Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dan Freedman on the occasion of his retirement. Throughout his impressive 32 years as a correspondent in the Hearst Washington Bureau, Dan set an example of tireless, honest reporting. He undertook the monumental task of covering the Connecticut and New York delegations with rigor and expertise. Even as the media environment grows more partisan, Dan has remained fair and dedicated to the facts. Dan has helped build an essential professional foundation for countless reporters, mentoring hundreds of newcomers and interns and holding everyone--including himself--to the highest standards. Regarded with immense respect by his colleagues, he routinely challenged himself in order to set a better example for his team and raise the expectations for outstanding reporting. In DC, legislators trust Dan to deliver a truthful and balanced story. This integrity is essential for the people of Connecticut who rely on reporters like Dan to inform them about the Nation's Capital with a focus on the stories that matter most to them and their communities. Constituents need to know their voices are being heard, and Dan is there to ask the tough questions and to deliver the most complete and honest reporting possible. During an over four-decade career in journalism, Dan did it all-- everything from dodging bullets in wars and insurrections in Central America to covering eight Supreme Court confirmation hearings and even a stint on the George W. Bush Presidential campaign in 2000. His unfailing commitment to his profession was recognized in 2018, when he won the David Lynch Memorial Award for Regional Reporting. Dan's outstanding record of thoughtful, honest, and determined reporting sets a model and demonstrates the critical role of reporters in keeping people throughout the country well informed. I applaud his lifetime of dogged devotion to bringing the truth to light through fair, fact-filled pieces, and I know my colleagues will join me in thanking Dan for his extraordinary contributions to regional reporting.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Denise D'Ascenzo, the longtime anchor at WFSB Channel 3 Eyewitness News, the CBS station in Hartford, CT. She was a trusted journalist, a devoted mother and wife, and a dear friend. Sadly, Denise passed away suddenly on December 7, 2019. She will be remembered for her tireless grace, integrity, and humor. Denise was born Washington, DC, and grew up in Rockville, MD, where she became editor-in-chief of her high school newspaper. She attended Syracuse University, where she got her first break in television at WIXT-TV doing the nightly weather forecast. Also at Syracuse, she met the love of her life and future husband, Wayne. After Syracuse there were stops at television stations in St. Louis and Cleveland, before moving to Connecticut in 1986 to join WFSB. In Connecticut, she provided special coverage of political conventions, the U.S. visit of Pope John the II, 9/11, the arrest of the DC sniper, and the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Denise had a passion for health and medical reporting, taking viewers inside operating rooms, cardiac catheterization labs, and neonatal intensive care units, as well as onboard Life Star, the critical care helicopter service. She was a leading voice in raising awareness for conditions such as breast cancer, heart disease, obesity, and preventive healthcare. During her 33 year career at WFSB, she was honored with 2 Edward R. Murrow Awards, 7 Associated Press Awards, 11 Emmy's, and a national Gabriel Award. She was recognized for her work with a number of charities, including the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Mary's Place, and the Channel 3 Kids Camp. In 2013, Denise was elected to the Silver Circle by the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for her significant contributions to broadcasting. In 2015, she became the first woman to be inducted into the Connecticut Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame. Connecticut has lost a broadcasting legend. We all also lost a dear friend who came into our homes with dignity and decency to tell them the news of the day. She was deeply dedicated to uncovering and conveying the truth of every story. She was there for almost 30 years to guide us through tragedy and triumph, and we miss her immensely. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Denise's family during this difficult time, particularly to her husband, daughter, and coworkers. May their many wonderful memories of Denise provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the midst of all of the historic and profoundly significant events happening these days in Congress, there may be a temptation to overlook some of the judicial nominations that are coming to the floor of the Senate, some of them almost a caricature of the unqualified nominees that we have seen all too often. One is before us today, Lawrence VanDyke, who has been nominated to the Ninth Circuit. Over the past 3 years, we have watched the Trump administration march ceaselessly to degrade the judiciary. Yet, even in having witnessed this travesty firsthand, I find Mr. VanDyke's nomination truly astonishing and alarming. Once again, we are faced with a nominee who lacks the support of his home State Senators, who is not even from the State for which this seat is designated, and who was rated ``not qualified'' by the American Bar Association. That is a pretty tough set of qualifications--or lack of them--to match, but Lawrence VanDyke has done it. These departures from bedrock principles that once guided the exercise of the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent should disturb all of us, but even more disturbing is Mr. VanDyke's record as an unrelenting ideologue who has spent his entire legal career promoting an extreme political agenda. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we can expect of him if he is confirmed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That ideological, rightwing, extremist image and record are exactly why he has been nominated by the President, who has outsourced many of these decisions about nominations to the far- right groups that he feels, evidently, he has to follow. Mr. VanDyke has already made it abundantly clear how he will rule on gun violence prevention issues. In an NRA questionnaire that he completed when he ran for the Montana Supreme Court in 2014, Mr. VanDyke stated that he would not support any legislation that would regulate firearms and ammunition; any restrictions on the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, or transfer of semiautomatic firearms; or legislation mandating the use of locking devices and safe storage procedures. There are currently bills before Congress that would do each of these things. I should know, for I sponsored them. None of these proposals-- none--would get a fair hearing in Mr. VanDyke's court. That predilection never disavowed, never refuted, never denied should be disqualifying. Worse still, in the same questionnaire, Mr. VanDyke stated that the only reason he was not currently a member of the NRA was that he didn't ``want to risk recusal if a lawsuit came before me where the NRA was involved.'' In other words, he would join the NRA; he supports the NRA; he feels like he should be a member of the NRA; and he wants to rule in favor of the NRA, but he might have to recuse himself if he were to join the NRA. That statement alone should be disqualifying. Remember, we are talking about a life-tenured position on the Federal judiciary, not just for a few years. This is not an elected position on a State court. This is a Federal nomination to the second highest, appellate-level court in the United States, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. VanDyke's hostility to commonsense gun violence prevention also led him to challenge a law passed by the voters of a State he was charged with serving. In 2016--now we are talking about Nevada, not Montana--the voters of Nevada approved a ballot measure to expand background checks to cover the private sale of firearms. This closed a critical loophole in that State's laws. I have repeatedly emphasized that we must address this loophole at the Federal level. Nevada addressed it at the State level, but Mr. VanDyke, who was at the time that State's solicitor general, took the very unusual step of working to undermine the voter-approved law. Meanwhile, when he worked for the Montana attorney general, he was all too happy to defend an extreme and poorly drafted State law that sought to exempt from all Federal regulation the firearms and ammunition that were made in Montana. Don't take my word for it, as Yogi Berra said. You can look it up. Mr. VanDyke himself stated in an email to the Federalist Society that this statute was ``ill-advised'' and that he could not come up with ``any plausible (much less good arguments)'' to defend that State's law. That didn't stop Mr. VanDyke from defending the law nor did it stop the Federalist Society from providing him with the help he had requested in contriving arguments and concocting ill- founded claims to support the law. When Mr. VanDyke wants a particular outcome but can't figure it out himself or he can't find the legal path to it, he turns to the Federalist Society for answers. There is no great mystery here about how he will act when he is faced with similar situations if he is confirmed as a judge for the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, Mr. VanDyke's promotion of the NRA's extreme positions is far from the only plank of his far-right agenda. He has made many statements that are hostile to LGBTQ rights, including questioning the ability of gay parents to raise children and suggesting that protecting LGBTQ rights is an affront to religious liberty. He has fought tirelessly to uphold State bans on gay marriage, and he has fought to allow discrimination against LGBTQ people in public accommodations. His open hostility to LGBTQ people was one of the main reasons the ABA rated him ``not qualified.'' Not only is it clear how he would rule on issues relating to those rights, but the ABA was not even confident that he could treat LGBTQ litigants fairly regardless of the issue before him. That is disqualifying. Mr. VanDyke is also an ideologue on reproductive rights issues. His adherence to his extremist positions against women's healthcare and reproductive rights has blinded him to the need about these rights. In 2013, he signed an amicus brief that stated: ``A growing body of scientific literature shows that a fetus can suffer physical pain at 20-weeks' gestation.'' That view was rejected emphatically by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which felt compelled to put out a statement that laid this dangerous ``fetal pain'' myth to rest. Whether he cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction or simply feels comfortable misleading the court, this kind of behavior is disturbing for a Federal judicial nominee. Ordinarily, this kind of indifference to the truth would be disqualifying for a Federal nominee. Ordinarily, blind adherence to ideology would be disqualifying for any nominee to an important position of trust and respect. Ordinarily, the fact that a nominee is unqualified would be disqualifying itself. Yet, for Mr. Trump, these are not disqualifying flaws. They are, in fact, the reasons for his nomination. So let's send the White House a message that we will insist on qualified nominees. They may have views that are different from ours, but they should be qualified to hold these lifetime positions of trust on our Nation's highest courts. I hope that we will reject Mr. VanDyke's nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we ought to be aggrieved, we ought to be angry, and we ought to be furious--not just frustrated but furious-- at this sad, even pathetic, objection to moving forward with a bill that is supported by 95 percent of the American people. The simple fact is that our Senate colleagues have been talking to us in good faith, not only about a background checks bill but also about emergency risk protection orders, because we know there is no single solution, no panacea, and that emergency risk protection orders are the other side of the coin to background checks. Last week, the Washington Post reported that President Trump has given up on passing lifesaving gun violence legislation. The reason is fierce lobby by the NRA. Let's face the stark truth here. The objection on the floor today is not the result of any lack of clarity about the need for background check legislation. It is the result, purely and simply, of the President saying no. We need to do our job. We have continued talks, in fact, with members of the White House staff after the impeachment proceedings began. My hope is that the Washington Post article is untrue. I believe it, certainly, in no way forestalls or prevents these discussions from continuing. I think there is a reason to hope, but it will take courage and strength to do it. The President said yesterday that he was too busy doing his job meeting with the President of Turkey--an individual who has potentially enabled war crimes in northern Syria. If he wasn't too busy to do that kind of meeting, he shouldn't be too busy to do gun violence prevention. The fact is that the stakes are simply too high for there to be delay, and 36,000 Americans are killed every year, or more. That is 100 every day. Gun deaths are, in fact, rising, not declining. The trends are absolutely alarming and appalling, and we are complicit in these deaths if we fail to act. As I speak on the floor right now, there is a school shooting in Santa Clarita, CA. How can we turn the other way? How can we refuse to see that shooting in realtime, demanding our attention, requiring our action? We are complicit if we fail to act. It is not just a political responsibility. It is a moral imperative. The unconscionable loss of life is our responsibility. This problem is one that we can solve. We may not be able to prevent all the deaths that occur--all 100 every day in America--but we can save lives. Our goal has to be to save as many lives as quickly as possible. I have been hopeful for the first time in a long time, as I have talked with my colleague Senator Graham. He and I have worked together conscientiously and closely on ``extreme risk protection order'' legislation. There have been a series of encouraging conversations with the White House, and all seemed to be proceeding well, until there was a report of the President talking to Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. Apparently, it takes only a phone call--or a couple of them--with the NRA to turn around the White House and stop the progress we have been making and throw out the window all the good work we have done. Over these past several months, Senator Graham, the White House, and my office have made important strides on emergency risk protection. We know that they work. They enjoy broad popular support. At least 70 percent of the American people support some type of ``extreme risk protection'' legislation, including two-thirds of Republicans and 60 percent of gun owners. States like Connecticut, which was the first to adopt them, have shown they have a palpable, tangible, measurable effect. They are a crucial tool for law enforcement. The full implementation of Connecticut's ``emergency risk protection order'' law was associated with a mere 14-percent decline in firearm suicide rates, and the passages of Indiana's law in 2005 is associated with a 7.5-percent decline in the firearm suicide rate. We know these laws work. In the 17 jurisdictions that have passed them, there has been a decline in suicides and homicides and domestic violence shootings. We can save lives. We can put together a measure that combines background checks, emergency risk protection orders, and other sensible steps. We can work through this body. The objection that we are bringing it to the floor precipitously is absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason we have to give up now and throw away all our work simply because the House is doing something unrelated, on impeachment. There has been too much good work as well by groups doing the grassroots task of mobilizing public support--Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, and all of the groups that have rallied around for gun safety. In Connecticut, the Newtown Action Alliance, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, and Sandy Hook Promise show us the way. In the last election, gun violence was on the ballot. Gun violence prevention won. That is the reason the House has passed H.R. 8. That is the reason why we should do it here. History will judge my Republican colleagues harshly if they fail that, and the voters will judge them even more immediately equally harshly. The NRA is imploding. Its vice-like grip should be crumbling in this body. They may have the ear of the President, but they should not have the ear of my Republican colleagues. To the President, I say: The NRA is telling the American public they own you and that all they have to do is snap their fingers, and you fall into line. Prove them wrong. All you need to do is take the final steps on this legislation. Give us a green light. Tell us that we can move forward and that you will sign this bill. To the majority leader I say, whether or not the President gives us that green light, we need to do our job. Please do your job. Let us have this vote. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor as it celebrates 25 years of protection and preservation of this environmentally sensitive, pristine area. Originally designated as the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor, the valley was officially designated as a critical natural resource by President Clinton on November 2, 1994. Twenty years later, it was officially renamed The Last Green Valley. For a quarter of a century, The Last Green Valley advocates have worked to care for the corridor through nonprofit stewardship. Overall, the valley comprises a 1,100-square-mile area, which ranges from eastern Connecticut to south-central Massachusetts. One of the most notable aspects of the valley is its rural characteristics despite its proximity to three of New England's largest urban areas. Among its 707,000 acres, 77 percent of this range is farmland and forest. The Last Green Valley's designation as a national heritage corridor by Congress acknowledges its status as a unique national resource. Included in this designation are 26 towns in Connecticut and 9 in Massachusetts. The underdeveloped, green area so close to many large urban spaces makes it a point of special ecological interest and a great environmental asset to Connecticut and the nation. Dedicated to preserving the natural beauty and resources of New England from development and despoilment, The Last Green Valley sets a positive example of environmental conservation and protection. I applaud its accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating The Last Green Valley on 25 years of excellence.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to be here to advocate on behalf of a bill that has enjoyed, rightly, bipartisan support: the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. We all know that the astronomically rising costs of prescription drugs are a burden--in fact a bane for Americans regardless of where they live, regardless of their party, race, religion, or age, but particularly for our seniors. The choice between paying the mortgage, putting food on the table, and buying prescription drugs has become a daily challenge for people across the country. This bill offers a positive, solid step toward ending abuses in the use of patents--abuses that are called patent thicketing and product hopping--that all too commonly raise the cost of prescription drugs and preclude access for the people who need those drugs the most. This effort has been a bipartisan one involving many of us in this Chamber. It passed from the Judiciary Committee unanimously. It is a testament to the still-possible bipartisan cooperation on an issue of paramount concern to the people of America that we have reached this point of bringing it to the floor of the Senate. I am proud to have worked on this measure with my colleague from Texas who has really helped to lead this effort, Senator Cornyn, who is here on the floor with me, and I am happy to yield to him now.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I truly regret the objection by my colleague. I regret even more the reasons for his objection, characterizing the threat of Russia interference as hysteria. Well, I suggest that my friend from Kentucky spend a little bit of time--it will not take a lot--with members of the intelligence community, any member of the intelligence community, all the members of the intelligence community, who agree unanimously that the threat of Russian interference is real. In fact, it is ongoing. That is the warning we have received from the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and, most pointedly, from the Director of the FBI. They have warned us, in no uncertain terms, that the Russians are interfering now, spreading disinformation, creating false accounts and sites and that they are planning to do it even more intensely. It is not only the Russians but other nations. That was the warning of Robert Mueller when he said that the Russians' interference in our last election was sweeping and systematic and that they were doing it again and we need to pay attention to it. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have been doing for the past few days, raising for floor consideration various election securities bills. We have done it not only in the last few days but for months-- the PAVE Act, the Honest Ads Act, the SHIELD Act, but my colleague from Kentucky says it is hysteria. Well, it is a well-founded fear based on fact. As one of our former colleagues, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said: People are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts. The facts here are indisputable, set forth in numbing detail by the Mueller report but also by the intelligence community, independently, in the hearings that have been conducted by various of our committees, in open and public, in Armed Services and Judiciary, and also behind closed doors. Some of them the intelligence community--which produced a report, most recently by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a bipartisan report, showing how the Russians scan every single State to penetrate them, seeking to disrupt them, and that is an absolutely chilling fact-based, evidence-founded prospect that we need to counter, and that is the reason my colleagues and I have come to the floor for these measures. A number of them I have been proud to cosponsor and helped to lead. The one that brings me here now is the Duty to Report Act, S. 1247, and it very simply says there is a duty to report. If there is an illegal offer of assistance, if anyone knows of an illegal acceptance of assistance from a foreign leader or foreign national or foreign government, there is a duty to tell the FBI or some other law enforcement official. The plain fact is our elections are under attack, and 2016 was only a dress rehearsal. Just this week, talk about hysteria, Facebook banned dozens of fake Russian and Iranian accounts attempting to spread misinformation and disinformation to Americans--the purpose: to disrupt the 2020 election. It isn't necessarily an ad for one candidate or another. It may be an ad that seeks to suppress the vote. The point is, that attack will continue, and opposition to it is based on hysteria about the potential political implications. What saddens and angers me is that our Commander in Chief--not just some of our colleagues--refuses to believe that our elections were attacked and will be again. He is actively working to undermine our democracy. The President's attempts to invite a foreign leader, the Ukrainian President, to interfere in our democratic elections was a betrayal of his oath of office and an abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense. But it will occur again by others, as well as him, if we do not pass measures like the Duty to Report Act. It started with a whistleblower complaint, but now we have call notes between the President and Ukraine President Zelensky, the corroborating statements of multiple witnesses in the government, and President Trump's own statements--his own words--on live television, admitting that he did this. The transcript of his call chillingly shows how he literally pressured and extorted the Ukrainian President, using the threat of a cut or elimination of military aid vital to Ukrainian lives and Ukrainian defense against an ongoing Russian attack, not to mention the visit to the White House, also used as leverage with these 10 powerful words: ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' The favor was digging dirt on a political opponent through a full investigation to favor himself over that opponent. The invitation to interfere in our elections goes to the core of our democratic institutions. It is literally condoning and, in fact, inviting and encouraging an attack on our democratic institution, and the President has said, when he was asked, that if he were offered foreign assistance, he would take it. His son, during the last campaign, was offered Russian assistance, and his response was: ``I love it.'' That is not the appropriate response for the offer of an illegal act of assistance. It should be to go to the FBI or another law enforcement agency. Every Republican should be asked to answer the question--in fact, forced to answer this question: Is it acceptable to solicit or accept the assistance of a foreign power to win an election? We cannot allow this kind of practice to become the new normal. It is already illegal to accept or solicit such an assistance from a foreign government or leader, and what we want to do is make it illegal to fail to report it. Finally, as for my colleagues' objection that it would inhibit somehow an active and honest campaign, someone who has reason to know that there is an illegal offer of assistance and someone who knows that that assistance is being solicited by his or her campaign or a member of their family, certainly, should feel a duty to report as a matter of simple patriotism and moral obligation, not to mention legal responsibility. With the 2020 Presidential election looming, we must stop this kind of foreign interference. We must take active and effective measures against it. We must ensure that the American people--not Russia or China or Iran, and they are all gunning for our democratic institution--decide who the leaders of this country will be and what direction our democracy will take. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for his advocacy on this critical measure, and I support him on it and also for his advocacy on the FIRE Act. It is very similar to the measure on which I am going to ask for unanimous consent. He has done wonderful and dedicated work on both measures. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1247; that 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. Edward C. Monahan, a professor at the University of Connecticut and longtime director of Connecticut Sea Grant. Throughout his two decade tenure as director, Dr. Monahan positively transformed Connecticut Sea Grant, which is an integral part of a national network of programs that strive to protect and enhance our coastal and marine ecosystems through outreach, education, research, and technology. His remarkable work and visionary leadership secured vital funding for initiatives that improved the water quality in the Long Island Sound and helped establish a full-fledged Sea Grant College Program in our State. Dr. Monahan demonstrated his excellent qualities as a leader through his decisive problem solving and readiness to find and implement solutions to critically important issues. A notable example came in 1999, when the Long Island Sound faced lobster die-off, an unprecedented disaster for the sound's resources. He responded immediately by awarding development funds for pathobiologists to investigate the cause. The issue turned out far more complicated than initially expected, but Dr. Monahan smartly worked to allocate $3 million in Federal disaster relief funds to investigate the source. Over 3 years, 65 researchers at 30 institutions too part in 21 lobster research projects. This research helped uncover essential information for lobster biologists and led to changes in State and local pesticide usage for mosquito control. One of the other landmarks of Dr. Monahan's directorship was his expansion of Sea Grant's international collaboration. Recognizing the advantages of overseas partnerships, Dr. Monahan worked with universities and government agencies to forge new connections that would support the exchange of innovative marine education, research, and technology. Impressively, he launched the Irish-American Aquaculture Initiative. This initiative launched a formal collaboration between Northeast United States Sea Grant programs and universities in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dr. Monahan also helped to establish relationships with Sea Grant activities in Mexico, Chile, China, and Germany, which set a new standard for international cooperation. Among his many accomplishments as director of Connecticut Sea Grant, Dr. Monahan also served on the Sea Grant Association, a nonprofit that organizes events at the national level and advocates for better understanding, use, and conservation of natural resources. Thanks to his outstanding efforts, Sea Grant has developed into an even more successful program. In recognition of his immense and ongoing contributions, the Sea Grant Association awarded Dr. Monahan its prestigious President's Award in 2000 and 2001, along with its Distinguished Service Award in 2005. I applaud his lifetime of dogged commitment to Connecticut's coastal and marine health and hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Dr. Monahan for his extraordinary contributions to the marine sciences.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, there is very little question today that our democracy is under attack. The threat is not only from outside our country but from within with the threat to our rule of law, our basic values, and our democratic institutions. From outside the country, that threat is reaffirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which recently released a bipartisan report offering a sobering warning of fresh signs of interference by Russia and other foreign actors in the upcoming election. The fact is that the lights are flashing red. The warning has come to us from multiple sources. Our intelligence community has warned us. The FBI has warned us. Our national security professionals have warned us. Still, the majority leader has refused to permit us a vote on commonsense measures that will better guarantee election security. We need to move forward on these measures that safeguard our democracy from outside interference--cyber attack and social disinformation. And, of course, I have sponsored some of these bills. Many of them are bipartisan. We can move forward with that effort even as we confront the challenge and the obligation, which we must do in the ongoing impeachment proceedings. What saddens and angers me is that in the midst of this crisis and the threat from outside our Nation from Russia and other countries, our Commander in Chief has essentially refused to believe that threat exists. He has in fact and in effect denied that there is any threat. That is what happened when the President used the power and authority of the Oval Office to pressure a foreign leader, President Zelensky of Ukraine, to investigate a political opponent, Joe Biden. This action is not only a breach of his oath of office and his constitutional duty, it is unpatriotic, immoral, criminal, and it is a threat to our national security because, again, it invites interference. In fact, it pressures interference in our democracy. It validates and strengthens Vladimir Putin, not this Nation. That is why the impeachment inquiry is being conducted by the House and why it is so important. Impeachment is not a remedy we take lightly or happily; it is a serious, last-resort remedy for the worst abuses of power and an unchecked, rogue President who cannot be held accountable in any other way. But the President has given us no choice. He may not be upholding his oath of office, but we must uphold ours. The most powerful proof here comes from the words of the President himself in that July 25 conversation. There is no Member of this body who is unfamiliar with those words inviting, soliciting, in fact extorting the President of a foreign nation to interfere in our democracy. He involved officials at the highest level who joined in trying to cover it up, who now have a whistleblower complaint, as well as those call notes between President Trump and President Zelensky that repeat the President's own words. The transcript of that call is truly chilling and frightening almost beyond words. When Mr. Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine was ``ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,'' President Trump responded with, ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' That is a quote: ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' And the favor was, of course, interference in our election. That kind of invitation emboldens not only the President of Ukraine but every other autocrat and tyrant who might seek similarly to interfere. Let us remember that what the Founders feared most was exactly that kind of interference, whether it was from the imperial powers that we had just fought and successfully won our freedom or dictators like Vladimir Putin or other nations that will be emboldened to interfere. My Republican colleagues' silence will not age well. Not only are they unwilling to stand up to this President's abuses and threats to our democracy, the majority leader has refused to put those bills on the floor. He has outright refused to give us a vote on security legislation. My bill, the duty to report bill, would require campaigns, candidates, and family members to immediately report to the FBI and Federal Election Commission any offers of illegal foreign assistance. It codifies into law what is already a moral duty and a patriotic duty. It is basic common sense. The law already forbids soliciting and accepting that kind of foreign assistance during a campaign; this measure, very simply, would require it to be reported. I have told this body--and I have repeated it numerous times--that when FBI Director Wray came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he warned that the Russians are still actively trying to interfere in our election. But President Trump just said that if offered foreign assistance, ``I'd take it.'' Congress must pass this Duty to Report Act, along with other commonsense measures that support election security. Not only can we do it while we are considering impeachment, we must do it because the impeachment offense, in fact, involves foreign interference that these election security measures would help to stop. Likewise, I want to mention gun violence protection. Senator Graham and I and others in this body have worked hard over months on negotiating emergency risk protection order legislation. It could be passed along with background checks, and the two should go together. The ball is in the White House's court. The President has shifted ground one way and the other, unpredictably and uncertainly, but I feel we can muster a consensus here. Even as we consider impeachment, we can move forward on a comprehensive set of measures that would help make America safer. My goal, eventually, is to save as many lives as possible and as quickly as possible through those kinds of measures that would include not only background checks made universal and emergency risk protection orders passed by States with the incentives we would provide with this bill but also a ban on assault weapons and safe storage in honor of Ethan Song, a young man who was killed in Guilford, CT, because of improper storage of a gun that he and a friend were playing with. They would include a ban on high-capacity magazines and a reversal of the sweetheart deal that gave the gun manufacturers near-complete immunity. These commonsense measures can be done even as we consider impeachment. Likewise, to take another guarantee of our values and the rule of law, forced arbitration clauses cause harm to millions of Americans every year. These clauses are often tucked into the fine print of lengthy consumer contracts and employee handbooks, with workers and consumers having no meaningful choice but to consent to the terms. These forced arbitration clauses, like that immunity for the gun manufacturers, denies basic justice. They deny Americans their day in court, and they deny public accountability. Consumers and workers are forced into unfair arbitration clauses where corporations can write the rules. They write the rules. Everything can be done in secret, and there is no meaningful judicial rebuke. In many cases, these clauses are paired with provisions that block Americans who have suffered similar harm from banding together in seeking accountability together in a class action lawsuit. At the start of this Congress, 34 Senators joined me in sponsoring the FAIR Act. This bill would render invalid or unenforceable any arbitration agreement between workers and consumers and corporations that governs employment, civil rights, consumer, or antitrust disputes. It has an exception for those arbitration agreements that are the product of real collective bargaining agreements. It is hardly a radical proposal; it is a reform to give Americans access to the justice system again. Yet Senator McConnell regrettably has blocked this bill and others from a vote. Senator McConnell said: ``As long as I am majority leader of the Senate, I get to set the agenda.'' Meanwhile, corporations are cheating workers, consumers, children, and families out of their day in court. We need to move forward on these matters: gun violence protection, election security, the FAIR Act. We can do it because America wants it. We will go back to our constituents in this next election, and my colleagues who will face them will be asked: What have you done? We can answer with real action if we come together and move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am here after talking to my good friend Fred Guttenberg, who visited my office just minutes ago to talk about what we are doing here on the floor of the Senate--what we are failing to do, more precisely, and what we have an obligation to do at this moment in history. Fred Guttenberg lost his precious, beautiful daughter Jamie in Parkland at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in a tragedy that we all recall--at least I do--as though it happened yesterday. Fred Guttenberg has made it his life's mission now, in his daughter's memory, to fight for commonsense steps to save other children from that kind of violence and other parents from all of our worst nightmare--I say that as a father of four. But Fred Guttenberg, being the enormously hopeful, energetic, and positive person that he is, talked to me about Florida's extreme risk protection order statute--or, as it is known there, red flag statute-- and about how it is working to save lives and how it has been used more than 2,000 times since it was passed barely a year ago and how it, in fact, worked most recently in the case of a young man who made threats online with a stash of firearms in his home that were turned over to law enforcement voluntarily when they came to his home. They were turned over voluntarily by his parents. They didn't need to use the warrant because his parents knew that a risk warrant was telling them something they already knew, which is that their son was dangerous and that firearms in that home posed a clear and present and urgent threat of another Marjory Stoneman Douglas tragedy. So using that red flag or emergency risk protection order statute was actually unnecessary there, but it provided the police and law enforcement with a means to an end, and it has been used more than 2,000 times. In fact, in our Judiciary Committee, a nominee for the Southern District of Florida, who is now a sitting State court judge, related to us how he has applied this statute. What he said to us is it works. It saves lives. It prevents suicides. It helps stop domestic violence that can lead to fatalities. These laws work. These laws work to save lives, as we have seen in Connecticut, where proudly we have led the Nation in adopting a comprehensive set of gun violence prevention laws. The experience of Connecticut, the empirical evidence, the facts on the ground, the testimony of law enforcement all tell us these laws work. It isn't just one law. There is no single panacea. There is no one solution. It is a comprehensive set of commonsense measures. The opponents of these measures will point to one tragedy or another that could not have been prevented by one law or another, and that is the reason that it has to be comprehensive, and it will never prevent all of the tragedy. There will still be gun deaths in this country, but these laws work to save lives. And as Fred and I said to each other, if one life has been saved in the State of Florida by its emergency risk protection order statute, it was worth doing. If one daughter of one potentially grieving parent was saved, it was worth doing. But it is many more than one life that will be saved if we adopt the measures that are before us. Ideally, H.R. 8, universal background checks that has come to us from the House, the closing of the Charleston loophole, which I have long championed and I have introduced as a separate measure here, emergency risk protection order or red flag statutes that my colleague and I, Senator Lindsey Graham, have worked on, negotiated over months and now is on the verge of introduction--we know that the task before us is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, to prevent people who will kill or injure themselves or others from having those firearms. The universal background check goal is to enforce a statute that was adopted many years ago that keeps guns out of the hands of specific people who are dangerous because they are convicted felons or drug addicts or fall into other categories, keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people before they are hurt. An extreme risk protection order statute keeps guns out of the hands of people who, like the shooter in Parkland, as my colleague Senator Graham says, all but took out an ad in the newspaper saying he was going to kill people--as this young man did in Coral Springs, when he went on the internet. Under our statute, there is complete due process because not only must a statutory standard of proof be met for the warrant--the risk warrant, much like an arrest warrant or a search warrant--but then, in a subsequent hearing within a week or 2 or 3 weeks under other jurisdictions, there is a right to a hearing, and the burden of proof is even higher for that gun to be kept away. Then the order itself lasts for a specific period of time. There are guarantees of due process here. Every one of these proposals--universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders--is within the Heller decision, consistent with the Second Amendment. We respect the Second Amendment. It is the law of the land, but they can help save lives. That is why 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks, and they support extreme risk protection order laws. They know lives can be saved if guns are kept out of the hands of dangerous people. These stories are so common and so tragic: A young man exhibits disturbing behavior. He is clearly troubled. His friends, relatives, teachers, even law enforcement are aware of his hateful rants. He posts pro-Nazi photos online. We know the end of this story too. It is the story of Dakota Reed that started like so many others--Charleston, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Dayton, El Paso. He posted on November 11, 2018: ``I'm shooting for 30 Jews.'' Except here is how that story ended: When this young man threatened an anti-Semitism- fueled massacre, law enforcement was granted an extreme risk protection order. Dakota Reed was online, threatening to kill people, and law enforcement seized his 12 firearms. For so long, we have been told there is nothing that can be done, but this one example, like the young man in Coral Springs, shows there are effective solutions. These laws work. As so many Americans know, there is no shortage of ideas to stop preventable gun violence. There is only a shortage of courage. There is only a dearth of will. For too long, Congress has been complicit. Congress has blood on its hands if it continues to fail in meeting this basic responsibility to keep Americans safer than they are now. Almost every community has been affected by this national epidemic of gun violence. Massacres in El Paso and Dayton within a 24-hour period left 31 dead. Before Congress returned from its recess, a shooter in Odessa, TX, killed another seven. Communities are forever changed by these events. The fear that is engendered and the trauma of these shootings affects a community and tears it apart in ways that take years to recover from it. Like my colleagues from Connecticut in the House and in the Senate, I will live forever with the sights and sounds of that day in Sandy Hook, the cries of grief in that afternoon and afterward, when 26 beautiful people--6 great educators and 20 young children--were killed. I was at the firehouse where parents went to find out if their children were dead or alive. They found out by waiting as the children arrived--but not all of the children. That is how the parents who lost their children found out. Those anguished cries, the sobbing, the grief have been repeated 2,226 times since in mass shootings. They have left 2,000 communities grieving, but more than those mass shootings, there are the deaths-- every day, 90 deaths; 36,000 Americans killed by gun violence every year. That is about 100 every day, and gun deaths are on the rise, not reducing. There were 39,773 gun deaths for 2017, the most recent year for which it is available. That is not even counting the physically wounded, those who escaped mass shootings physically unscathed but with lifelong mental scars, and the thousands of friends and family members of victims and near-victims whose lives are forever altered by these incidents of gun violence. Despite this unconscionable loss of life, Congress has done nothing, complicit in the mass shootings but also in the suicides and domestic violence. Lori Jackson's death in Connecticut was at the hand of her estranged husband. Her children were traumatized losing their mother, and her parents became active advocates--courageous and strong advocates for a change in the law. We have an obligation to act regardless of whatever the President says or does. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the U.S. Senate can act only if the President commits to signing some law. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can act only if the President endorses a specific measure. We have that duty, independent of the President. We have a constitutional duty. We have already ceded too much of our power in too many areas. We cannot, we need not, we must not cede that independent obligation we have to act and act now. Medical research tells us that 80 percent of the perpetrators of mass violence exhibit clear signs that they are going to carry out an attack, often including explicit threats of violence. The Parkland shooter is one of the latest examples. In all of those jurisdictions that have extreme risk protection order statutes, the experience is that they work. I have introduced Jamie's Law that would provide for background checks on ammunition purchases--there should be universal background checks on purchases--in honor of Fred Guttenberg's daughter, Jaime. I have supported a ghost gun statute that would take account of the need to act on weapons that are literally made in people's homes using kits like the one used by the Rancho Tehama gunman. They are referred to as ``ghost guns'' because they possess no serial number or any kind of traceable identification or registration. One scholar estimates that at least hundreds of thousands of unmarked receivers already have been sold in the United States. Of course, we need an assault weapons ban. There are some weapons that no one should ever be able to use as they were in El Paso, Dayton, Las Vegas, Parkland, Orlando, Newtown, Aurora, Columbine. These tragedies alone account for 211 people lost to gun violence. Assault weapons are literally weapons of war. Assault-style weapons can fire hundreds of rounds in a minute, and until recently they could be converted to automatic weapons. A recent study found that when assault-style weapons are used with high-capacity magazines, 155,000 more people are shot and 47 percent more are killed than in other instances. Earlier this year, I was pleased to join dozens of my colleagues in introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, making the sale, manufacture, transport, and importation of 205 specific military-style assault weapons, by name as well as by a number of features and modifications, illegal--banned under our law. I was pleased, also with my colleague Chris Murphy, to introduce a safe storage law named after Ethan Song of Guilford, CT, who was killed while playing with a weapon in his friend's home. This legislation would enact Federal requirements for safe storage, penalties for violators, and a grant program to help States establish their own safe storage law. The SECURE Firearms Storage Act would require firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers to safely store their inventory and, as well, individual gun owners to use standards that in fact have been endorsed by the NRA. Safely securing firearms prevents theft and unintended use of lawfully acquired and possessed owned guns. In 2016, alone, 238,000 firearms were reported stolen in the United States. These kinds of laws are championed by Michael and Kristin Song because they know these laws work. Their child, their young son, was accidentally killed by a gun stored in a friend's closet, accessible to those two teens without any impediment. In many cases, including Sandy Hook, safe gun storage could have prevented mountains of grief and heartache and a river of tears. Gun owners who fail to safely store or secure their firearms must be held accountable, as this law would do in honor of Ethan Song. Of course, high-capacity magazines--which is to say magazines that can fire more than 10 rounds--to help stop mass shootings should be banned as well. There are other measures--and my colleagues have talked about them-- to keep gun dealers honest, to prevent hate crimes, to stop domestic and gender-based violence, to require development of smart gun technology. That is why also, on smart gun technology, with Senator Murphy, I introduced the SAFETY Act, which would encourage manufactures to develop and consumers to purchase smart gun technology. Smart gun technology is actually one that I championed as attorney general. A number of gun manufacturers--at least one agreed to implement it, and he was nearly drummed out of business by other gun manufacturers at the time. The firearm industry and responsible gun owners should already be embracing innovations that have been developed, inventions that are feasible, smart gun technology that has already created locks that prevent accidental shootings and fingerprint scans that can disable firearms for anyone but their lawful owners. We need to harness the power of American innovation and create smarter, safer firearms. There is no reason to wait another day before passing these laws. We know there is a political movement that is gaining strength from groups like Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, Students Demand Action, Brady, Giffords, the Coalition Against Gun Violence, the Connecticut Coalition, the New Town Action Alliance, and Sandy Hook Promise. So many of these organizations are coming together to create a seismic change, a tectonic groundswell of support. That is the reason we are here tonight and the reason the President is even talking about a measure or set of measures that will help prevent gun violence. We can do this. We can pass this measure. The President can stand up to the gun lobby and the NRA. The Republican leadership has it within their power to seize this moment made possible by the American public expecting and demanding that we act and saying to us: Enough is enough. Truly, enough is enough. On December 14, 2012, I pledged that I would do everything I could do to make sure no more parents have to bury their children, as did those courageous and strong families in Newtown who have come to us asking for action, as have survivors and loved ones from countless other families. No other parent should have to bury children as a result of preventable gun violence. I have fought as long and as hard as I know how, and I will continue because we are not going away. We are not giving up. Nothing could persuade me to break that pledge. I have been proud to stand with my colleague Chris Murphy in our partnership as a team that has brought together so many of our colleagues who are speaking tonight. The only question before us now is, How long will it take? How many more children and lives will be lost? How many more communities have to be added to that dreaded list of mass shootings? How many more suicides, including veteran suicides--20 every day, not all from gun violence but many of them due to firearms. How many more grieving families? How many more lives lost needlessly and senselessly? I thank my colleagues for being here tonight. We all hope the answer is fewer. We all hope that lives will be saved, as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible. That is why I have been willing to engage in discussions with the White House, as well as with my colleagues, along with my colleague Chris Murphy and others who are here--Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey. That is why we have spared no effort and left no stone unturned. How many more days will go by before we fulfill our duty? The answer really should be ``none.'' We all have an obligation to fulfill our constitutional duty as a Congress to act--whether or not the President does. But to the President and to the Republican leadership, my message is this: Please, please work it out. Please lead. Lead or get out of the way. Please lead or at least give us a vote on H.R. 8, on universal background checks, on emergency risk protection, on commonsense steps that we know work. These measures work. They save lives. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Connecticut after his powerful and eloquent description of the lives that have been lost, the stakes of this decision, and the clear path we have--an opportunity and an obligation to save lives. Let me begin where he ended. The President of the United States has an obligation here to lead. If he does, we will have legislation that will literally save thousands of lives. He has an obligation, as we do, to find a way to save these lives. All of us have seen all too often the needless, senseless, and unspeakable tragedy done by gun violence. We focus on the mass killings, but those 90 deaths a day consist of the drive-by, one-by-one shootings in Hartford and New Haven and Bridgeport and cities and towns and communities around the country. No one is immune. No family is untouched, through friends and relatives and workplaces and through suicides, which are a major part of those 90 deaths every day in this country. Domestic violence is made five times more deadly when there is a gun in the home. The President must not only come to the table but lead. And if he will not lead, get out of the way because we have an obligation to move forward now and take advantage of this historic opportunity and obligation. Just weeks ago, in one 24-hour period, massacres in El Paso and Dayton left 31 people dead. Eleven days ago, a shooter in Odessa, TX, killed another seven. Communities are forever changed by these events, and so is our Nation. The trauma and the stress done in schools to our children by the drills they conduct, by the anticipation that is raised, by the fear that is engendered--the sights and sounds of gun violence echo and reverberate across our land. I remember the sights and sounds of the parents at the firehouse in Sandy Hook on that horrible day in 2012 when 20 beautiful children and sixth grade educators died. The firehouse is where parents went to find out whether their children were OK. The way they found out was either their children appeared or they did not. For them, in the cries and sobbing they experienced, the expressions of anguish, the look on those faces, it was only the beginning of their nightmare. It transformed Connecticut. What we did in Connecticut was adopt commonsense measures and comprehensive steps to stop gun violence. The lesson of Connecticut is not only that those steps have reduced gun violence, including homicide, but also that States with the strongest laws are still at the mercy of the ones with the weakest because guns have no respect for State boundaries. They cross State lines, and they do damage and death in States like Connecticut with strong gun laws. Through the Iron Pipeline, it comes from other States to our south. Since that day at Sandy Hook, there have been 2,218 mass shootings in the United States, and over 2,000 times, parents have sat, as did those parents at Sandy Hook, and waited to know whether their children were OK--children who left in the morning with no inkling about the violence that was to unfold. There is no reason people have to live this way in the United States of America. America has no greater proportion of mental health issues than any other country. We have a higher rate of gun violence. We can prevent it through commonsense steps and comprehensive steps that will save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. That is the principle of the two main proposals likely to come before this body. To keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, do it through background checks, which have to apply universally to all States for them to be effective. Experts estimate that 80 percent of firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained from unlicensed sellers, and a recent study found that States that have universal background check laws experienced 52 percent fewer mass shootings. Background checks prevent people who are dangerous to themselves or others from buying firearms, and, likewise, emergency risk protection orders take guns away from people who are dangerous to themselves or others. These two concepts have a common goal, the same end. They achieve it by complementary means. The vast majority of perpetrators of mass violence exhibit clear signs that they are about to carry out an attack. The shooter in Parkland, as my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham has said, all but took out an ad in the newspaper saying that he was going to kill people at that school in Parkland. The police were repeatedly alerted to his violent behavior, including a call from a family member who begged the police to recover his weapon. Today, in Florida, she could ask for an extreme risk protection order under a Florida law signed by my colleague Senator Scott when he was Governor. In the 17 jurisdictions that have passed emergency risk protection order laws, enforcers can petition courts to temporarily restrict access to firearms with due process. At a hearing this morning in the Judiciary Committee, we learned from one of the judges in Broward County who enforce these laws that they have worked to prevent shootings, including many suicides, and they enable mental health help to be available as well. These laws prevent suicide. The majority of those gun deaths in the United States, in fact, are suicide, which is accounting for 60 percent of those 90 people killed every day. Emergency risk protection orders are effective, but they are resource intensive, and that is why Senator Graham and I have worked hard and we are close to finalizing a measure that will provide grants and incentives to other States that are considering or may consider these kinds of laws. Together with Senator Graham, I have been working hard on this legislation, and we are close--after extensive discussion, not only between us but with the White House and with our colleagues--to a bill that can muster bipartisan support and pass this body. The Charleston loophole must be closed. I have been leading that fight in the Senate to fix this problem for years. The House passed bipartisan legislation on background checks, H.R. 8, and on the Charleston loophole that would fix the problem of would-be murderers having access to guns simply because information is unavailable within the time limit that is set. Guns should not be sold simply because a deadline for a background check is not met. Most are done literally within seconds or a minute, but some require more extensive work. There is no reason to wait to pass these measures. Neither should we wait to pass a safe storage bill that we believe would have prevented deaths like Ethan Song's perishing in Guilford. This past January, Ethan Song would have celebrated his 16th birthday, but a year earlier, he was accidentally killed by a gun stored in his friend's closet, accessible to him and a friend. Like Kristen and Mike Song, thousands of other families across America lose children in gun violence every year. It is a parent's worst nightmare, and, in many cases, safe storage, including possibly Sandy Hook, would have prevented a mountain of heartache and a river of tears. The Songs have been so strong and courageous, as have been the survivors of the victims' families in Sandy Hook. They have been the powerful faces and voices of this effort and the most effective advocates. The groups that have been formed in these past years, raising awareness and mobilizing every town--Guilford, Brady, Newtown Action Alliance, Sandy Hook Promise, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, and Students Demand Action are only some of them. They are mounting a political movement, and we need to hear them. History will judge us harshly if we fail to heed that call for commonsense reform. The voters will judge harshly, as well, the colleagues who fail to heed that call. We need to keep in mind that gun violence is not one problem. There is no one solution. There is no panacea. We need to aim at all of these measures, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. The House, just this week, approved a ban on high-capacity magazines, as well as an emergency risk protection order statute. Gun violence is many problems--not one. It is the loopholes in the background check system; it is the failure to safely store firearms; it is an arbitrary deadline for completing a background check; and it is the lack of emergency risk protection orders that take guns away from people who are dangerous to themselves or others with due process. I have worked on this issue for more than two decades--almost three decades since I was attorney general first elected in the State of Connecticut. There has been progress. The progress has achieved results. Now it is this body's obligation to take that next step, and I implore the President of the United States to state his support, which my colleagues across the aisle have said is necessary for them to do what they think is responsible. I say to them: If the President fails to lead, you must do so. We must continue to fight and never give up and never go away for the sake of the survivors and families who said from this Gallery when we failed to act in the wake of Sandy Hook: Shame. Shame on us, in fact, if we fail to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will move to consider the measure on the floor, probably pass it, and then leave town. There will be efforts to describe what we have done as a reason for satisfaction and pride. There have been accomplishments, but on one critical issue--really a range of issues--involving our national security, we have only abject failure to show for the months we have been here. I am proud to come to the floor of the Senate today to advocate for that cause--election security--with colleagues like Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who have been tireless champions, articulate, and eloquent advocates for this cause. Election security is national security. The testimony from Robert Mueller, whatever you think about his verdict on the President, clearly called for action. Robert Mueller is a modern-day Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about the Russians and many other nations--as he put it--who are mounting a renewed attack on this country. In the next election, this attack will make 2016 look like child's play, a dress rehearsal, because the tools and techniques they will bring to bear in attacking our democracy are so much more sophisticated. Already, in 2016, Robert Mueller called that attack sweeping and systematic. It was the reason he first spoke about it in his statement and in May closed that statement with a severe and dire warning about the ongoing interference in our democracy. Those many other nations already include Iran, which just last week the Washington Post reported to be mounting its own disinformation campaign using social media and misinformation--disinformation--to distract, divide, and sow discord here and in other democracies around the world. There is nothing unknown to many of us about the Russians' intent and the designs of these other nations. It is hiding in plain sight. From all of the classified briefings that we have received over these months, the Russians know what they are doing, we know what the Russians are doing, and we know what we are failing to do. The ones in the dark are the American people, and that is why Senator Klobuchar, Senator Warner, and I are on the floor today--to make sure that when we leave today, it is not the end of this topic. It is the beginning of a drumbeat, a cry of outrage, and unhappiness around the Nation. There are a number of measures that we have championed that involve more funding for the States to do election security, paper ballots by the States to provide backups, auditing standards, and cyber security criteria. These measures are a matter of common sense. That word ``common sense'' is overused these days, especially in a city where it is on display so infrequently, but common sense is the reason we are here. I want to talk specifically about the Duty to Report Act. It is based on a very simple idea: If you see something, say something. The Duty to Report Act would require all campaigns, all candidates, and family members to immediately report to the FBI and the Federal Election Commission any offers of foreign assistance. It would codify in the law what is already a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and 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 would do is require individuals and campaigns and family members to report those illegal foreign assistance efforts to the FBI. When Robert Mueller came before Congress, he outlined the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. It includes 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents-- Russian covert and overt efforts to influence the outcome of our election by helping one candidate and hurting another. But the Russians and those many other nations that will engage in similar attacks on our democracy have no particular partisan preference. They are doing what is in their interest to disrupt our democracy, and the victim in one election may be the one preferred in the next. So we have a common cause here. Indeed, Robert Mueller testified: Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. This deserves the attention of every American. We have an obligation, above all, as Members of this body, where there has been so much history of bipartisan action, to come together in this cause. Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, recently came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he warned that the Russians are still actively trying to interfere in our elections. Again and again, our intelligence community has warned severely, repeatedly, powerfully about this threat. Yet when asked whether he would accept foreign help in 2020, the President of the United States said: ``I'd take it.'' It is much like his son Donald Junior said during this last campaign in response to an offer of assistance from the Russians: ``I love it.'' When Robert Mueller was asked about this point during his testimony, he said: ``I hope this is not the new normal. But I fear it is.'' That is the reason we need this measure. That is the reason we need the measures that my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Warner of Virginia, have helped to lead, and that is why I have been proud to join them in this effort. To my Republican colleagues in the leadership, I say: Lead or get out of the way. To the President of the United States: Lead or get out of the way. Our national security is too important to make a partisan issue. We ought to join together, as we did after 9/11, to prevent more disaster and to join in this common cause. This legislation is a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and common sense. With the 2020 election literally on the horizon before us, we must act now. Time is not on our side. It is only on our adversary's side. As much as we take pride in the National Defense Authorization Act, the threat to our national security is not only from the planes and the submarines and the aircraft carriers. It is also from the cyber attacks and the social media campaigns to disrupt and destroy our democracy. I am proud to be joined today by a great colleague who has been a wonderful champion on this issue, Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have a separate bill. It has not come to us from the House, but it should have bipartisan support. I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1247; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be 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 thank my colleague from New York, our distinguished leader, for his very powerful and compelling remarks and for his steadfast leadership on this issue of election security. The issue of election security goes to the core of our national security. In the last Presidential election, this Nation was attacked. It was an attack as pernicious and insidious as any in this country's history, although it was less visible than bombs dropped at Pearl Harbor and less dramatic than the attacks on our troops elsewhere, whether in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was an attack on this Nation, and some of us have called it, in fact, an act of war on both sides of the aisle. On both sides of the aisle there has been unanimity, in fact, that the attack was by the Russians through social media and through other means and tools of misinformation and disinformation to interfere with our election. That unanimity comes not only from Robert Mueller, a distinguished public servant and dedicated American, but also from our entire intelligence community. There is only one person in a position of authority who disagrees, and that is the President of the United States, who finds Vladimir Putin more credible than our intelligence community and has said so publicly. In a few moments, I will ask for unanimous consent for the passage of S. 1247, the Duty to Report Act, which would address the President's saying very explicitly that he would accept outside help from a foreign power, again, in the course of an election. The proof is overwhelming that the Trump campaign accepted it in the last election. But even disputing those facts, even putting aside the President's contention that there was never an attack from the Russians, the opinion is overwhelming that we must act on a very simple idea: If you see something, say something. The Duty to Report Act that I have offered would require companies, candidates, and family members to immediately report to the FBI and to the Federal Election Commission any offers of Federal assistance. It codifies into law what is already--I think we all agree--a moral duty, a patriotic duty, a matter of 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 such illegal foreign assistance directly to the FBI. Yesterday, Robert Mueller came before Congress to answer questions about his sweeping investigation and 448-page report. This report documents compellingly and convincingly the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. It tells the story of 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. It proves Russian covert and overt efforts to influence the outcome of our election by helping one candidate and hurting another. It shows powerfully the Trump campaign's knowledge of that effort and willingness to accept that help. Mueller testified yesterday: Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American. The legislation Senator Schumer is offering through unanimous consent now, the legislation that I am offering by unanimous consent now, is necessary as a matter of urgent national security. We have no choice but to defend our Nation and our democracy. Given the sweeping, sophisticated attack by the Russians outlined in the Mueller report and confirmed by his testimony yesterday, we have an obligation to act now, as we would against any impending attack in our history. Just the day before yesterday, FBI Director Christopher Wray came before the Judiciary Committee and warned that the Russians are actively trying to interfere in our elections right now, in real time, as we speak here. He has told this body that if a foreign agent or government tries to help a campaign, the FBI would want to know about it. That also is a matter of simple moral duty, patriotic duty, and common sense. When asked if he would accept foreign help in 2020, the President said, ``I'd take it.'' This is much like when his son, Don Junior, said ``I love it'' in response to Russia's offer of assistance to the Trump campaign in the June 9th meeting now infamous in these Halls and in the country. When Mueller was asked about this yesterday, he said, ``I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.'' Well, it doesn't have to be the new normal if Congress passes the Duty to Report Act. This legislation would ensure that if any campaign--literally any campaign-- were offered any assistance from any foreign government in any future election, the FBI would learn of it. Mr. President, 2016 was just a dress rehearsal. We can expect that the same will happen with greater intensity and sophistication in the election to come. We have a duty to act against it--taking the measure sent to us by the House of Representatives, introduced for unanimous consent by Senator Schumer now, and the Duty to Report Act now--so that we protect our democracy going forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Warner, and we will hear shortly from Senator Wyden. These two great colleagues are championing election security. Senator Warner, at the helm as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, has done as much as any American and any Member of this body to uncover the serious Russian threat to our election system. It is a threat not just from Russia but from other countries as well. That is why I have offered and will ask unanimous consent for the passage of S. 1247, the Duty To Report Act. This legislation, like Senator Warner's, is based on a very simple idea: If you see something, say something. 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 illegal foreign assistance. It differs in some technical aspects--for example, with regard to family members--from Senator Warner's proposed FIRE Act. Yet it is the same idea because 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 such illegal foreign assistance directly to the FBI. Special Counsel Robert Mueller came before Congress today to answer questions about his very comprehensive and powerful report that documents the sweeping and systematic interference in our election, as he testified, to benefit, principally, Donald Trump's campaign. Yet this measure is about the future. It is about preventing such election interference in the future and providing a mandate and a duty to report any offers of assistance from a foreign government, like Russia. This report outlines the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. It tells the story of more than 150 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. It tells the story of Russian covert and overt efforts to influence the outcome of our election by helping one candidate and hurting another, and it shows--perhaps most importantly for the purpose of this measure--that the Trump campaign knew of it, welcomed it, and happily accepted it. Mueller testified this morning: Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian Government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American. Equally important is that, just yesterday, FBI Director Christopher Wray came before the Committee on the Judiciary and warned that the Russians are still actively trying to interfere in our election, which is what Mueller said today when he was asked about some of the remarks and some of the efforts in the Trump campaign. He was referring to Donald Trump, Jr., when he said, ``I love it,'' in welcoming Russia's offer of assistance to the Trump campaign in the June 9 meeting, Director Mueller said, ``I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.'' This is the context of troubling comments that brings us here today. One of the most troubling is President Trump's own comment when asked if he would accept foreign help in 2020, and he said, ``I would take it.'' That is why we need the Duty To Report Act. If that kind of assistance is offered, there is an obligation to report it, not to take it. The election of 2016 was simply a dress rehearsal. With the 2020 election upon us, we must stop this kind of foreign interference and ensure that it is the American people, not Russia or any other foreign power like China or Iran, who decide who the leaders of this country will be and the direction of our democracy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. 1247; that 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 yield to another great colleague who has been a champion of this cause of election security, Senator Wyden.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, when it comes to air safety, the United States of America should be the gold standard for the world. In fact, better than the gold standard, it ought to be the Sullenberger standard. We remember Sully Sullenberger, who was the pilot at the controls when the ``Miracle on the Hudson'' flight in 2009 landed safely. He prescribed the qualities that we should regard most highly as we choose a new Administrator of the FAA. He also gave us the leadership we need and should respect when considering the nomination of Stephen Dickson. We should reject it, and he articulated exactly why. Chesley ``Sully'' Sullenberger said about Stephen Dickson that ``his actions and words raise grave concerns about his ability to act with the integrity and the independence the next FAA Administrator must have to navigate the challenges of the ungrounding of the 737 MAX and to rebuild the global trust in the FAA's confidence and ability to appropriately certify new aircraft design.'' That is what he said in an interview with POLITICO, but he said it publicly on a number of other occasions. Those two qualities that he mandated in the next FAA Administrator as more important than any other--independence and integrity--are precisely the qualities that Stephen Dickson lacks. It is that failing which brings me to the floor now to oppose his nomination. Sully Sullenberger highlighted the particular experience that exemplified that failing, which is Stephen Dickson's involvement in a whistleblower case. As I know from my experience as the U.S. attorney and attorney general, whistleblowers are the ones who bring information to light that can help save lives. Whether it is in the criminal area or air safety or drug effectiveness or many other areas, including other areas of transportation safety, whistleblowers play a vital role, so they need protection. They should never be retaliated against. They should never be objects of retribution. They should be protected and encouraged. That is what an air safety expert who really cares about safety--someone who respects independence and integrity--would do. That is exactly the opposite of what Stephen Dickson is alleged to have done in the case of Karlene Petitt. Ms. Petitt's case was brought to our attention after Stephen Dickson's testimony to the Commerce Committee, so we had no real opportunity to ask him about it in his confirmation hearing. In fact, we never learned about Ms. Petitt's case or a deposition that Dickson gave for it until after that hearing. He didn't disclose it because he purportedly interpreted a Senate Commerce Committee questionnaire as asking about ``my personal conduct and my behavior both in general and as an officer of a large public company or any instance in which I was named as a party to a proceeding.'' He didn't think that a court case or a deposition fit that definition. The simple fact is that Ms. Petitt alleged she was subject to retaliation after presenting Mr. Dickson and other Delta executives, including the current CEO, Ed Bastian, with a written report regarding Delta's ``Flight Operations' Safety Culture'' in January 2016. That report alleged significant facts that should have been investigated. Following its submission and a meeting with a member of Delta's human resources staff, Ms. Petitt was removed from duty. In fact, in March 2016, she was referred for a psychiatric examination. That is the way Delta reacted to her whistleblower complaint. The doctor chosen by Delta diagnosed her with bipolar disorder and found that she was unfit for duty. When she was evaluated by a panel of eight doctors at the Mayo Clinic and an independent third-party doctor, these psychiatrists concluded that Ms. Petitt did not, in fact, suffer from a mental illness and was entirely fit for duty. The appearance and seemingly the reality is that her safety concerns were meant to be buried rather than taken seriously and addressed. Mr. Dickson played a part in that reaction to her whistleblower concerns. In fact, the psychiatrist who first evaluated her concluded that she must have this disorder because, as a woman, how can she be raising three young children and be studying for another possible degree and at the same time working as she was. That kind of evaluation was certainly entitled to very little respect. Again, Mr. Dickson never disclosed it to us, so we could never ask him about it at the nomination hearing. He never disclosed it before that hearing. When he was called upon to explain this lapse, instead of taking ownership of his failing, he sought to minimize his involvement inconsistently with the facts of the case. His failure to disclose it and his reaction to it would itself be disqualifying, but there are other grounds as well. He is simply not the right person for this agency at this time. Integrity and independence are now more important than ever because the airline industry and particularly Boeing need new leadership in oversight and accountability. New leadership from the FAA is critically important in light of its failure to ground those 737 MAX airplanes ahead of the rest of the world--in fact, the FAA follows the rest the world--and because of their delegation of authority for certification to Boeing and manufacturers generally. That delegation of authority essentially puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. It may have been for cost savings to the FAA because they could allow Boeing to hire, pay, and fire the certifiers, but at some level, it meant that Boeing then in effect controls the safety and scrutiny supposedly exercised by an independent FAA. That independence is critically important. Mr. Dickson comes from a long career at Delta Airlines--in fact, a record at Delta that raises questions about his independence from the industry and at a time when that agency must guarantee its independence from that industry. Our next FAA Administrator will, in fact, have enormous challenges in restoring public trust. This agency has been undermined by its failure to ground airplanes, to exercise independent judgment, and to do the kind of scrutiny necessary and what is needed, in fact, in new leadership. The FAA's broken system--at least in public perception-- requires a new voice, untainted by connections to the industry. We have an opportunity to find someone who will restore that confidence in America and worldwide. He is very simply not the right person for this job, and I urge my colleagues to oppose him and to respect the advice given to us by Sully Sullenberger, who has highlighted those two qualities: independence and integrity--integrity not only in past careers but in dealings with the U.S. Senate, in full disclosure with respect to whistleblowers, in highlighting public safety above profits or interests of the industry. That is the kind of independence and integrity we need. I still have hope that we can find it if my colleagues join me in opposing this nomination. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, Kathryn Nagel--who will be an extraordinary physician because she has not only a great mind, but she also has a great heart--is absolutely right. Drug companies today have moved far from the outreaching motives of insulin's original discovery. Advancements in biotechnology have allowed manufacturers to make slightly more purified and precise versions of insulin, but it works the same as Dr. Banting's original insulin from the 1920s because that is what our body needs to do its work. Even incremental changes to an insulin product open up new patent opportunities for manufacturers and companies that have been taking advantage of these loopholes in our patent system for too long at the expense of patients and their families. Let me give one particularly egregious example. Sanofi manufactures the insulin product Lantus. Sanofi filed a total of 74 patents on Lantus, with 95 percent of those applications happening after Lantus was introduced to the market in the year 2000. That is a variation of insulin--almost 20 years old--protected by 74 patents way beyond the life of the original patent on a medicine discovered 100 years ago by a doctor who said, ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.'' Sanofi has constructed such an elaborate web and tangle of patents surrounding their product that they could have a competition- free monopoly on their particular version of insulin for 37 years. They are exploiting it relentlessly and tirelessly and inexcusably. The effect of elaborate patent thickets like Sanofi's--constructed by companies--are felt by consumers in the form of higher drug prices. It is that simple. Create a monopoly without competition, and the prices can be raised without real limit. Lantus has increased in price 24 percent from 2016 to 2018. In 2 years, there was a 24-percent increase unrelated to the cost of the product. In fact, the overall costs of insulin have doubled in recent years, with patients having paid an average of $2,864 for insulin in 2012 and $5,705 in 2016. That is the average out-of-pocket for insulin patient. That is the story I heard from Emma Del Vecchio of Orange and Logan Merwin of Haddam, as earlier today they shared their life-and-death struggle with the cost of insulin. One more story that has resonated with me over the past few days is from Kristin Whitney Daniels. She is from Shelton, CT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the remarks of Kristen Whitney Daniel and Jonathan Chappell printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, Kristen is the chapter leader of Connecticut #insulin4all and attended the event I mentioned. She was inspired to become an advocate for affordable and equitable access to insulin after facing tough barriers in her own medical treatment. She was forced to become one of the one in four patients with diabetes in the United States who has resorted to insulin-rationing in the face of high drug costs. Let's be clear about insulin-rationing. It means reducing the dosage--rationing the consumption--to lower the cost. When we talk about folks who have to cut pills in half or seniors who take a pill every other day instead of every day, that is rationing. That is what Kristen had to do in the face of these rising drug prices. In order to pursue her dream internship, Kristen had to purchase the only health insurance she could afford, which was a high-deductible plan whose monthly payments consumed 15 percent of her income. To try to prepare for the realities of this kind of coverage, she had to hoard her insulin and other diabetes supplies for months in advance, deliberately starving her body of the medicine she needed in order to keep her head above water financially. I have submitted bipartisan legislation that was recently approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, along with my colleague Senator Cornyn, that would end these abusive practices surrounding patents-- patent-thicketing and product-hopping. You don't need to know the details of those abuses or of our legislation to understand the need for protection and the need for security and safeguards for these kinds of patients--the 30 million who suffer from diabetes and who are paying exploding costs for insulin that are rising exponentially and astronomically for not only insulin but also many other drugs, as we know from listening to our constituents. All of our colleagues understand the high cost of prescription drugs that continue to plague America across all walks of life. Every day, patients are forced to choose, in fact, between paying for the medicines they need and the needs of their families. Drugs to treat everything from depression, to arthritis, to cancer, and even basic saline solution for IVs have increased in price in recent months. They are not new, wondrous, magic discoveries; they are workhorse medicines. Insulin has been around for 100 years. Many of these other drugs have been around for decades as well. We owe it to Americans. As citizens and as patients ourselves, we know that these rising prescription prices are ruining families, tearing apart communities, and destroying the basic trust we have in our healthcare system. Nothing is more basic. Healthcare is a right. Prescription drugs should not be available just to the wealthy. The bill Senator Cornyn and I are hoping this Chamber will pass is just one step toward making prescription drug prices more affordable; making these cures that are America's pride--developed by great researchers and wonderful minds--available to all of our citizens. Logan Merwin, Emma Del Vecchio, and all of the children in America who suffer from diabetes understand something maybe we don't as well: that insulin is a matter of life and death and that they are alive because they live in the greatest country in the history of the world, where insulin is available to them even at times when it is difficult for their families to afford. They know, too, that with the great advocacy of Kathryn Nagel, Kristin Whitney Daniels, Jonathan Chappell, and others who are taking their cause to America, as well as the JDRF, which is supporting wonderful discoveries, we will be a better country. We will make these prescription drugs affordable. Insulin will be available to all. Insulin does not belong to me or to you; it belongs to the world. And I hope America will be an example of making insulin belong to the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about insulin. You may wonder why someone would talk about insulin, given all the weighty and pressing issues we have before us in this Chamber and even more so in the world today. I will not begin to recite them, but insulin for millions of people--in fact, 30 million people in the United States--is a matter of life and death. Many of us are fortunate because we never have to think about insulin. Our bodies make enough of it to keep us healthy, and we go about our lives without a second thought concerning blood glucose or how our pancreas is functioning, but for those 30 million people--and quite a few of them visited us this morning in our offices, and they were present in the Committee on Aging at our hearing--insulin is a constant worry. It is top of mind. It is always present as an issue for them, in fact, on a daily basis. Patients with diabetes need to carefully monitor and adjust their insulin levels along with managing their physical activities, their diet, stress, pain, sleep levels. Many of those young people who came to the Committee on Aging today-- by the way, I want to thank Senators Collins and Casey for holding that hearing and giving them an opportunity to come to the Nation's Capitol and make us more aware--were wearing monitoring devices, hidden but a constant concern. They depend on insulin as a matter of life and death. It is not a luxury for them. It is not like ice cream or ball games. It is life and death. They are fortunate, too, because they have access to insulin, unlike a lot of people around the world and unlike the whole world, including America, about 100 years ago when diabetes was, in fact, a death sentence, not in a matter of years ahead but right then and there. Diabetes was lethal. That changed when two researchers, Dr. Frederick Banting and Dr. Charles Best, succeeded in isolating insulin from an animal pancreas in 1921. By the next year, they had collected enough to treat their first patient. He was a 14-year-old boy with diabetes, and he lived miraculously for another year. That was unheard of at the time. It was a tremendous breakthrough--an extra year of life because of their discovery. So Dr. Banting and Dr. Best filed a patent. They patented their discovery in 1923, and they stated their goal was not to make a lot of money, not to make profit but to make insulin available to the world, make it available to everyone who needed it, make it available to patients, regardless of their means and circumstance. Do you know what they did with that patent? They sold it for $1--just $1. Dr. Banting said: ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.'' He was right. Insulin belongs to the world of people, whatever their ages, whatever their circumstances, whatever their means, wherever they live. Certainly, in the greatest country in the history of the world, where that patent, about 100 years ago, was sold for $1, shouldn't it be affordable and accessible to everyone? Well, this story has a really discouraging sequel, which is today in real time. The price of insulin has skyrocketed. When I say ``skyrocketed,'' there are different numbers. It doubled, according to one authoritative site, between the years 2012 and 2016. There is another study that says it has risen 10 times in price over just the last several years. Beyond question, it has risen and not just by a little bit but by literally hundreds of dollars for the average American who has to afford it, day in and day out. Those yearly costs are forcing people to choose, literally, between putting food on the table and buying insulin, between paying mortgages and buying insulin, between the kinds of fun that ordinary young people would enjoy and buying insulin. I know we say this about choices made by Americans, but today in this very Capitol, just steps away, I listened to the parents of Logan and Emma talk to me, along with them, about the real-life consequences of these exploding insulin costs, and it broke my heart. Their experiences are truly heartbreaking and gut-wrenching. Logan is 12 years old, and he told me in the reception area right here about his diagnosis at 18 months. He talked about the advances in technology around diabetes treatment with extraordinary technological knowledge--impressive not just for someone our age but truly for somebody who is 12 years old. These advances are a tribute to American science, innovation, and ingenuity. They are groundbreaking, but at the end of the day, if his family cannot afford insulin, even the best, most groundbreaking technology means nothing. That is Logan's reality. His mom told me about sitting in a CVS parking lot and crying while she held a box of pasta because that was all she could afford--pasta for the rest of the week for dinner for that family. It was all she could afford after the insulin costs. For their family, Logan's insulin has cost as much as $750 a month. That is their deductible. That is what they pay even with insurance. So they have sacrificed not only in terms of what they eat but how they live. He was with Emma, and the two of them are extraordinary ambassadors for the Junior Diabetes Research Foundation, the JDRF, which does so much wondrous work for diabetes patients. Emma is 15 years old, and her father told me about a similar struggle to afford insulin. In fact, her own dad was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in his midthirties after Emma's diagnosis. He told me that ``the price of insulin is illogical.'' There is no reason why the cost keeps going up. In fact, Emma and Logan, both from Connecticut, have become world-wise--not world-weary but world-wise--about the American drug industry. They know those costs are rising without any reason in terms of the cost to the manufacturer. There are costs and prices rising for consumers without any justification in the real cost of producing the insulin they need. Last week, I held an event on insulin with other diabetes patients to discuss the skyrocketing costs. One of my constituents who spoke was a little bit older than Logan and Emma. Dr. Kathryn Nagel, a physician and resident at Yale University, was also diagnosed with diabetes when she was 18 months old. She is a resident now, training to become a pediatrician, among other specialties. As she put it to me, ``Banting would be ashamed of the state of things now.'' Dr. Banting said, ``Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.'' He would be outraged and embarrassed by what is happening in America today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Nagel's full remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the American Legion as it celebrates 100 years of dedication to serving and advocating for veterans on a local and national level. Chartered and incorporated by Congress in 1919, the American Legion has grown to support veterans nationwide. The American Legion Department of Connecticut was established in the same year and is home to some of the first posts in the country. Over the past century, the American Legion has established itself as our Nation's largest veterans service organizations. As a nonpartisan and not-for-profit organization, the Legion uniquely offers a multitude of local programs devoted to our servicemembers and their communities. Through youth mentorship and athletics, reintegration assistance for wounded veterans, and many other critical activities, the Legion plays an important role in their communities throughout the United States. With around 150 posts across Connecticut, the organization helps bring together and shape the lives of many veterans, their families, and their neighborhoods. The Department of Connecticut follows the four pillars of the American Legion: supporting Americanism, national security, advocating for veterans' affairs and healthcare, and preparing children throughout our state for future success. In particular, they generously help children of all ages in Connecticut explore their potential with activities such as State Police Youth Week, an oratorical contest focused on deepening high school students' understanding of the U.S. Constitution, American Legion Baseball, and summer government education programs. As a member who has regularly attended events for the Legion, including several of their youth programs, annual conventions, Veterans Day events, and mid-winter conferences, I can proudly attest firsthand to the impressive work they accomplish on behalf of Connecticut veterans and their families. As the American Legion and its Department of Connecticut recognize and celebrate their rich and productive 100- year history, the dedicated staff and volunteers continue to look toward the future and expand the positive impact of their outreach and programs. Committed to serving veterans and their communities throughout our State, the American Legion Department of Connecticut provides essential advocacy and services that help to better lives and create new opportunities. I applaud the accomplishments of the American Legion's devoted officers and volunteers, and I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the American Legion and the American Legion Department of Connecticut on a century of excellence.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am very pleased to follow my colleague from Connecticut and to continue his thoughts about the utter chaos and catastrophe that would be caused by the success of this lawsuit now before the court of appeals--chaos and catastrophe that would, in effect, turn back the clock to days that I remember well because I was attorney general when preexisting conditions were used as a ruse to deny lifesaving medical care and coverage to people with cancer, brain tumors, and literally lethal diseases. In those days, as attorney general, I took their fight and made it my own, even sometimes calling presidents of insurance companies over weekends to go to bat for those individuals. Those bad old days--the days of no protection against preexisting conditions--are over now, but they will come back if this lawsuit is successful. If this lawsuit wins, young people who are now covered by their parents' policies up to the age of 26 will be without it. If this lawsuit wins, the annual and lifetime caps on benefits will come back. If this lawsuit is successful, preexisting conditions again will come back to haunt people who need and deserve coverage. If this lawsuit wins, millions of people--tens of thousands in Connecticut--will be at risk. One of them is a young man, Conner Curran, an 8-year-old boy in Ridgefield. His picture is right here. I met Conner 3 years ago when he was 5, and his parents noticed he was lagging behind his twin brother. They brought him to a doctor, expecting maybe a simple diagnosis. Instead, they were told that Conner had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. That is a degenerative, terminal disease. It has no cure. It is life- threatening. In fact, most people with the disease don't survive past their midtwenties. Conner's family wrote to me, telling me that their beautiful, young, sweet child, at the time just 5\1/2\ and full of life, would slowly lose his ability to run, to walk, to lift his arms. Eventually, they said, he would lose his ability to hug them. Conner needs care--complex care--from multiple specialists, costing tens of thousands of dollars per year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, there is no denying him coverage. There is no denying him coverage because of his illness, and he will receive the care he needs. His family also wrote to me that the reinstatement of lifetime caps or elimination of essential health benefits will hinder his family's ability to access the care Conner needs. In fact, if this lawsuit wins, there will be virtually insuperable obstacles to Conner receiving that vital lifesaving care. If this disease progresses, as seems very possible, he will need access to Medicaid in offsetting costs of living with that disability. For his family, the question is, Will Medicaid even be there? If that devastating day comes, will he receive the care he needs? Conner's family shared their concern over what would happen if the repeated and reckless attempts to undermine healthcare succeed and if repeal of the ACA becomes a reality. He and his family are not giving up. They have come to my office since he was diagnosed to fight for a cure and for the Affordable Care Act. They have demonstrated strength and courage, sometimes with tears in their eyes. They raise awareness and fight for their son. I know they would do it a million times over if it meant Conner could have a long and healthy life. Connor and millions like him are the reasons I am here to fight back against any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Whether it is in Congress or in the courts, make no mistake, this effort in the courts is another means of repealing the ACA. The people of Connecticut get it. They understand the agenda here. They want all of us--and I think most of our constituents do as well--to make sure this kind of care is there for Connor and for all of us because all of us will be at risk if the ACA is repealed, whether it is in Congress or the courts. In Connecticut, there are 1.5 million people living with preexisting conditions. That includes 182,000 children like Connor. If this Republican-backed lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act succeeds, their protections will be eviscerated; they will be lost, not just for a year or two but likely for their lifetime. The Affordable Care Act ban on lifetime coverage caps is so important to kids like Connor. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the ACA is successful, he will be one of the more than 1.2 million people in Connecticut who would meet a lifetime coverage limit and be forced to worry about how and if they can pay for their necessary medical care. In Connecticut, about 25,000 young people get their healthcare coverage under their parents' plans, thanks to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that children can be covered until the age of 26. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the ACA succeeds, these young adults will be left without coverage. In Connecticut, over a quarter of a million people have healthcare coverage because of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Another 110,000 have coverage through the Connecticut ACA exchange. If the Republican-backed lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act succeeds, their healthcare coverage will be gone. If the Republican-backed lawsuit succeeds, the uninsured rate of Black Connecticut residents would likely double. One in five Latinos under 65 will go uninsured. All of these people, like Connor, represent our Nation--the best of our Nation--with their dedication to the people they love, and they deserve to be heard. Their voices need to be heard here. They are the true faces of the Affordable Care Act. Every one of them, like Connor, is a life that will be enhanced by continuing the Affordable Care Act. If this Republican-backed lawsuit succeeds, their lives will be at risk, and we will be a lesser nation. I yield the floor.