, that is perfectly consistent with the Trump administration's view of the Affordable Care Act. It is litigating in court right now against the Affordable Care Act. President Trump has opposed it consistently, constantly, vociferously. Justin Walker, at his investiture as a district court judge, pledged that he would continue to make destruction of the Affordable Care Act a priority. During his investiture remarks, attended by his mentor, the majority leader, Senator McConnell, he said: [A]lthough my legal principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed. . . . [A]lthough we are winning, we have not won. . . . [A]lthough we celebrate today, we cannot take for granted tomorrow or we will lose our courts and our country. That wasn't some law review article that Justin Walker wrote back when he was going to school. It wasn't some speech that he made to a local chamber of commerce. It was literally at his swearing in as a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Kentucky just months ago, not even a year. He said: ``[A]lthough my legal principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed.'' If there were a new meaning to give to the word ``irony,'' this nomination would exemplify it. During a public health crisis, the President of the United States has nominated someone who wants to take healthcare away from people and deny them health insurance. The reason Conner is here is really to show that these big principles have real-life consequences. Judges have impact. The law matters. Words matter. [A]lthough my legal principles are prevalent, they have not yet prevailed. . . . [A]lthough we are winning, we have not yet won. What does a Justin Walker win look like? For those millions of Americans suffering from preexisting conditions, it means denial of healthcare. And for Conner Curran and his family, it could, in effect, be a death sentence. That may sound like an exaggeration, but it isn't to those millions of Americans who have preexisting conditions. It isn't to Conner and to his family. They live with the real-life consequences of laws that we make and decisions by the courts that may strike down those laws, like the Affordable Care Act. The irony here is more than abstract. The outrage here should be real. Justin Walker, very simply, is unfit to be a judge on the Court of Appeals. He was judged ``unqualified'' to be a district court judge. I ask my colleagues to reject his nomination. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask that the question be called on the vote.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleagues Senator Cardin, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Schumer for their leadership on this issue of seeking better transparency and oversight with regard to a program that involves now almost a trillion taxpayer dollars. I also join Senator Schumer in the sentiment that our colleague from Florida has been both sincere and bipartisan in his efforts on this program. The fact is that this program, the Paycheck Protection Program, cries out for stronger oversight as does the entire CARES package. We will now be spending an authorized $3 trillion--the Federal budget and then half again--with little or no oversight. Yet we know that this program meets a need among small businesses that is absolutely critical. I have traveled my State via video conference and have had telephone calls and communications of all kinds with small businesses around Connecticut, and I have seen and heard firsthand how they are hanging by a thread-- struggling to keep their doors open and stay alive. This program gives them a lifeline. It has, in fact, provided many powerful success stories, as my colleague Senator Shaheen said, but it has also produced some horror stories about big customers of big banks who have received favored treatment to the detriment of the smaller businesses that were supposed to have been the beneficiaries of this program. We need to make sure that these funds go to the small businesses, which really need it, and we should make sure that this program is adequately and effectively administered. We need to make sure there is transparency and disclosure about who is receiving these loans that can be converted and forgiven so that they can become grants and so that the real needs of those businesses can be met and their employees can continue to be employed. Those kinds of imperatives we must assure. We know that the ripple effect of the closures of these businesses is tragic and traumatic. That is why we need to continue this program, but we need to do so with the oversight that assures that its purposes are met. For the businesses that have told me, for example, that they need more flexibility, those needs need to be met. Numbers of them have indicated they would like to extend the time provided to them to hire back their employees past the time in which the State is likely to allow them to open. They also need more funding for fixed costs. Basically, they need some flexibility because every business is different, and the oversight in this bill will help to alert the SBA and Congress to those needs. Finally, the oversight needed here is simply one example of the accountability that should be imposed on the entire CARES Act. Real accountability demands a watchdog, not a lap dog, in order to stop the waste, fraud, and favoritism that seems all too common in this administration. That is why I have been working with my colleagues-- most prominently, Senator Warren--in the strengthening of the oversight of programs created by the CARES Act during this pandemic. We need to make sure there is effective enforcement and a hammer, which will be essential to deter wrongdoing, preserve resources, and conserve credibility. Strong scrutiny is required to make sure that aid reaches the right hands. I know that all of us believe, for example, that conflicts of interest should be barred; that retaliation against whistleblowers should be prevented; and that the firing of the inspector general without just cause should be stopped, which means keeping an eye on these programs--not just a wandering eye but one of focused, strict scrutiny that will assure transparency and make sure this program serves the needs it was intended to. The only people who feel threatened by that kind of oversight are the ones who are trying to game the system or hide something. The rest of us, which means the workers, their families, and small businesses, demand oversight. This bill is a good way to begin. It is a start, not a finish, to the task of the oversight ahead of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my friend and colleague and fellow Marine from Alaska. We are separated by about as far a geographical distance as there can be in this Nation: Alaska and Connecticut. I am also pleased to be followed by a colleague from Colorado who is almost smack in the middle. And we are united despite our geographic differences and despite our political differences. I want to assure the American people that the contention they have seen on this floor in no way reflects the reality of our hope and desire to move quickly and to move big to address this unprecedented, historic crisis--a healthcare emergency and an economic emergency in this country. The reality is that right now, less than 25 yards from us, the minority leader, the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer; and perhaps the Secretary of the Treasury or his representatives; and also representatives of the White House are literally working on a better bill, a bill that better protects workers. Workers and families should come first, not corporate interests. Small businesses should be a priority. They are the economic backbone and major employer in our country. It will be a better and a bigger bill in addressing the medical surge that this country must confront: the imminent soaring of numbers of cases; the potentially fatal infections that are about to deluge our hospitals and healthcare facilities; and the need for ventilators, masks, tests, gowns, all kinds of equipment that will help to save lives. I think all of us could do well by listening to the American people about the need for a bigger, better, bolder bill. I have been inspired by how resolute and resilient the people of Connecticut have been. Over the last 2 or 3 weeks, I have talked to them around the State of Connecticut before we were restricted in our meetings, and then by talks on the telephone, by teleconferences, and conversations. I have spoken within the last few days to the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce and small businesses that they assembled and large ones, the Northwestern Chamber of Commerce, meetings of small businesses from the Hartford area, the Federally Qualified Health Centers of Connecticut, hospital executives, doctors, and professionals who are dealing with this crisis now on the frontlines, and, of course, local officials. Just today, I spoke with the South Central Council of Governments, with mayors and local officials from up and down the coast of Connecticut, great nonprofits like Americare and food banks like Food Share. What they are telling me is do it urgently, do it big, but do it right. We need to do it quickly, but we need to get it right. That is why this additional time is absolutely the right thing when we are talking about almost $2 trillion in taxpayer money and a crisis that demands careful and deliberate thought. I was a critic of the last bailout because it insufficiently protected workers and consumers. We know that we can do better than they did then, and we will because we are putting workers first. What I have heard, in listening to the people of Connecticut, talking to small businesses who are fearful about closing their doors and going broke, workers who are scared about losing their jobs, and nonprofits who are frightened about failing in their missions for lack of resources--they are hurting and are fearful about being crushed by this healthcare and economic crisis. That is why we need to work together to protect the men and women who own those small and medium-sized businesses with a generous loan and grant program. We should take care of their workers with an expanded unemployment compensation program and guarantee that those small businesses will, in fact, maintain their payrolls. If we are going to provide money to big industries like the airlines, we must include conditions, strings attached, that put workers first-- no layoffs, no salary cuts for workers or salary increases to the corporate executives and no stock buybacks, and treat consumers fairly. That should be the set of principles. Right now, all across America and in Connecticut, working families are worried about whether they are going to see another paycheck. They are worried about how they are going to pay their rent and utility bills, put food on the table, clothe their children. Small businesses are watching years of hard work--years of risk-taking and entrepreneurial energy--potentially teeter on the brink of absolute collapse. We face calamity and catastrophe--not the fault of any of them or workers or large or small executives, but we must respond to the magnitude of this moment. I spoke on a radio program this morning, Chaz and AJ on WPLR, and I was asked: Will it be bipartisan? Can you be bipartisan? The answer is, clearly, yes. We have been on two relief packages, and we will be on this one, as early as tomorrow or the next day because no partisan plan will pass as a creation of one party or another. Storefronts and inventory lists aren't the backbone of our economy; it is the millions of men and women who go to work every day and, even tomorrow, will do their job, even in the face of the uncertainty and the fear that they confront. Doing right by our economy means doing right by them--the working families of America. There is much the President could do if he uses, for example, the Defense Production Act or similar kinds of power that, so far, he has resisted invoking. He could provide the medical tools we will need to confront the coming crisis by taking advantage of the offers he has received from GM and other major companies to produce the ventilators or the private protective gear that will help to save lives. There is much that we all must do in continuing to observe the restrictions that will help save lives--not only restrictions physically in our homes but also the perspective we must have that we are in for a long fight against this invisible foe. And it will be much longer than 15 days. It will be a matter of months, not weeks, and we must have the resilience and resoluteness that I have heard from the people of Connecticut in their voices as I have spoken to them. We live in no ordinary time, as Eleanor Roosevelt said about her era. We must muster the same kind of determination, grit, and courage to face it. I know there is that transcendent sense of urgency to do it quickly and to do it right and a shared sense of purpose that ultimately will get us to the other side of this crisis. We will be better and stronger and a bigger nation, not only in our economy; we will be a bigger nation because we have come together in meeting this crisis. Shared sacrifice must mean truly sharing the benefits with workers, with families, and with small businesses that will ultimately help us to save our Nation and our economy. My hope is that we will do it quickly, but we will do it right. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I came here today from Connecticut, where I have been to hospitals and local public health departments, small and large businesses, places where healthcare is provided and where the backbone of our economy is done. And I came here to vote. I came here to vote on a package passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. That overwhelming bipartisan spirit should be what animates us as we seek to save lives and livelihoods. We are literally on the cusp of an existential crisis in this country that will transform the lives of almost every American of almost every age and background and religious creed. Yet, in the face of that crisis, we will have no vote tonight. That is disgraceful. It is shameful. In the course of traveling around Connecticut, I have visited hospitals in Milford, Hartford, and in other places around the State and local health departments and with local officials who have said to me that there is still inadequate testing because the Federal Government has still failed to fulfill its promise to provide that testing. There are fears that the surge of health cases as a result of coronavirus will deplete the resources of hospitals and other healthcare facilities because there are deficient numbers of ICUs and ventilators, and still the Federal Government has failed to provide them. There is fear and anxiety about the future of our economy when parents have to make decisions about whether to stay home now to take care of their children because they are out of school or because their family has one person who is ill from this virus, and they are all quarantined. Will they be able to pay their mortgages and put food on the table? They are literally living from paycheck to paycheck. They are trying to make it in real time, right now. Likewise, I met this morning with small business owners and managers who are fearful they will literally become insolvent, they will go bankrupt, they will go under because they have insufficient resources to weather this financial storm. They are receiving no revenue, but they still have overhead expenses. If they are restaurants, they are now, in effect, closed. If they are retail establishments, most people are staying home. If they are small businesses, the backbone of the economy in providing jobs, they are challenged and they have to make real decisions in real time, right now. The package that is available for us to vote on would provide relief to those families and those businesses, to people who are anxious about the future of their lives and livelihoods, who have to make those hard decisions right now, tonight, about what they will do. It would provide paid sick leave and emergency medical and family leave and strengthen unemployment compensation, as well as tax credits. For our States, it would provide a kind of expanded Medicaid support--$440 million for Connecticut alone and hundreds of millions for other States around the country. We need to embark on that program of massive support and sweeping international cooperation and unsparing truth telling about the dimension of this crisis--no more magical thinking or happy talk. We are about to see numbers soar, and, as Anthony Fauci said, we are about to see Americans hunker down, as they must do, and, in that period, what we have before us in legislation will mean, potentially, life and death decisions. Time matters. Hours and days are profoundly significant when families have to make these decisions. We can delay, but it is to the ultimate profound damage of those lives, and we can make a difference if we act now. We could have acted by unanimous consent over the weekend. I am sorry that the Senate went home and that there was no action. But we need to act now--if not tonight, tomorrow morning. It should have been this afternoon because the loss of time is a loss of opportunity that we cannot afford. The small business people who met with me this morning, the health directors in New London and in other cities, such as Hartford, the hospital administrators in Hartford and Milford, the local officials, the mayors around the State of Connecticut, and the small business community who were hosted today by the MetroHartford Alliance said to me: We need action. We have an obligation to act. We cannot allow time to pass without action. We owe it to the people of Connecticut and the American people that there be action to meet that surge and challenge for the hospitals, to provide that assistance in grants, not just loans, in this package and then in a next package. There must be additional steps. I support the initiative that I understand may be coming from Senator Schumer and others and join in that initiative for hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to meet this crisis on the homefront as well as in the economic arena. Truth telling to the American people means recognizing the extraordinary, unprecedented, historic magnitude of the challenge before us. The scope and scale of potential suffering can be reduced. We owe it to the American people to act. There is no excuse for delay. The failure to act is unconscionable and inconceivable, given the magnitude of the challenge but also given the resolute and resilient spirit that I have seen across Connecticut. Whether it is with Americans donating to people who need it--supplies and other kinds of necessities--or the spirit of giving that I have seen among faith leaders and public officials, the courage of police and firefighters and emergency responders, and the dedication of healthcare providers, whether it is in hospitals or clinics like Charter Oak in Hartford and across Connecticut, everywhere that I have visited, I have seen that American spirit coming forward--the great, positive spirit of America and the ingenuity. That was the word that one of the small business people this morning used to myself and David Griggs at the MetroHartford Alliance. The ingenuity of meeting this challenge, whether it is in research for new vaccines or devising new ways to deliver the tests or providing for more ventilators and intensive care units--that ingenuity is truly American. The dedication of those healthcare givers, first responders, small business people, local officials, and others around the State and around the country ought to inspire us to do better and to take this vote and do our job. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague and friend, Senator Murphy. First, let me thank him for his leadership. We have worked together as a team. We have been partners in this effort from the very first days of our elections, and we were together at Sandy Hook on the afternoon of December 14, 2012, when we saw and met many of the families who suffered that absolutely unspeakable loss in an unimaginable tragedy that haunts us both to this day. Just this morning, as a matter of fact, I was with one of the dads, Mark Barden, who has turned his grief into tremendously positive work in our schools, forming an organization called Sandy Hook Promise, one of the numerous grassroots organizations that has grown in the wake of that tragedy. Of course, Brady existed before Sandy Hook, but afterward, there was Sandy Hook Promise and Newtown Action Alliance. Connecticut Against Gun Violence expanded, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, Gifford--the list reflects the outrage and fear of the American public against this epidemic. I am here to talk about an epidemic, a public health menace. Of course, we must do something to take effective action and do it promptly against coronavirus, COVID-19, which also reflects a threat to our health and safety. It has already killed Americans. It threatens to spread. There is a need for preparedness and honesty and truthfulness to the American public about the extent of the threat and about the need for action. Gun violence today in America--just today and every day in America-- kills more than 100 people. That number reflects only the fatalities. It is no measure of the people who are injured, sometimes crippled for life, and often emotionally damaged. It fails to reflect the families who suffer those losses and the trauma that affects children who are truly innocent bystanders to the drive-by shootings in downtown Hartford or Bridgeport or New Haven. Literally, no community in America is immune from this public health epidemic, this menace that afflicts America unlike any other country in the world. Globalization has affected many public health threats, as we are learning about coronavirus. But America is unique in the magnitude of its gun violence epidemic, as my colleague Senator Murphy has said so well. The costs are not just in human lives and emotion. Even if you care nothing about the human condition, think about the dollars and cents-- the costs, the medical care, and, of course, the talent and energy, the intelligence, the productivity that is lost literally every day in those 100 lives. There is no vaccine. There is no panacea. There is no magic cure for this epidemic. The bill that brings us here today is just one piece of legislation, one tool that is vitally necessary, but it is only one step. It will not solve all of the problems of gun violence, but we know it will save lives. We know it from our experience in Connecticut. We know this enforcement mechanism will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. It adds no new prohibitions. It imposes no new categories of people who are prohibited from buying guns. Those categories and those prohibitions are already in the Federal law. This background check expansion to all sales--not just federally licensed deals but private sales, sales on the internet--is simply a way to enforce the existing prohibitions, which were supported, by the way, by the NRA when they were passed decades of ago. It simply makes those prohibitions real. I know, from my experience as a prosecutor over decades and as a State attorney general, that the best laws on the books are dead letter if they are unenforced. That is really why 98 percent of the American people, the vast majority of gun owners, and even NRA members support this legislation. It is a simple, commonsense way to enforce existing prohibitions that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. It is the least we can do for those victims of gun violence whose images and voices and faces are with their families still and many of them with us every day. We should be very clear--because this measure should not be oversold--that it will not alone solve the problem of gun violence. There are a variety of other measures. I have introduced the emergency risk protection order legislation that would enable law enforcement-- local police or State and Federal law enforcement--to take guns away from people who are dangerous to themselves or others. That legislation would require a warrant, and it would enable the warrant to be eventually challenged in a court proceeding. It would provide due process, which would be particularly important in domestic disputes when an estranged intimate partner may have a gun or when there is suicide and self-harm is threatened. This has worked in Florida thousands of times, where it was passed most recently, and in Connecticut. Connecticut was the first in the Nation to adopt an emergency risk protection order, and it has worked. Along with that law are safe storage measures. There is Ethan's Law, which was named after Ethan Song, who was lost to his wonderful parents, Kristin and Michael Song. Ethan was visiting a friend whose parents failed to store their gun safely, and in that unimaginable tragedy, he was lost. Of course, there are also other measures, like eliminating sweetheart deals that provide unique and virtually absolute immunity to gun manufacturers. The Sandy Hook surviving families are seeking redress against the manufacturer of the gun that killed their 20 children and 6 great educators. They are overcoming the obstacles imposed by the law that provides that immunity to the gun manufacturers. Assault weapons bans, ammunition background checks, and high-capacity magazines are a series of measures that we should consider. It is not that every one of them is necessary, but every one of them can help to save lives. Not one of them alone will prevent all of these fatalities. The least we can do is debate H.R. 8, which has been language on the Senate floor now for a year without its being called for a vote. That is really unconscionable. I know we use that word ``unconscionable'' so frequently that perhaps it has lost its meaning, but if we have a conscience and if we have a belief and a conviction in the democratic process, we should at least give a vote to this measure that is lifesaving, that is supported by almost all of the American people, and that is opposed only by the NRA and a gun lobby that is diminishing in power. In fact, the NRA is crumbling from within because of a financial scandal and on the outside because its extreme, inflexible positions are untenable to an American public that sees the public health epidemic before us as a result of gun violence and says: Enough is enough. There is a movement that will eventually prevail. Whether it will win in this session--because we have been blocked again from unanimous consent by our Republican colleagues--I don't know. I do know with certainty that it will prevail because these grassroots have grown and have created a movement. The students of Parkland have created a movement. The Sandy Hook Promise, the Newtown Action Alliance, Brady, Giffords, and others have created a movement. Like many movements and social causes in this country--the civil rights movement being the best example--this is fuel and power and is led by young people who are saying with the most passion of all: Enough is enough. Every one of them and every one of us knows someone--a family member, a coworker, a co-student, a colleague--who has been affected by gun violence. Almost two-thirds of those 100 deaths every day are from suicide, so we know mental health has to be addressed and that we need to invest more in mental health diagnoses and treatments. Again, mental health diagnoses and treatments alone are not a solution. I have long spearheaded and advocated for mental health parity--more treatment, more insurance coverage--but they alone will not solve the gun violence epidemic in this country. The fact is that the States that have universal background checks, according to a recent study, have had 52 percent fewer mass shootings than the States that have lacked them. It makes sense. Background check laws mean that 80 percent of the firearms acquired for criminal purposes can be stopped from being sold by unlicensed sellers. We in Connecticut have one of the strongest universal background checks on the books anywhere in the country. Yet we know guns have, really, no respect for State borders. They cross State borders with impunity. They cause deaths in Connecticut even if they have been manufactured elsewhere or have been sold in the South and have come via the Iron Pipeline to Connecticut or to New York or to New Jersey, which also has strong gun laws. This national public health epidemic demands a national--Federal--solution that protects our Nation. The Odessa shooting just this past August serves as a tragic reminder of the steep price that inaction exacts. The Odessa shooter failed a background check, but then he turned right around after he failed that background check from a licensed dealer and bought an assault-style rifle in a private sale. That private sale was not covered by a background check, and seven more innocent people are dead as a result. On December 14, 2012, I promised the parents who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook and other families that I would fight and do everything I could to make sure that no more parents would have to bury their children. I have worked tirelessly, along with others, like my colleague Senator Murphy and many of us on this side of the aisle, on public health and safety measures that would stop gun violence. I have also worked with Senator Graham on an emergency risk protection order proposal that has shown very serious signs of acceptance on that side of the aisle and even by the White House. So far, inaction has been the result. Since that day, December 14, 2012, there have been 2,389 mass shootings, not counting the individual lives lost in Hartford or in the suburbs or in the rural areas. It is an equal opportunity public health epidemic. Like any epidemic, no one is immune. Over 2,000 times, families have had to wait, like the parents of Newtown, to see whether that morning's kiss goodbye would be the last. They have had to wait to see whether that last wave at the school door would be the final one. That really is unconscionable in the greatest country in the history of the world. When I stood here in the months after 2012--in fact, in 2013--when we last voted on a universal background check bill, it was supported by a majority of my colleagues. There were 54 who voted for it, but it was not enough to reach the 60-vote threshold. From the Galleries, I heard one of those parents shout ``Shame.'' He was right. Shame on my Republican colleagues then, and shame on them now if they defy common sense and the will of the American people by preventing a vote--simply a vote. That is what we are asking for--a vote on H.R. 8. A year has passed since the House voted and approved this bill. Shame on them--my Republican colleagues--if they stand in the way of saving lives. Shame on them if they allow the carnage to continue on our streets, in our neighborhoods, and in our communities, crippling families and tearing apart those communities. The vicelike grip of the gun lobby is breaking, and there will be bipartisan collaboration. It will be the result of not my persuasion from speeches given on the floor but of the American people at the polls, because the ultimate court is the court of public opinion and because the ultimate voice here is that of the American people. In the military, there is a saying: ``The enemy has a vote.'' Here, the enemies are the shooters, and the enemies are the opposers of these commonsense measures. We cannot allow them to have a vote. It is the American people who will vote, and they will hold accountable those colleagues who fail to be on the right side of this issue and on the right side of history. I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink, to revisit, to reconsider their staunch, unyielding, inflexible opposition to even having a vote. To them, I say: Do your job. We are here to vote and save lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jeffrey ``Jeff'' Hammond Long, an outstanding public servant and friend to many. Sadly, Jeff passed away on July 8, 2018. He was critically injured by a truck while riding his bike in Washington the previous day. Today, in honor of what would have been his 38th birthday, I wish to recognize Jeff's legacy of positivity. Born in New York City, Jeff enrolled at Brunswick School in Greenwich, CT. Throughout his many years there, Jeff set an example for his fellow students. Not only did he mentor younger members of the community and cocaptain the lacrosse team, but he also served as president of the student body. Even after graduation, Jeff continued to serve the school as a result of the foundational experience he had at Brunswick. Jeff studied at Hamilton College, where he was vice president of the student body and an Arthur Levitt Scholar. During his time at Hamilton, Jeff began his remarkable dedication to public service by interning for former President Clinton at the Clinton Foundation's New York office, as well as for Secretary Kerry's Presidential campaign and his U.S. Senate office. I had the pleasure of first meeting Jeff in 2010. He worked in my Senate office for many years, serving as a legislative assistant on the energy, environment, and transportation portfolio. Jeff routinely demonstrated his extraordinary commitment to helping the people of Connecticut and the Nation. A diligent and bright member of my team, he always put the needs of others before his own, focusing on serving the people of Connecticut with tireless care and patience. His incredible wife, Kaylie--another Connecticut native and devoted public servant--continues to honor his memory by doing acts of kindness on Jeff's birthday. She and their friends are guided by his motto: ``It's cool to be nice.'' Jeff's natural inclination to support others and bring smiles to people's faces touched countless lives from Connecticut to DC, and everywhere in between. He helped everyone around him find a positive side to any situation or take a moment to appreciate even the smallest parts of life. I am grateful for the considerate and warm outlook Jeff brought wherever he went, and I know his memory will forever serve as a model of selflessness and unfailing devotion. My wife Cynthia and I extend our warmest thoughts to Kaylie, as well as to Jeff's parents, Nancy and David, and I hope my colleagues will join me in acknowledging Jeff's incredible impact.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Ms. Betty Colbert on the occasion of her retirement from her position as program assistant for the U.S. Senate Youth Program, USSYP, after 57 years of remarkable service. Ms. Colbert started working for the USSYP during its first program in 1963 and has continued her impressive tenure ever since. With her guidance, the program has provided unparalleled educational opportunities and experiences for countless high school students. Her involvement with the program started thanks to her late husband, Mr. George Colbert, a Tuskegee airman who served as Mr. Randy Hearst's driver while Mr. Hearst was helping to develop the USSYP. Despite working full time with the National Institutes of Health, Ms. Colbert took leave each year in order to devote herself to the USSYP's administration. A thoughtful, giving woman, she took a hands-on approach, doing everything from taking calls from Senate offices and the White House to making sure each participating student got an individual flag flown over the Capitol to recognize their accomplishment. The success of USSYP alumni is in part thanks to Ms. Colbert's tireless efforts. I participate in the program every year, including serving as cochair in 2019, and I can attest firsthand to her unfailing work ethic and the level of care she puts in to every aspect of the USSYP. Students, Senators, and staff members have all bore witness to Ms. Colbert's extraordinary commitment to her role. Not only does she ensure everything runs smoothly for all involved, but she also focuses on the small details. Her driven, considerate nature plays a significant part in giving students the most enjoyable and transformative experience possible. Ms. Colbert leaves behind a legacy that will continue to positively shape the USSYP for years to come. I applaud her over half a century of service and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Ms. Betty Colbert on her well-earned retirement.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, many of whom have spoken already in support of S.J. Res. 68, which I am proud to cosponsor. It prohibits an unauthorized, unconstitutional war with Iran. It seeks to prevent the Trump administration from stumbling into a real and reckless military conflict. I want to thank bipartisan colleagues who have provided leadership in this effort, and it has been truly bipartisan as an effort. I appreciate their efforts and from many other colleagues to reassert our constitutional war powers and to represent the will of the American people. Americans do not want a new war. They do not want another endless military conflict that harms our national interests without protecting our national security. The Constitution trumps any statute. Without congressional authorization and anything short of a declaration of war from the Congress, starting a war with Iran would be unconstitutional. Congress did not authorize war with Iran when it passed an authorization to use force against al-Qaida more than 18 years ago in the wake of 9/11. Congress did not authorize war with Iran when it passed an authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein's regime in 2002. Very simply, Congress has not authorized war with Iran in any way, shape, or legal form. The President's authorizations for use of military force in no way cover starting a new war with Iran. We cannot let the intent of either of those authorizations to be so distorted and stretched as to be a pretense for such a war. That is why this resolution is so important. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it tomorrow. But just as alarming as the lack of legal authorization for war, is the Trump administration's lack of strategy. It isn't that we have a dangerous policy toward Iran. It is that we have no policy, no strategy, and no endgame, which is the most dangerous situation of all. I am pleased that we have deescalated the dramatic rise in tensions between Iran and the United States, which well serves the interests of both countries. We must continue the potential for reducing, not escalating, military tensions, but President Trump's reckless actions that brought us so close to military conflict are still in play. We need to continue to deescalate, not raise, the level of tension, if possible. These kinds of reckless actions, in fact, brought us close to expulsion from Iraq and halted key training exercises with our allies in the counter-ISIS mission. As is the case with most of the Trump administration's military strategy--or lack of it--we are just lurching from one crisis to another, with no objectives, no means to an end, no decision on ending, all putting our security and our allies at grave risk. Congress, not to its credit, has failed to conduct critical public oversight that is necessary to hold the administration accountable and to insist on a strategy, an endgame, a set of objectives. The Trump administration has kept Congress and the American people in the dark under the guise of classification. I will say, on a personal note, that at the end of so many of our classified briefings in the SCIF, I will say to a military officer or to an intelligence community representative: Our adversaries and our enemies know what you have just told us because you are telling us about what they are doing. And they know we know, and we know they know. In fact, they know a great deal about what we are doing. The only ones who don't know are the American people. They are kept in the dark. The Trump administration cannot wage war while hiding behind classification gag orders behind closed doors. The Trump administration tried to make the claim that there was an ``imminent threat'' to justify the strike against Soleimani. I disagree. The Trump administration failed to provide the evidence in any setting, classified or not, to support this claim, and the American people deserve to know our path forward with Iran. There is no conceivable reason that our goals must be kept secret from Members of Congress or the people we represent, and we certainly must prevent a reckless administration from pursuing a war when it is unwilling to account to the American people. In short, there is a fundamental purpose that is served by a declaration of war. It gives the people who will have to sacrifice in that war a voice in the decision. We represent those people--the families of soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors whose lives will be in harm's way, as well as themselves. It gives a voice to the experts in this body who may have a perspective and a wisdom on these topics. That is a useful check on the executive branch. Let us not forget that military actions conducted without a strategy and without the consent of the American people have real consequences for all who serve our Nation in uniform. We continue to hear reports about the number of troops who have suffered brain injuries in the Iran strike against Iraq military bases. The total is now up to 109 American servicemembers. The President of the United States has minimized those kinds of injuries as headaches, but, in fact, traumatic brain injury--concussion, post-traumatic stress--are among the most painful and damaging wounds of war, in part because they are invisible and they are sometimes minimized. So let us never forget the consequences of war--the consequences to our economy, to our faith in American democracy, to the credibility of our leaders, to our people in lives lost and damaged. That is true especially of a war that has never been authorized by Congress and fails to have the support of the American people. That is why this vote is so important today. There are many, many reasons to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 68. I call on my colleagues to send a clear, unmistakable message to this administration: You do not have congressional authorization, you do not have the support of the American people, and you do not have permission from this Congress, under the Constitution, to wage war or to begin it against Iran. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules and Administration Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1247 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I really regret there is an objection again to this bill which we have been seeking for floor consideration in this body to debate and pass. We have been asking for floor consideration of various election security bills in the last several months--the PAVE Act, the Honest Ads Act, and the SHIELD Act--but, sadly and unfortunately for the country, the majority continues to stonewall. Our decisions are under attack, our elections are under siege, and 2016 was only a dress rehearsal. Just yesterday, Attorney General Barr announced that Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, is going to be feeding the Department of Justice unverified dirt from Ukraine on the President's political rival. In effect, the Department of Justice will become a political tool for the President. He is weaponizing law enforcement for his personal political end, and the Attorney General of the United States is becoming an aider and abettor to that polarization and politicization of the Department of Justice. Only last week, for the first time in our Nation's history, we saw bipartisan support for removing the President from office. The basis for that bipartisan vote was, in fact, President Trump's illegal solicitation of election interference from a foreign government. As Senator Romney put it last week, Trump's demands of Ukraine constitute a ``flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values,'' noting that ``corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.'' He is right. We cannot allow this abuse to become the new normal, and it is fast becoming normalized. My other Republican colleagues are running out of time to be on the right side of history. Others have conceded that what the President did was ``wrong. Inappropriate . . . crossing the line,'' as Senator Alexander put it. Senator Murkowski stated that she believed that ``the President's behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation.'' Senator Collins, who first claimed that Trump learned his ``lesson,'' has since admitted that she ``may not be correct on that'' after the President refused to admit any wrongdoing. Now that Senate Republicans have let President Trump off the hook, there is no doubt that he will only be emboldened in his efforts to illegally enlist foreign governments in his reelection campaign. What is happening with Rudy Giuliani, Senator Graham has said, may be that he has been ``played by the Russians.'' That, in fact, is likely what is happening, but the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, may also be playing the President, and the President most certainly will be playing the country if he uses the Department of Justice for his personal political aims and enlists foreign interference in our election. That is why this bill is so critically important. The Duty to Report Act offers my Republican colleagues the opportunity to start redeeming themselves for their votes last week. If they really believe the President's actions were wrong, they should support this legislation. It is a very simple idea. Really, it is so simple that a lot of people believe it is already the law--if you see something, say something. If you see a violation of law with a foreign government interfering in our election, if you see an attempt to enlist that foreign government, if you see an acceptance of assistance, report it. The Duty to Report Act would require campaigns, candidates, and family members to immediately report to the FBI and the Federal Election Commission any offers of foreign assistance. Simple. It codifies into law what is already a moral duty, a patriotic duty, and basic common sense. It is already illegal to accept foreign assistance during a campaign. It is already illegal to solicit foreign assistance during a campaign. All this bill does is require campaigns and individuals to report what is already illegal to the FBI so law enforcement can protect our great Nation. This legislation would ensure that if the Trump campaign or any campaign were offered assistance from a foreign, hostile government in a future election, the FBI would be informed and could act to protect our country. Let me repeat: 2016 was a dress rehearsal for what our intelligence community is already reporting as ongoing right now in election interference, and it is more than Russia. It is other nations. Already, Iran has proved to be an active and present disrupter, and other nations will follow their lead. With the 2020 election looming, we need to stop this kind of foreign interference and ensure that it is the American people, not Russia, China, Iran, or any other nation, who decides who our leaders will be and the direction of our democracy--and not just decide but also influence and impact in ways that are opaque and concealed, pernicious and insidious. We need to act to provide a duty to report. I regret the objection to our unanimous consent request, and I, certainly, along with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, will continue this effort to fight to protect our Nation against foreign interference. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a statement I prepared concerning the impeachment trial be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, as we think back over these last weeks, when we have sat together on the floor considering evidence and sitting in judgment as jurors and judges, spending countless hours deliberating, I often think about what I will remember from these days on a very personal level. It has been a historic event, but in some ways, the human element strikes me as the most memorable. I will remember vividly the bravery of dedicated public servants who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by telling the American people the truth about Donald Trump and his scheme to corruptly use power for his personal benefit. Their courage, their grace under pressure, their dignity, and unshakeable honesty should be a model for all of us. I will remember, for example, LTC Alexander Vindman, whose video appeared before us, a man who was brought to the United States at the age of 3 and grew to love this country so much that he put his life at risk in combat and then his career at risk by coming before the Congress. I will remember Fiona Hill, the daughter of a coal miner and nurse, who proceeded to get a Ph.D., swear an oath to this country, serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations, warning us not to peddle the ``fictional narrative . . . perpetrated and propagated,'' as she said, ``by the Russian security services themselves'' about this supposed Ukrainian effort to meddle in our election. I will remember very vividly Ambassador William Taylor, West Point graduate and decorated Vietnam war veteran, who testified that he thought it was ``crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.'' I will remember the whistleblower who came forward to express shock and alarm that the President of the United States would attempt to extort a vulnerable, fledgling democracy to help him cheat in the next election in exchange for the foreign military aid they so desperately needed to fight their adversary, Russia, and our adversary, Russia, attacking and killing their young men and women. I have met some of those young men and women who came to Connecticut to the Burn Center at Bridgeport Hospital, so badly injured they could barely talk, and the stories of their suffering and hardship came back to me, as I sat on the floor here, and their courage and their bravery and strength also will stay with me. I will remember the moment that we raised our hands and took an oath to be impartial, all 100 of us--99--at the same time, in a historic moment when the weight of that responsibility shook me like a rock. I will also remember the shame and sadness that I felt when this body-- supposedly, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world--voted to close its eyes, to put on blinders to evidence, witnesses, and documents; firsthand knowledge, eyes and ears on the President, black and white--documents don't lie--that were necessary to understand the complete story and give the American people the complete truth. That moment--unfortunately, a moment of dismay and disappointment--will stay with me as well, after aspiring for so long to be part of this body, which I respected and revered, so utterly failing the American people at this moment of crisis. And I will remember audible gasps, some laughs, and raised eyebrows in this Chamber when Professor Alan Dershowitz made the incredible, shocking argument that a President who believes that his own reelection serves the public interest can do anything he wants, and his actions are not impeachable. The implications of that argument for the future of our democracy are simply indescribable. I have been a trial lawyer. I have spent most of my career in and out of the courtroom. So I can argue the legalities. But I am not here to rehash the legal arguments, because culpability here seems pretty clear to me. The President solicited a bribe when he sought a personal benefit and investigation of his political opponent, a smear of his rival, in exchange for an official act--in fact, two official acts: the release of military funding for an ally and a White House meeting--in return for that personal benefit. Those actions are a violation of section 201, 18 United States Code, today. They were a violation of criminal law at the time of the Framers, and that is why they put it in the Constitution. Bribery and treason are specifically mentioned. Bribery is included as an abuse of power, as it was when Judge Porteous was convicted and impeached. Many of the Members of this Chamber voted to impeach him, although bribery was never mentioned in the articles charging him with abuse of power. The idea that bribery or any crime has to be mentioned for there to be an abuse of power is clearly preposterous. In my view, the elements of bribery have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no excuse for that criminal conduct. I am going to submit a detailed statement for the Record that makes the legal case, but, clearly, bribery has been committed by this President. Looking beyond the legalities, what strikes me, perhaps, as most telling here is the constant theme of secrecy--the fact that the President kept his reasons for withholding aid a secret. Unlike other suspensions of aid to other countries--like the Northern Triangle in Central America or Egypt, where it was announced publicly and Congress was notified--here, he kept it secret. He operated through his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in secret, not through the State Department, not through the Department of Justice. Despite all of his claims of corruption and wrongdoing by Hunter or Joe Biden, he either never went to the Department of Justice or they declined to investigate because there was no ``there'' there. Instead, he sought, secretly, the investigation of a political rival through a foreign government, targeting a U.S. citizen secretly. His refusal to provide a single document to Congress, to allow a single witness to testify, keeping their testimony and that evidence secret, concealing it; his defiance of every subpoena in court, effectively neutering Congress's oversight authority--our oversight authority--to check any of these abuses, all of it is for the purpose of secrecy. His claim of absolute immunity is totally discredited and rejected by the court because, as the court said in the McGahn case, he is not a King. His claim of executive privilege as the reason for keeping that evidence secret--well, he never really invoked executive privilege, but executive privilege cannot be invoked to conceal criminal conduct that fits within the crime of a fraud exception. And while the President's lawyers argued before this body that the House should have gone to court to enforce those subpoenas instead of resorting to the remedy of impeachment, they then had the audacity to, simultaneously, at exactly the same time, argue in court that Congress cannot seek a judicial remedy to enforce subpoenas because it has the remedy of impeachment. They argued no jurisdiction because of impeachment, and at the same time no access to evidence necessary for impeachment because, supposedly, you can go to court. This duplicity is absolutely stunning. Again, I will say, just on a personal note as a prosecutor, it is a dead giveaway. He is guilty. Regardless of what we do tomorrow, we know for sure, in this great democracy, the truth will come out. It always does. It is just a question of when. It comes out about all of us at some point. And, for this President, the truth is coming out in realtime, as we speak on this floor and as we vote tomorrow. The revelations in the New York Times about what John Bolton has written in his book indicate the truth is going to come out in mid- March with John Bolton's book, assuming the President doesn't try to censor it and tie him up in court or exercise some prior restraint. It will come out in congressional investigations when John Bolton and others testify. It will come out because there are courageous men and women, like Ambassador Taylor, Fiona Hill, Colonel Vindman, and others, who are willing to put country ahead of their personal careers. When my children grow up--and they are pretty well grown--I hope they will be more like them than like the President. I never, ever thought I would say that in the Senate of the United States, let alone anywhere, because this President has shown that he will take advantage of every opportunity for self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement. Whether it is violating the emoluments clause--and I, along with 199 of my colleagues, have sued him on that issue, making money from the Presidency, profiting and putting profit ahead of his official duties, or seeking to smear a political rival and soliciting a bribe. Even if the aid went through and even if the investigation was never announced, it is still a crime--putting that kind of self-benefit ahead of his duty to the country and our national security, the welfare and fight of an ally at the tip of the spear against a common adversary who is seeking to destroy Western democracies. He is someone who has said: Show me the boundaries of the law, and I will push them, and if I can successfully cross them, I will do it again. And he will do it again. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. So, as we make this momentous decision, I implore each of my colleagues to think about the gravity of what we will do if we fail to convict this President, the message that we send to countries struggling to overcome corruption, because America is more than just a country. America is an idea and an ideal. When we implore them to fight corruption, our credibility is shredded when we condone it at home. The Framers, in their wisdom, knew that elections every 4 years were an inadequate check against any President who corruptly abuses power for personal gain. And this situation and this President are exactly what they feared when our young infant country was struggling to avoid foreign interference in our elections. It was their worst nightmare, foreign interference, the threat of foreign meddling--exactly what this President has invited. It was delegate William Davie of North Carolina who said: ``If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no effort or means whatever to get himself re-elected.'' It was precisely cheating in a future election, foreign interference in our domestic affairs, that the Framers established impeachment to prevent. That is why the remedy exists, and that is why we must use it now. History will judge us harshly if we fail in this historic challenge. History will haunt the colleagues who fail to meet this challenge, who lack the courage that was demonstrated by those heroes: Taylor, Vindman, Hill, Cooper, and others. And they will continue to serve our country. The truth will come out. The heroes of this darker era will be our independent judiciary and our free press. They will continue uncovering the truth. They will continue providing freedom of information material under the law. They will continue to protect civil rights and civil liberties. They will continue their vigilance, even if we fail in ours. But we have this task now. History will sit in judgment of us, and the future of our Republic will be in jeopardy if we fail tomorrow to do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for the counsel for the President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Warner, Heinrich, and Harris.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Robert ``Red'' McKinney, an outstanding friend and public servant. Sadly, Mr. McKinney passed away on December 24, 2019, at the age of 72. He will be remembered for his devotion to East Hampton and his bright, loving nature. Born in Hartford, CT, Red spent his entire life in East Hampton. He earned his higher education degrees in the State, as well, with an associate's degree from Mitchell College and a bachelor's degree from Central Connecticut State University. Red spent five decades as a chemical specialist, focused in metal working fluids. For 40 years, he and his wife, Anne, co-owned a commercial and residential property acquisition and management company, HTA, LLC. Outside of his work, Red dedicated himself to supporting his community. Giving back to those around him brought Red an unparalleled joy, dating back to his role as a member of East Hampton Parks and Recreation in the 1970s. He was the youngest member of the East Hampton Board of Selectmen ever elected and proudly served for 4 years. Notably, Red also served as chairman of the East Hampton Democratic Town Committee for 10 years and remained a member for his entire life since 1974. That same year, he joined the East Hampton Rotary Club, making him the longest tenured member. His impressive level of involvement is also evident through his over four-decade-long role as a charter member of the Old Home Days Association. The association coordinates the annual East Hampton Old Home Day parade--a signature celebratory tradition attended by hundreds of people. As a regular participant in the parade, I saw firsthand the professionalism and dedication that Red brought to that event. He was always a joy to talk with. Red was especially pleased to have the opportunity to celebrate the people of his town and surrounding communities. He treasured the residents of East Hampton the same way he valued his close friends and family. Through his active role in these organizations and many others, including the Middle Haddam Library and Middlesex Hospital, Red positively impacted countless members of his community. His commitment to supporting those around him was recognized through three Paul Harris Fellow Awards and numerous other honors. Red's remarkable legacy of service is an inspiration to all of us and sets a model of service that will continue in East Hampton for years to come. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Red's family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife, Anne, along with their children and grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Red provide them solace and comfort.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Alfred J. Rioux, a dedicated public servant, advocate, and friend to many. Sadly, Mr. Rioux passed away on November 9, 2019, at the age of 85. He will be remembered for his commitment to Connecticut and his jovial spirit. Born in Hartford, CT, Al served in the Navy as a seaman 2nd class and deep-sea diver on the USS Skylark during the Korean war. Once discharged, he started an apprenticeship in Hartford for the Arrow-Hart Hegeman Company as a tool and die engineer. Upon moving to Newington, CT, with his family, Al began working in real estate and insurance. At the same time, he became a member of the Connecticut Home Builders Association, helping to develop single-family homes in his town. This initial involvement in Newington would serve as the catalyst for Al's lifelong devotion to Connecticut politics. In the 1970s and 1980s, some of Al's pivotal roles included helping Bill Cotter successfully win his first term in the U.S. House of Representatives, serving as an aide to Congressman Cotter, a 15-year position as the Newington Democratic Party's Town chairman, and attending the 1980 Democratic National Convention as a delegate in support of President Jimmy Carter. He also served two terms as the sheriff of Hartford County. Al gave back to his communities outside of politics, as well. In one of the first kidney transplants performed at Hartford Hospital through Dr. Robert Schweitzer and Dr. Stanley Bartus's transplant program, Al received a kidney from his sister, Dorothy Williams, in 1975. This successful operation led him to organize the Connecticut Kidney Research Fund Golf Tournament. Throughout its many years, the tournament helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of Hartford Hospital's kidney transplant research. Through his involvement in Connecticut politics, transplant advocacy, and numerous organizations, Al left a lasting impression on everyone around him thanks to his zeal for life and readiness to help others. My wife Cynthia and I extend our deepest sympathies to Al's family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife Elma and his many children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Al provide them solace and comfort.