Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize MG Thaddeus J. Martin on the occasion of his retirement from his position as adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard. A dedicated member of our military, Major General Martin has influenced Connecticut for the better and set an impressive standard for the future of the Connecticut National Guard thanks to his decades of leadership and public service. He is well regarded by his peers and has consistently proven himself as a mindful and quick-thinking leader. Major General Martin began his military service in 1977. He received his commission in the U.S. Air Force through officer training school in 1980 and completed training as an aircraft maintenance officer in 1981. Throughout his years on Active service, he held several squadron and wing-level assignments and completed a major command headquarters tour with Strategic Air Command. After joining the Connecticut Air National Guard in 1990, he held command positions at the squadron, group, and wing level and completed a statutory tour with the National Guard Bureau. He also served as the assistant adjutant general for the Connecticut Air National Guard prior to becoming the adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard. Major General Martin is the longest currently tenured adjutant general in the Nation and the third longest serving adjutant general in Connecticut's history, having reached 13 years in the position last month. During his time as adjutant general, he oversaw the Connecticut National Guard with great integrity, addressing emergencies in the area, and offering military support on behalf of the United States wherever necessary. Major General Martin's decades of service to our Nation enabled him to diligently and tirelessly carry out his responsibilities of providing forces for the Governor and Chief of the National Guard Bureau that were always mission-ready. As the direct link to National Guard State resources, he routinely worked to better prepare Connecticut and the Guard to face new challenges. Already in his first year as adjutant general, he dealt with challenges from the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Major General Martin played a key role in establishing a lasting flying mission for Connecticut by helping to organize the transition from the A-10 Warthog to the C-130H Hercules tactical airlift platform. This flying mission recently marked its first-ever large-scale overseas deployment as a C-130 unit. Over the past 13 years, the Connecticut National Guard has assisted with relief efforts resulting from a number of natural disasters, including Hurricanes Katrina, Harvey, and Maria, along with Superstorm Sandy, by providing essential supplies, equipment, and personnel. Additionally, over 6,000 Connecticut Army and Air guardsmen deployed in order to support international efforts. All of this was accomplished under the leadership of Major General Martin. The Connecticut National Guard is a critical part of our State, and the unfailing commitment and leadership of Major General Martin during his tenure as adjutant general leaves his successor with an impressive and accomplished Guard that will undoubtedly continue to valiantly serve Connecticut and the Nation in the future. I applaud his lifetime of service and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Major General Martin on his well-earned retirement.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor on a separate issue involving the rule of law. We have been reminded literally within the last 24 hours about the importance of the rule of law as applied to the families who have sought to cross the border and experienced extraordinary cruelty and inhumanity when their children were taken from them. A court, literally in the last 24 hours, issued an order requiring that those children be reunited with their families. That decision is not only a humane and moral one, it is also in accord with constitutional and statutory requirements. Those children never should have been separated from their parents, but now, because of the court, an excessive and abusive use of power will be corrected. We are living in a time of unparalleled threats to the rule of law and fundamental rights and liberties from a Chief Executive who seems to have no respect for them. The courts are exercising their traditional role--in fact, the role the Founders envisioned for them as a check on unhinged Executive power. We also learned just today that a key figure in the judicial system, Justice Kennedy, will be retiring this summer. This retirement is earthshaking and gut-wrenching, and his departure means a historic challenge is ahead. The American people should have a voice. My Republican colleagues should follow their own precedent. A confirmation vote should take place after the new Congress is seated. A historic decision--one that will literally shake the decisions of the courts for years and likely decades--requires deliberate consideration that simply is impossible in the short months we have between now and the election; indeed, politically charged months. The future of privacy protections, women's healthcare, and many basic civil rights, including healthcare--whether young people are on their parents' insurance until the age of 26, whether people are vulnerable to preexisting condition abuses, whether people have basic healthcare rights that are guaranteed to them under the Affordable Care Act--all of these rights are at stake and at risk. The Supreme Court is not just marble pillars and velvet drapes. Its decisions have a direct impact on people's lives and the lives of our children. So we are in this Chamber at a critical moment when the judicial system literally will be determined for decades to come. Nothing brings this issue home more readily and dramatically than viewing the children who have been separated from their families and the families themselves at the border. I visited the border this past Friday, along with my colleagues Senator Heinrich and Senator Udall of Utah--two good friends and colleagues. At each stop we made, we saw the devastating human impact of this President's immoral and inhumane policies of family separation and family detention. In Tornillo, TX, we visited a tent city where teenagers, 14 to 17 years old, are confined--in effect, incarcerated in a modern-day internment camp. Make no mistake, they have been deprived of basic access to the outside world and of access by that outside world to them. The deprivation of liberty is the core definition of incarceration, and the potential detainment of tens of thousands of families in exactly that kind of tent city located on our military bases throughout the country should frighten and alarm every American because we are seeing repeated in a different age, in color rather than black and white, the images of those internment camps where thousands of people of Japanese descent were sent during World War II. We may not agree with every decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but we know it is unique. It is certainly different as a judicial institution. It should be considered unique in choosing open-minded and fair jurists in the mold of Justice Kennedy for these positions--not right-wing fringe ideologues. I believe colleagues on both sides of the aisle will stand up and be counted if that kind of right-wing fringe ideologue is nominated. We certainly must use every tool available to stop that kind of nominee because what is at stake are real lives like the ones I saw in El Paso. I met with a 2-year-old girl who trekked across Mexico with her father for a month. Her father held her as we spoke to him. He must now worry whether she will be separated from him and detained indefinitely and indiscriminately. The anguish and anxiety I saw in that girl's eyes still haunt me, and it will be with me for a long time. We saw a legal, moral, and humanitarian crisis unfolding before our eyes in realtime. This administration claims it is solving this crisis, but the clear, virtually undisputed evidence suggests exactly the contrary. More than 100 facilities nationwide house migrant children, and the administration is looking to open even more facilities, very likely, on military bases, and little progress has been made on reuniting these families. The Department of Health and Human Services has reported that 2,047 unaccompanied minor children are still in its custody. Health and Human Services Secretary Azar claimed before the Finance Committee yesterday that there is ``no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located.'' He claimed that ``every parent should know where their child is located.'' The reality is, there is no plan to reunite them. Thousands of parents have no idea where their children are. What is happening on the ground is that many parents are enduring the pain and suffering of simply not knowing where their child is, and many children have the pain and suffering of not knowing where their parent is. The father of the 2-year-old whom I saw clutching his child to his chest as she stared into the unknown future ahead of her has no reason to believe the Secretary of Health and Human Services because he knows what the reality is on the ground. If the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Homeland Security can tell parents where their children are as easily as Secretary Azar claims, they should have done so yesterday. They should have done so before Friday when I visited. We all know, from firsthand accounts, it simply isn't happening and that the emotional, mental, and physical damage to these families will last a lifetime for many of them. That trauma will be enduring. The President claims his Executive order has solved these problems, but it has not. All it has done is substitute family imprisonment and incarceration for family separation. This Executive order is in clear violation of the Flores settlement agreement, which is legally binding on the U.S. Government. It prohibits detaining children for more than 20 days, in effect, imprisoning them with their parents, as the Executive order has the effect of doing. Putting aside the humanitarian and moral costs to this Nation and the damage to our image around the world, the cost per individual per day in Tornillo is $2,000. Let me repeat that number. The cost per individual per day for every person in Tornillo is $2,000. That cost alone, financially, is intolerable, but moral and humanitarian costs are even more profound. This Executive order is destructive. It is draconian. It is no answer to the problem of family separation and detention. The evidence is clear from my visit to the border, so far as I am concerned but also in everything the administration said, that the time is now to end this immoral and inhumane zero tolerance policy that involves, integrally, criminal prosecution, and the rest of these issues really flow from that criminal prosecution because it triggers the imprisonment. In effect, confinement without bail is the way it would be looked at in the civilian setting. This administration must adopt less restrictive alternatives if it wants to guarantee the appearance of these families for their hearings. We know less restrictive alternatives work, they have been proven in the past, and they also cost less. They are more humane. They protect our moral principles, and they are less expensive. Piecemeal announcements from this administration have been contradictory and unclear. It has been the opposite of transparent. Congressional committees now must exercise our responsibility for oversight and scrutiny. There must be hearings. It must involve all the Federal agencies with responsibility. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that the Department of Defense is dramatically increasing its involvement in immigration and enforcement. The plan is to build these tent camps on two military bases in Texas. Fort Bliss in El Paso is one of them, and unaccompanied children will be held at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo. The families at Fort Bliss and the unaccompanied children at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo will be, in effect, incarcerated at the bases of military men and women who serve and sacrifice for the values that will be betrayed by that illegal and immoral confinement, in violation of the Flores agreement and fundamental principles of fairness. Military services are preparing, as well, to offer additional military bases to detain migrants. DOD has sent 21 Active and Reserve uniformed judge advocates to the border on temporary order to prosecute Department of Justice immigration cases. All of these developments represent a clear diversion of Department of Defense resources from military mission to immigration enforcement. The Presiding Officer and I serve together on the Armed Services Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee. We both know the deep and serious consideration that was required as to resource commitments in the latest National Defense Authorization Act--the difficult decisions that had to be made in a time of scarce resources and growing danger around the world through our military and national security. I am concerned that these policies will comprise military residents and immigrants on American military installations. I consistently oppose the use of these military installations to house unaccompanied migrant children. I will continue to oversee the Department of Defense's involvement in this critical issue. Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the Senate Armed Services Committee must hold an oversight hearing on this issue as soon as possible. We owe it to the American people. Family separation and detention should no longer be a political issue. We need to come together and make sure the President understands that migrant children can no longer be treated as pawns or hostages--as leverage to secure changes to parts of our immigration system that have nothing to do with the plight of these immigrant families. We should reject this President's crude and cynical political strategy. We cannot risk continuing to separate and indefinitely detain migrant families. These practices offend our basic sense of morality and justice, and they are unnecessary to protect our borders. Yes, we all want border security. Yes, we want to stop drug traffickers and human traffickers from taking advantage of our borders. We want more resources in judges and Border Patrol agents and members of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service. They should have the resources and support they need. We met with many of the dedicated men and women who are serving in those agencies. Violating our basic sense of due process, abrogating due process rights so adjudication is denied and due process is abrogated certainly should be intolerable. At this juncture, the emergent need that has to be addressed now is reuniting these families. If shaming the administration is what is needed, we should do it, but ultimately the rule of law will be enforced by our courts. They will be regarded in history along with our free press as the bulwark between a potentially tyrannical Presidency and preservation of our fundamental rights. Now is the time to celebrate and protect those basic rights and the rule of law. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his focus on the farm bill and thank him for the work we are doing together on the Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I look forward to continuing that work together, which involves so closely and importantly the rule of law.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as we await the details of the President's Executive order today, we know enough already to have serious and significant concerns about the continuing policy of this administration in dealing with asylum seekers coming across our borders. Make no mistake--ending family separation would be a welcomed and humane step, but the solution cannot be the immoral and unlawful detention and imprisonment of children. Family separation cannot be replaced with family incarceration and imprisonment. Indefinitely imprisoning children and families is still inhumane and ineffective law enforcement. President Trump's current policy, as articulated in this Executive order, will put children behind bars indefinitely and indiscriminately, and that is intolerable in a free and democratic society. Children will experience much of the same lasting trauma that they do now in the current situation, and the world will continue to watch the spectacle of the American Government locking up innocent children and throwing away the key. Locking up innocent children indiscriminately and indefinitely is a betrayal of American values. Much like the policy of family separation, this new policy of indefinite and indiscriminate family imprisonment hearkens back to the worst days of our country's history. Japanese children thrown into World War II-era detention camps were imprisoned with their parents, but the days of history rightly judged that decision harshly, and history will also judge us harshly if we permit an inhumane and immoral policy to be carried out without our protests and opposition. Instead, we must now shame the administration into adopting a humane and moral policy. This policy threatens to be costly. It will be costly in dollars and cents. The estimate is, approximately, almost $800 per day for every incarcerated person or detained individual. Even more costly will be the undermining of our moral authority and our image around the world and our own sense of offending our basic morality, our image of ourselves, and our sense of our own morality must be offended by imprisoning, indefinitely and indiscriminately, families with their children. There are alternatives. One is stronger oversight and supervision over families who can be released without danger of flight or physical violence. These programs have been tried, and they have been proven successful. Family case management efforts have produced appearance rates above 90 percent, and those alternatives must be explored instead of detaining and incarcerating, indefinitely and indiscriminately, children with their families. The world and all of us were repulsed by the images of children separated from their families. Those sights and sounds were searingly painful, but so must be children in cages and behind bars indefinitely, without the basic services and respect for humanity that our great Nation has epitomized. At the core of the current administration policy is so-called zero tolerance, which results in criminal prosecution of the asylum seekers. The President has recognized the public outrage and yielded to it, but the policy of zero tolerance will continue. The current approach of detaining and incarcerating these children indefinitely likely violates court orders issued in 1997 and 2016, but indefinite and indiscriminate imprisonment of children and families ought to violate, as well, our rules of morality and humanity. I urge the administration to explore alternatives, to work with Congress on real reform, to support the legislation that has been supported by every Democrat in this body that would, in effect, avoid imprisonment of immigrant families. Beyond that legislation, we should pass compassionate and comprehensive immigration reform that provides a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the shadows and improves the due process right so that adjudication is fairer and more effective. We must shame this administration to do what is right--to end zero tolerance and support changes to our immigration system that represent the best in America, not as the House bills to be voted on today or tomorrow reflect the worst. We are here on World Refugee Day, appropriately. We ought to acknowledge the remarkable journey of refugees and asylum seekers as they pursue freedom and opportunity over the immense obstacles they encounter. We should recognize their contributions to our country, the talents and energy they bring here. We should recognize the humanitarian importance of refugee resettlement programs nationwide. Though victims of global conflict come here from all parts of the world, almost all of these refugees are also resilient survivors who embrace their new lives and contribute to their communities, even after these harrowing journeys to the United States. Too often we fail to recognize their contributions to American communities, but today we celebrate all that they offer. Today, on World Refugee Day, we commemorate that Connecticut, since 2005, has resettled 7,000 refugees--our small State, with 3\1/2\ million people from all over the world, particularly in major resettlement cities like Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven. Today, proudly, I wish to share some of the stories from refugees who have made Connecticut their home and highlight the important work my constituents are doing to support refugees. There are several refugee agencies throughout Connecticut that serve as a key touchstone for these refugees by providing essential case management and employment services. I am proud of these organizations and am grateful for the work they do. IRIS--Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services--is Connecticut's largest refugee resettlement and immigrant services organization headquartered in New Haven. Volunteers welcome and resettle refugee families in over 35 of Connecticut's towns. Likewise, the Connecticut Institute for Refugees and Immigrants, located in Bridgeport, assists refugees and immigrants in resolving legal, economic, linguistic, and social barriers as they integrate into their communities. Let me tell you about the journey of Issa, Aminah, and their three children. They resettled in Westville, CT, the night of the 2016 Presidential election. This family fled Syria to Jordan after one of their members was abducted and beaten by the regime. When they arrived in the United States, Issa started working as a parking attendant at a hospital parking garage, and Aminah launched a thriving catering business. Their children are thrilled to attend school again after years of educational disruption caused by their displacement. Let me tell you about Rafid. He was an electrical engineer in Baghdad who worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during military operations in Iran. After he received death threats from insurgents, he fled with his family to Jordan and then resettled in Connecticut, where he works as a team leader at Schick Manufacturing in Milford. He also started his own subcontracting company, Golden Gate CT, to create jobs for other Connecticut residents. He is truly an entrepreneur in the best sense of that word. Francis and Evelyne fled persecution in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to resettle in Bridgeport, CT. When they shared their story with my office, they said: ``We understood that the American Dream was alive in each of us if we wished to move forward and work hard.'' Francis and Evelyne certainly embody that American dream. Connecticut constituents have embraced these refugee families. They have opened their hearts to these individuals and families who are seeking nothing less than the American dream and escape from the trauma of war, the violence of persecution, and the face of oppression. In the face of unimaginable upheaval and horror, they have come to this country and made that journey. I am grateful to them for their courage. I wish to recognize one of my constituents who has demonstrated equal courage and strength, a Trinity College professor, Janet Bauer. She has dedicated her entire career to welcoming and integrating families. She established the Hartford Global Migration Lab, which connects college students and refugees. Through this program, Janet's students tutor at Jubilee House and help children with their homework at the Hartford Public Library. Like her, Jean Silk, a coordinator with the Jewish Community Alliance for Refugee Settlement, has also worked with refugees and done immeasurable good. At a time of global conflict, when the horrors of war are all too real every day, the Trump administration has capped refugee resettlement at 45,000 this fiscal year--the lowest in American history. Even with this cap, the estimate is that the United States will resettle only about 20,000 refugees this year. Each of these numbers represents an individual human life transformed by coming to this country, given new light and life. I hope the administration will commit to resettling at least 75,000 refugees in fiscal year 2019. Again, as I close, I want to emphasize the importance of this day, the historic significance of our turning a point and taking advantage of an opportunity to do right and to do better than we have. I urge that colleagues across the aisle join in supporting a policy that stops indefinite and indiscriminate imprisonment of children. It may be with their families, but it recalls the worst chapters in our history when families were detained indiscriminately and indefinitely. When the judgment of history is made, I hope we will be spared the kind of blame that rightly went to previous generations who made the wrong decision. Let us do what is best for America. Let us exemplify the best in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the President's Executive order about the separation of family policy and about the incarceration of family policy that has now replaced it. There are details that are unknown at this point about how this program will be working as we go forward, but we know enough right now to have the most serious and significant concerns about the President's Executive order. Every great nation--even the greatest Nation in the history of the world like the United States of America--has moments of extraordinary shame, times when it loses its moral compass, and it simply takes the wrong direction. We can remember a number of them in our own Nation's history. One of them was the internment of Japanese children who were thrown into World War II-era detention camps and imprisoned, in effect, with their parents. Almost every lawyer in the United States of America and most citizens know the name Korematsu, and that is because it was a moment of shame for this country. Ending family separation--the process of tearing children away from their moms and dads--is a welcomed and humane step, but the solution should not be the indiscriminate and indefinite detention of children. Family separation should not be replaced by family imprisonment. There is no moral advantage to incarcerating children as opposed to tearing them away from their parents. In fact, it is not only immoral, it is illegal. The courts have said so on a number of occasions--in 1997, in the Flores case, which is now well-known to everyone, but more recently, in fact, as recently as 2016. The reason goes to the core of our constitutional principle about how and when and whom we imprison, how we take liberty away from people. Indefinitely imprisoning children and families is still inhumane and ineffective law enforcement. President Trump's current policies will put children behind bars indefinitely and indiscriminately. Children will experience many of the same enduring of trauma, pain, and harm. The world will continue to watch the United States of America lock up innocent children and throw away the key. Much like the policy of family separation, this new policy of indefinite and indiscriminate family detention harkens back to those dark days, to those moments of shame in this country during World War II. History will judge us as harshly if we fail to speak out and stand up at this moment of testing. The gaze of history is upon us now. It is upon the President. It is upon every Member of the U.S. Senate. There are immense costs to this policy--$775 a day, per individual, at these detention camps. Yet the costs are way beyond dollars and cents; they are to the moral image and authority of this country and to our self-image--the accountability to ourselves, to our own sense of morality and humanity. The world was outraged when it saw children being torn away from parents, and now the President has acknowledged that his heart responded as well. Yet soon--and I would predict very soon--we will see images as striking, as stunning, and as repugnant as those images of taking children away from their parents when we see those images of the detention facilities, cages, and of children--young people behind bars and packed beyond capacity--on military bases and other places that were never designed to be holding facilities. The world will be outraged by those images as well--of the sights and sounds of those children. We owe this new policy a special scrutiny and a strong sense of outrage if it is what it seems like right now. We cannot remain silent about the children who have been already separated from their parents. Nothing in this Executive order--not a word--provides for the reunification of the thousands of children who have already been separated from their parents. What will happen to them? Where are they? Where are their parents? How will they be reunited? What trauma will they continue to endure? This policy remains as inhumane and cruel for them as it was earlier today or this week. All of us bear a responsibility in this moment. I urge my colleagues to take this day--World Refugee Day--to commemorate the great work done by brave individuals in this country who help to resettle refugees and the refugees themselves who had the courage and strength to come here after having made the journeys from shores far away and after having overcome obstacles most of us have never confronted. There are solutions other than putting children into detention camps. There are release programs that involve oversight and supervision. There is also a case management program that has been working, along with other cities' efforts, that has been used for releasing them. We should choose the least restrictive alternative, the least burdensome one that best serves the purposes of law enforcement. Make no mistake, we have that obligation not only as a matter of heart and morality but also of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, this amendment very simply directs the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp to honor Gold Star families who have lost a family member in combat. It is about as simple and straightforward as an amendment to this immensely complex and costly measure could be. We are now in the second decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at humongous costs to our Nation: In treasure, some $5 trillion, and in lives, close to 7,000 Americans have perished. On this Flag Day, and at the beginning of the Father's Day weekend, I ask that this body approve an amendment that very simply would issue and direct the Postmaster to issue a Forever Stamp commemorating the sacrifice and loss of our Gold Star families. All of us in this body have attended funerals. We have seen firsthand the losses suffered by brave Americans, their families, their loved ones, their friends, their dads, and their moms. All of us ought to be joining in paying tribute to those families by directing the Postmaster General to issue a Forever Stamp, which will be valid for whatever time it is used. There is precedent for this kind of stamp. In fact, I was reminded of it by a friend and constituent, Joe Kaliko of Greenwich, CT, who was inspired by his childhood stamp collection to suggest a stamp for Gold Star families, permanently recognizing and commemorating these national heroes. The stamp was issued in 1947 for Gold Star mothers. It expired about a year thereafter. Since then, this Nation has never issued such a stamp again, but there is no better time than now to recognize this service and sacrifice. This amendment is a very simple way to pay tribute to Americans who have lost loved ones in wars that we have permitted and authorized to go forward. Indeed, this defense bill has more than $700 billion, and a good part of it will be in support of continued American service and sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. So my question to colleagues is: Who knows better about whether this stamp ought to be issued, the Postmaster General or ourselves? Their objection is that somehow there is bad precedent here in Congress authorizing a Forever Stamp. We ought to be proud of that precedent because this cause is different. Especially as we pass a measure that will support continued war efforts in defense of our Nation, protecting our national security, we ought to be especially mindful of the need to remember and pay tribute to families who have sacrificed loved ones in the service of our country. I know that every one of my colleagues joins me in this feeling. I hope that every one of my colleagues will join me in making that feeling known to the Postmaster General. This amendment is one way of doing it. To all of us whose sons or daughters have served--as two of mine have--during this period of war, we must be haunted by the idea that we could be one of those Gold Star families. No doubt, some of my colleagues have been touched directly and immediately--I would say almost all of us--by friends, neighbors, or relatives who have suffered these losses. Let us remember them in this special way, as the Nation did after World War II. Let us remember the moms and the dads on Father's Day, on Flag Day, and on every day. I want to speak more generally about the National Defense Authorization Act because it is a vital and profoundly significant step toward sustaining our national defense and security. In an era of unprecedented threats to our great Nation, the dangers have never been greater. The need for this defense--particularly in areas and domains where we are at a disadvantage, like cyber--is critically important. The United States is the strongest and greatest Nation in the history of the world. Militarily, we have no peer. But other nations are rapidly advancing in many of the spaces and domains where our advantage was secure. In undersea warfare, in space and cyber and robotic combat, we must invest. We need to invest not only in the hardware but also in the people--in the men and women who fight, who put their lives on the line, who wear the uniform and, equally, in the men and women who make the arms and equipment and weapons platforms they take into combat. They should never have a fair fight. The defense industrial base requires skill and training so they can make the submarines, helicopters, and Joint Strike Fighters, which we do in Connecticut and in States around this country. The men and women who make that stuff are equally important to our national defense, and their skill training and jobs are vital to our national security. I think we need to recognize that education and training are vital parts of our defense, even though they may not be included in this bill. I was proud to author a provision which will ensure that survivors of military sexual trauma, assault, and harassment are eligible for ``liberal consideration'' during discharge upgrade petition. Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked to improve discharge upgrade provisions to ensure that servicemember petitions are treated fairly and expeditiously. This policy change was a crucial next step in reforming that discharge petition upgrade process. Another provision I have led will require a zero tolerance policy toward domestic violence in the military, a long overdue provision which will ensure that offenders in the armed services are held accountable and referred to the FBI. In defending our Nation against Russian cyber attacks, a provision in this year's NDAA will authorize USCYBERCOM to detect, deter, and defend against Russian information and weapons cyber warfare campaigns that target American Government officials. We should be doing vastly more against cyber attacks from Russia and other adversaries around the world, rather than coddling or cozying up to them, as this administration seems to want to do repeatedly. We should be recognizing they are attacking us, literally, daily in the cyber domain. This legislation will invest in that defense industrial base, which is so vital in Connecticut and elsewhere. I am proud that Connecticut plays such a vital role in our defense industry. Five percent of our country's defense contract spending is done in Connecticut, and every dollar is critical to our national security, involving the production of submarines, electric boats, and F-35 engines at Pratt & Whitney, and helicopters at Sikorsky, notably the heavy lift CH-53. Submarines, fighters, and helicopters are proudly produced in this arsenal of democracy. Groton, CT, is the submarine capital of the world. This bill will support submarines and this important naval installation. The NDAA includes nearly $3.8 billion for the Columbia-class program and $4.4 billion for two Virginia-class submarines. I fought to include an additional $250 million in funding above the President's request for over $3 billion in advance procurement of attack submarines to achieve the Navy's goals of 66 attack submarines for the 355-ship Navy the Nation needs. These submarines are not a luxury or convenience. They are the stealthiest, most versatile, strongest weapons platform we have, capable of delivering surveillance and special operators and cruise missiles and other vital means of war. I have also championed more than $10.4 billion in funding for 75 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Services for the only fifth-generation fighter in production. I am so glad the administration is now supporting the F-35, after the President expressed doubts at the beginning of this administration. The bill also includes $1 billion for F-35 modernization and spares. The 2019 NDAA includes very robust funding for helicopter production. Sikorsky helicopters, made in Stratford, CT, have served our Nation for decades. It will support collaboration involving the University of Connecticut and the Navy, $25 million above the President's request in research and development funding for warship partnerships. As we consider these floor amendments, I want to emphasize one amendment that I have filed concerning the current immigration crisis; specifically, the predicament of unaccompanied minors. In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared that the Justice Department would prosecute every person who illegally enters the country and separate children from their parents. Previously, families apprehended at the border were released as they waited for civil deportation hearings, but this new, cruel policy will tear apart countless families. It has already separated literally thousands of children of immigrant families from their moms and, yes, on this Father's Day, from their dads. These heartless family-separation policies are made even more inhumane with the announcement that the Trump administration plans to house these immigrant children, who have been separated from their parents, on military bases. The only reason the Trump administration is even considering detaining children on military installations is because the number they are tearing away from their moms and dads exceeds the facilities they have available right now. The Department of Health and Human Services has already visited four military installations--both in Texas and Arkansas--to assess whether they can be used to shelter children. Just this week, we also heard that the Trump administration is looking to construct ``tent cities''--yes, ``tent cities''--along the southern border to house unaccompanied migrant children. This practice ought to make us ashamed and embarrassed as Americans. It is appalling. I am ashamed that the United States is not only actively destroying families and indefinitely detaining children but also using military bases to do this. Turning military installations into detention camps is a disservice to our brave military men and women. Using our military installations to in effect imprison children separated from their parents mocks their purpose and disrespects our brave men and women in uniform who rightly use them in the defense of our Nation. My amendment in the NDAA would explicitly prohibit the Department of Defense from using any funding authorized in this defense spending package to revise or rebuild or renovate military bases to house these undocumented, unaccompanied minors. I urge my colleagues to speak out about this disgusting and dangerous policy--not only the separation of children from their moms and dads but also the use of our cherished military bases for that purpose. I am also proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up to the threat posed by two Chinese telecommunications companies--Huawei and ZTE. This bipartisan opposition to their continued business is a testament to our ability to work across the aisle in defense of our Nation. Our military and intelligence leaders have repeatedly warned that ZTE and Huawei threaten the security of our networks due to their close ties to the Chinese Government. They have also violated our sanctions, broken our law, and provided equipment and services to rogue regimes, such as Iran and North Korea. President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may be willing to overlook ZTE's track record, but Congress will not do so. Our amendment, which has been included in the managers' package, will prohibit ZTE and Huawei technologies and equipment from entering the networks of the U.S. Government and its contractors for the safety and security of all of us. It is not just an intellectual point; it is a practical security measure. These two companies are instruments of Chinese influence, and they are peddling that influence throughout the world. We will ensure through this provision that these two telecommunications companies beholden to the Chinese Government are not a part of our communications system in this great Nation. I am proud to support this NDAA. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 2304.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, a U.S. Marine Corps officer, Alexander Monte, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Connecticut on a topic that has bedeviled and baffled us together almost since the time we became Senators. It is a topic that is heartrending and gut-wrenching for both of us. I thank him for his leadership and partnership in this effort. Mr. President, we are here on the 2-year anniversary of the tragic Orlando nightclub attack. On June 12, 2016, a man armed with an assault rifle and a pistol, with hatred in his heart, stormed the Pulse nightclub and murdered 49 people. This man turned a safe haven, a place of joy and celebration, into an unimaginable nightmare. On that day, and on so many other days--in fact, virtually every day--all of us who lived through the Sandy Hook massacre firsthand relived the terrible tragedy of that day in our State. Tonight, coincidentally, Sandy Hook Promise, a group that was formed in the wake of that tragedy and has done so much good work around the country to make our Nation safer, is having its annual dinner. I will be attending and speaking there with many who were involved in seeking to make sense of that tragedy and accomplish specific, tangible, commonsense measures since then. The Orlando nightclub attack remains the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in our Nation's history. We ought to take particular time today to commemorate this national tragedy. We also should think about the epidemic of gun violence, like Sandy Hook, and hate crimes generally across the country--which may not involve gun violence--that plague our Nation daily, the greatest Nation in the history of the world. This scourge of hate crimes and gun violence-- often the two go together--is a continuing plague. In an average year, more than 10,300 hate crimes that are committed involve a firearm. That is more than 28 every single day. Meanwhile, the FBI tells us that for the second year in a row, hate crime offenses are on the rise in this country, an increase of 6.3 percent from 2015 to 2016, and that increase itself follows a 7-percent increase from 2014 to 2015. These statistics are stunning. They are particularly sad, given the underreporting of hate crimes. We know that many hate crimes are never reported because of embarrassment and fear of retaliation. The real incidence of bias-motivated crimes is likely much higher than even these intolerable numbers tell. We know that LGBT people are more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other minority group. I am heartbroken to report that LGBT people are introduced to these instances of violence at a very young age. There is no preparing children for it. The youth experience of this kind of bias, bigotry, and hatred is extraordinarily high, and it often is manifested in violence and physical harassment in school. Students report being severely beaten and robbed by their peers. One young man recounted being beaten, driven 5 miles out of town, stripped naked, and left to walk home alone. When we hear these stories, we should not be surprised that more than half of LGBT youth feel unsafe in their schools. We should not be surprised, but we should be outraged. We should be angry that this kind of bias, bigotry, and harassment continues to affect LGBT people. In this great Nation, it is intolerable. Schools should be places where young people learn, grow, and build friendships, free of fear of being assaulted by their peers and becoming the next victim of this unspeakable crime. Apart from the bias, bigotry, and hate crimes that are the result of this kind of unacceptable precedent, gun violence continues to plague our schools, as well as churches, theaters, and other public places. But the plague of gun violence is not only in the mass shootings, which attract the most attention. It is the one-by-one or smaller groups that account for the 96 deaths every day and 30,000 deaths every year. These numbers have become so familiar as to be banal. The banality of this evil is itself an insidious disease. It eats away at the moral core of our country. It continues to make us a lesser nation. Our failure to act makes this Chamber complicit in those deaths. This body cannot avoid its moral culpability for those deaths. The Senate of the United States and the entire Congress are, in effect, aiding and abetting this epidemic of gun violence, which is probably the most deadly public health crisis that plagues our Nation right now. Imagine if a communicable disease, say Ebola, took 90 lives every day. There would be marches in the streets and demonstrations. The country would react, but it has become so inured to this public health epidemic of gun violence that there is no reaction unless there is a massive incident like the Parkland High School shooting. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School became a turning point for this country on gun violence. When young people demonstrate, march, hold vigils, and walk out of schools--in Ridgefield, I attended one of those walkouts, a profoundly moving and important event. I believe these events can provide a turning point that will move this country into a new social change era, a new movement of social change comparable to the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement and marriage equality and women's healthcare, a movement that can truly transform this Nation, raise its consciousness, but also elicit action. We need not only more words and rhetoric and speeches but also action on the commonsense measures that this body has failed to enact: background checks applied to all gun purchases; tightening the information that goes into the database used in those background checks, even beyond the Fix NICS bill that was a minor change adopted earlier this year; a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips; a closing of the 72-hour loophole involved in the background check system for purchases of a gun; and, of course, the hate crimes or red flag statute that enables police and family to go to a court to seek a warrant to make sure that someone who is dangerous to himself or others will not be permitted to buy or possess these weapons. These commonsense reforms have been before us for years, and since Sandy Hook, nothing has changed. This body has been inert and reprehensibly unresponsive. We know these measures work. We know from Connecticut's experience that they reduce crime and homicides. We know from our State's adoption of these reforms that we can lessen the number of shootings, as well as deaths and injury. We know what doesn't work: arming teachers in school, a proposal rejected by the law enforcement community, by the education community, and by ordinary citizens in communities around the country. Connecticut has shown by our experience that these commonsense, sensible measures do work, but they cannot protect Connecticut citizens alone because our borders are porous. Even a State like Connecticut, with the strongest gun laws in the country, is at the mercy of States with the weakest because guns are trafficked across State borders. So we need national standards and national laws that will protect us in Connecticut and all around the country who are at risk. The new social change movement, powered and fueled by young people, can break the vicelike grip that the gun lobby has held over this Congress for so many years--indeed, for decades. I have worked on this issue literally for 2\1/2\ decades or more. When I was attorney general of the State of Connecticut, I championed and we passed a measure to ban assault weapons, among other reforms. It was challenged in the court. All of the same arguments were raised then legally that are raised now. We defeated them. In fact, I tried the case and argued it in the Supreme Court. Those arguments are as invalid today as they were then--based on the Second Amendment or void for vagueness or equal protection--and they will fail in the courts just as they did in our courts then. I have never felt nearer than we are now to meaningful reform because of those students, because of those young people, because of the outpouring that is riveting America and moving us forward, but it has to be translated and galvanized into votes in this coming election and in elections to come so that the will of the people is heard here and the vicelike grip of the gun lobby is broken. Walking out of schools and walking into polling places is what is required, and these young people are showing us the path to do it. Even while we work in that arena, organizations like Sandy Hook Promise are showing us how to educate in a totally bipartisan way and raise awareness in our schools and bring people together so that we solve our conflicts peacefully and with words, not conflict. Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed at Sandy Hook, has worked hard on social and emotional learning--another way to bring us together at the earliest of ages. Social and emotional learning has been her mission since Jesse's death, and she has formed a foundation to choose love, to enhance the ethos of teaching young people that they can solve their disagreements and conflicts with words and caring that they can be taught in school. First, of course, teachers need to be taught and trained how to do that teaching, and that is why I sought an amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with her inspiration to build that movement. There will always be hateful people who want to lash out and destroy. On this anniversary of the Orlando nightclub massacre, we cannot concede defeat, and we cannot relent or relax our efforts. We need to commit to action, not just reflection or rhetoric. Every child who goes to school should do it without fear. Every person who goes to church should have no doubt about the safety of that sacred place or any other house of worship. Anyone who goes to a movie theater or to any other public place should do it without the apprehension that a person with a gun might be in wait. For our LGBT community, we need a statute like the NO HATE Act that I have proposed--I introduced it last year--which would address the bigotry and bias that continues to plague them, not just in the hateful words but in the violence and harassment they suffer. Enforcement of the laws that exist now is absolutely essential. In fact, enhanced enforcement--devoting more resources to the police, FBI, and prosecutors who pursue these crimes--ought to be a challenge that we meet without question. On all of these fronts, we should be united. It should be bipartisan. There should be no political division to make America safer, to make sure that we fulfill the vision of our great country that we will live peacefully together and enjoy equally the opportunities that are entitled by all of us. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my law clerk, Charlotte Schwartz, be granted floor privileges for the length of my remarks during today's session.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I was unable to appear in the Chamber today to vote on the nomination of Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education due to official business away from the Senate. I would like the record to show that I oppose his nomination and would have voted against his confirmation. Throughout his confirmation process and career, Mr. Marcus has demonstrated consistent disregard for the rights of the very students he would be expected to protect in this role: women, LGBTQ individuals immigrants, and students of color. It is clear that Mr. Marcus is in lockstep with the Department of Education in this regard. He has supported the Department's decision to dismantle critical title IX protections for survivors of sexual assault, stood in the way of LGBTQ students seeking an educational atmosphere free from discrimination, and refused to commit to protecting a child's constitutional right to an education regardless of immigration status. Mr. Marcus has made abundantly clear that he is unfit to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department or Education. I would like the record to show that I oppose his nomination and would have voted nay during today's confirmation vote. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I take this extraordinary step because she has failed to provide it in response to a specific question I asked in the written inquiries we submitted after her testimony. She said, in effect, she was ``duty bound to maintain the confidential nature of legal advice sought by or provided to any client.'' This claim of attorney-client privilege is absolutely bogus and ought to insult this body because there is no reason for the name of the client to be kept confidential or that attorney-client privilege to be sustained. I think invocation of attorney-client privilege in this way speaks volumes to the kind of member of this Commission she would be. In fact, she has refused to reveal her full list of consumer product clients, other than the ones like Mattel and Yamaha, which are available through court filings and other public records. I have entered many of those other clients into the Record, but we have no assurance that we know that full list. She has also refused to recuse herself from matters involving her current firm, Jones Day, or its clients for more than 1 year. The Office of Government Ethics requires 1 year of recusal from the time she last represented that client, but no more than that length of time, and she has committed no more than the bare minimum requirement by law. In addition, her husband has represented IKEA in a major product liability suit involving furniture tipovers. She has refused to recuse herself from matters involving IKEA. We are in a perilous time, when the norms concerning conflicts of interest have been reduced, almost eviscerated. We have an obligation to protect consumer interests at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That responsibility is to make sure serious defects, dangerous products, problems, and hazards that will face consumers as a result of deadly or defective products are prevented from reaching the market. Consumers may have no knowledge of how they are deadly or dangerous. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the mission to protect consumers. For someone who has the ability, skills, and expertise to represent wrongdoers which threaten consumers is the responsibility of admirable and able law firms, like Jones Day, and those skills and experience enable lawyers who work there. It is not the job of a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. So it is really not about her personal ability, it is about the mission of this agency and who is qualified to serve on it and whether they have told us everything we need to know to hold them accountable if they are confirmed. On all those scores, this nominee is lacking. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no today on her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a small agency with a major mission. Its goal is to protect the public from the threats of injury or death associated with defective and dangerous products. That mission is more important today than ever before because consumers face dangers from fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazards--not only consumers but their children and families. The agency is already resource-starved. It is already depleted in terms of the support that it needs in Congress, and already it needs zealous and relentless advocacy. The individuals who are members of that board should be dedicated to that mission and to the safety and well-being of consumers above all. That is their mission. So, today, when we consider the nomination of Dana Baiocco, we should keep in mind that no matter how able and skilled and experienced a litigator she is, the question is whether she will devote those skills, ability, and experience to the mission of this agency. Unfortunately, every sign that she has given indicates that her goal will be contrary to the agency's mission. I say that, first of all, because of her experience. She has participated in cases that are of extraordinary concern to Americans. In 2007 she represented Mattel as a member of their litigation team when lead was discovered in the paint of 83 different Mattel toy products; I think nearly 1 million toys. In 2007, when she represented Mattel, I was the attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I remember that well because it was known as the Year of the Recall because of the frequency and the number of recalls involving unsafe products. In 2007, there were more than four recalls, on average, each week, and more than half of them were for children's products. It was a time when our Nation was facing this crisis in dangerous toys. Mattel ultimately was fined $2.3 million for violating the Consumer Product Safety Act and knowingly selling children's toys with contaminated paint or surface coatings. This decision was an important win for consumers and children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission did its job. Ms. Baiocco was on the wrong side of consumer safety in that case. Similarly, in representing the Yamaha Motor Company, a manufacturer of off-road vehicles, she was on the wrong side, standing with the industry that violated basic safety standards, causing multiple injuries and lawsuits when consumers were seriously maimed, injured, and harmed in operating Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicles. Those injuries occurred while the CPSC was conducting a campaign on ATV safety. Ms. Baiocco's defense of Yamaha put her on the wrong side of that issue at a time when there were more than 330 ATV-related fatalities and 101,000 ATV-related emergency department-treated injuries in the United States. Another area that I know well where she was clearly on the wrong side related to Big Tobacco. Ms. Baiocco represented R.J. Reynolds in the early part of this century--2007--in a class action lawsuit in Florida brought by injured smokers who were seeking to recover the damages they suffered as a consequence of Big Tobacco deliberately and purposefully addicting them, leading to lives of disease and addiction. She was on the wrong side of that issue as well--on the side of injury and industry against consumers. She was instrumental in those lawsuits, and R.J. Reynolds has been instrumental in lobbying to encourage the extensive use of flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture to deflect pressure on cigarette makers to make a fire-safe cigarette. That issue is squarely within the CPSC's jurisdiction. She lacks that dedication to this agency's mission that is critical for any Member to have. She may have skill, ability, and experience, but if it is devoted to the industry's well-being rather than consumers, she should be working for a different agency or continuing to work for a law firm that represents these industries. In fact, she has worked for a very large law firm that represents many of those clients and industries, but she has refused to provide a full list of the clients and companies she has represented. The only way we have gained full knowledge of these clients is to go to the law firm's website--where, by the way, her profile cites as follows: ``She is known for strategic business advice and high-intensity trials involving mass torts, consumer and industrial products, and medical devices in federal, state, and international courts.'' The clients are then listed in her profile. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this profile be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow Collin Anderson be granted floor privileges until the end of June 2018.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, only in Washington, DC, and perhaps only in the walls of this Capitol, is net neutrality regarded as a partisan issue. Only here are there accusations that the left or the right favor a position on net neutrality. In the rest of America, net neutrality is bipartisan; in fact, nonpolitical. It is the lifeblood of the internet. It is the animating principle that enables companies and individuals to have equal access to the internet without blocking, discriminating, price gouging, or favoring of some companies at the expense of others. In fact, in legislatures across the country, like Connecticut, there have been proposals to do there what we are seeking to do here; that is, to preserve an open internet in accordance with the open internet order, which has been rolled back by the FCC. Strong net neutrality rules are accepted across the country on both sides of the aisle in State legislatures and State governments, in board rooms, and in all the communities where people come together seeking to communicate and use the internet in the highest and best way it can be used. One example, in New Haven, is SeeClickFix. SeeClickFix is a New Haven company that helps citizens communicate with their local governments to improve their community. The internet's incredible economic success and this company's have been made possible because it is a free and open platform. This company has a good idea. It can put that good idea to work, helping people make their local and State governments work better and be more responsive. That success story has been repeated countless times because of net neutrality and the open internet. We are here to stop maligned rulemaking run amok. The FCC, under the leadership of its Chairman, has, in effect, rolled back the progress that was made with the open internet order. It defied 10 years of evidence and the pattern of market consolidation and merger that endangered the open internet. It defied evidence of discrimination that was taken over the rulemaking process, and it basically ignored a court order upholding the open internet order--a court order that was the result of indepth and determined litigation to stop that order, and that effort was rejected. The Justice Department has shown, from AT&T's own internal documents, that it sought to use its merger with Time Warner to raise prices and to hinder competition from online video services. A proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint threatens to further reduce scarce competition in wireless. Big broadband companies have more financial incentive and less market deterrence to obstruct competition than ever before. Chairman Pai's plan would enable those broadband companies holding near-monopolies over access to consolidate even more power. If broadband companies are able to block, throttle, or charge fees for certain applications on websites, the result will be higher pricing, less innovation, and fewer new products. Reversal of net neutrality is a consumer's worst nightmare, but it is also a nightmare for small businesses and for competition and innovation and creativity in America. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 52, the resolution of disapproval of the FCC's disastrous plan to roll back net neutrality. It is vital to protecting consumers and small businesses, preserving the open internet, and upholding the integrity of the rulemaking process. If this effort fails to succeed, the challenge in the courts will overturn Chairman Pai's rollback of net neutrality because he embarked on a preordained purpose without proper rulemaking to overturn the rule adopted by the FCC before he became Chairman. When he initiated that process, he promised an ``open and transparent process,'' but the outcome was predetermined from the start. That is not the way rulemaking should occur. That is why the courts will overturn it, and that is why we should be protected and proactive in this body and pass S.J. Res. 52. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, 1 year ago today, the President of the United States did the unthinkable. He did at least what many people thought was unthinkable. He fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. Shortly thereafter, he acknowledged the reason. He told NBC's Lester Holt that he fired James Comey because he was thinking about ``this Russia thing'' and how unjustified he thought the investigation was. He later told officials of Vladimir Putin's government in a private meeting in the Oval Office that this firing relieved him of the pressure that he was feeling as a result of the Russia investigation. The 1-year anniversary of Jim Comey's firing might well be permitted to pass without notice, but little did we know at the time that it would be part of a relentless and repeated denunciation of professional law enforcement at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the Department of Justice, even at the CIA, and law enforcement agencies all around the country. This concerted and coordinated attack on the FBI and Department of Justice is no accident. It is part of a strategy to undermine the credibility not only of the special counsel's investigation of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia in its meddling in the 2016 election and the potential of obstruction of justice and coverup by the President and his administration, but it is also deeply alarming as an attack on professional law enforcement. The President's attacks have become so numerous and so brazen that they have almost become the new normal. Likewise, the attacks by his sycophants and surrogates in Congress undermine the credibility and trust of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why I am here today--because words have consequences. These attacks have ramifications for the FBI when it investigates a crime. The willingness of potential witnesses to talk to them may be undermined. Their ability to prevent crime may be undercut because of informants' lack of trust in them. And the credibility of FBI agents at a trial in a conflict of credibility with a defendant who is lying can be sabotaged by the President through these denunciations--far beyond the special prosecutor's investigation. This attack on law enforcement has consequences for the safety and security of our Nation, indeed, our national security, because the FBI needs those informants, needs credibility as witnesses, needs the trust of the American people to do its job in keeping America safe from sabotage or subterfuge internally, as well as organized crime, drug dealing--the panoply of threats that exist to our safety. It is no accident that terrorist attacks have reduced in severity since 9/11. It is no accident that crime is at lower levels than in recent years. It is no accident that Americans feel safer as they walk the streets and communities of America, rural and urban. It is because we have devoted resources to local law enforcement, as well as the Federal agencies that are vital to support local law enforcement with the information and data they need to do their job and with the enforcement they provide in solving crimes and making sure the bad guys are convicted and go away. The best laws in the world are dead letter if they are unenforced. The new laws that we pass here will mean nothing without strong and effective law enforcement. We should all be deeply alarmed and concerned about this new normal of a President of the United States--who is responsible for making sure the laws are faithfully executed--actually attacking the agency that is responsible for the enforcement necessary for execution of those laws. Here are a few examples. On April 6, 2018, a notice appeared on the front page of backpage.com confirming that the Department of Justice seized the website and took it offline--a crucial and important step in the fight against sex trafficking. On that same day, the FBI raided the Sedona home of Michael Lacey, a founder of backpage.com and one of the 7 individuals charged in a 93-count indictment for Federal crimes relating to facilitating prostitution and laundering money. For years, backpage.com and its owners have knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its adult ads to facilitate prostitution and sex trafficking, including modern-day slavery of children. Backpage's misconduct led to the prostitution of a 14-year-old Connecticut girl, who was advertised on the website for clients in Connecticut, New York, and Atlantic City. Without the intervention of the Department of Justice and the FBI, many more children could have been exploited and victimized by backpage. We know about the extraordinary magnitude of backpage's activities and about the deep harm it causes as a result of an investigation performed by Senate committees. The Senate has taken steps to stop that kind of promotion on the internet as a result of legislation that Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and I led here, legislation called SESTA. It was bipartisan legislation that passed overwhelmingly. The legislation will assist victims and survivors in having their day in court and allow law enforcement to do even better in the fight against sex trafficking. That story is just one example of the laudable work that the Department of Justice and the FBI do every day to keep America safe. The attack against them has extraordinary irony and harm because it seeks to sow doubt about democratic institutions that are vital to our way of life. President Trump has literally taken a page from his authoritarian heroes who systematically seek to say that the law is not what our enforcement agencies say, not what our democratic institutions say, but what they say. He has persistently and purposefully attempted to undermine all of the Department of Justice. The fact is, these attacks have effect. When they come from the President's mouth, they have consequences. Not surprisingly, these repeated caustic and careless attacks have diminished public confidence in these institutions. Since Donald Trump entered office, reports suggest that a number of Americans who view the FBI capably has diminished by 28 percent. Just 38 percent of Americans have confidence in the FBI. That is distressing for a party that once espoused and supported law enforcement. The long-term negative collateral consequences of these assaults on our top law enforcement agencies are likely to be extensive. Consider the dedication, the courage, the tenacity, and the strength that is required of those at the FBI to do their job day in and day out, putting their lives on the line, literally risking their well- being not over a year or a couple of years but, many of them, for careers, a lifetime. They are among the finest men and women in public service. The FBI is one of our premier law enforcement institutions. The Department of Justice is and should be the marvel of the world for its fairness and its unrelenting dedication to do justice. As one Attorney General--Justice Jackson--said, its goal is not to seek convictions but to do justice, and that is the mission that it performs. A recent case by the Department of Justice's National Security and Civil Rights Division shows how Donald Trump's attacks are weakening support for the FBI's important work. In March of this year, three anti-Muslim militia members who were on trial for plotting to slaughter Somali refugees in Southwest Kansas adopted a defense strategy that could have been taken directly from the Trump playbook or from his Twitter feed. Defense attorneys in that case argued that a biased FBI conspired against their clients because of their political beliefs. The defendants said that their political beliefs were responsible for their prosecutions, not their own actions. In a turn of phrase that is very suggestive of the President's Twitter feed, the defense attorney argued that the defendants' discussion of killing Muslim ``cockroaches'' amounted to ``locker room talk,'' which was inspired, no doubt, partly by the 2016 election. Meanwhile, the government had to deal with jurors who expressed a number of concerns about the honesty and corruption at the top levels of the FBI, questioning the ability and integrity of the organization. Ms. Ifrah Ahmed, a Somali resident of the apartment complex the defendants were plotting to blow up, felt differently about the FBI investigation. She and other residents said that the verdict allayed their fears and affirmed their faith in the justice system. It was because of the work of dedicated law enforcement professionals that the defendants' plan to bomb innocent and peaceful Muslim immigrants was thwarted in a victory for the rule of law and a victory for civil rights and our national security. But instead of applauding or lauding victories like this one, the President of the United States continues to spread a false narrative. His sole purpose is advancing his political agenda, protecting himself, and shielding himself from accountability. His attacks are designed to undermine the credibility of the FBI and designed to shield him from responsibility and apparent culpability for possible criminal wrongdoing. In reality, the FBI and the DOJ work every day to protect Americans against threats, both foreign and domestic, while upholding the Constitution. The Department of Justice includes more than 40 separate organizations, including the FBI, and more than 110,000 employees. I know about the ones in Connecticut. As a former U.S. attorney, the ethic and tradition of the U.S. attorney's office is about upholding the rule of law and the dedication to doing justice. The FBI has more than 30,000 employees spread over 56 field offices around the United States. They are dedicated to protecting the United States from terrorism, cyber attacks, public corruption, violent crime, and abridgement of civil rights. According to its most recent annual report, the FBI disrupted more than 700 terrorist incidents and over 170 violent criminal organizations in 2017 alone. The FBI targets crimes not only in the streets but in boardrooms. In the same time period, it disrupted more than 430 criminal enterprises engaged in white-collar crimes. Let's make no mistake--wrongdoing affects real people in their real lives. There are very few victimless crimes, if any. Every crime has some victim and some survivor. That is the reason they are prosecuted, and that is why we hire those prosecutors and FBI agents to go after lawbreakers. We should reward them for disrupting and deterring the lawbreakers, not denounce them, as the President has done. The FBI's hard work in building cases the right way leads to victories in the courtroom. I have seen them and have prosecuted them myself. The prosecutor, whether it is an assistant U.S. attorney or a U.S. attorney, contributes mightily to those victories, but they would be impossible without the nuts and bolts--the investigative work, the shoe leather, and sometimes the very significant risks involved in uncovering the truth and bringing it to court. Sometimes FBI agents work for months undercover on a single case at grave jeopardy to themselves. More than 90 percent of terrorism- and gang-related cases result in a conviction--a judgment favorable to the United States. These statistics that I have cited here represent only a fraction of the work these agencies do to protect America every day, in real life, for real people. Despite President Trump's efforts to water down environmental protections, the FBI continues to pursue cases where corporations violate clean water and clean air standards and threaten public health. At the end of April, the Department of Justice charged the ex-CEO of Volkswagen with conspiracy in the company's rigging of diesel vehicles to feign compliance and falsely portray compliance with the company's and Federal standards. Volkswagen deceived American regulators. Why should that matter to ordinary Americans? Well, it is an unlevel playing field with its competitors if it cuts corners. So it impacts fair competition, but it also impacts our clean air and the safety and health of Americans who breathe that air. Essentially, they not only deceived regulators, but they defrauded American consumers for years, promising them those standards, which they knew they were failing to meet. Only because of the tireless efforts of Federal investigators and prosecutors has the company's chief executive now been brought to justice to face these charges. The Department of Justice's actions send a message to businesses both here and abroad that efforts to cheat American consumers or harm the environment will have consequences. They ought to pay attention. They ought to be deterred. The Department of Justice also develops key initiatives to respond to urgent threats, particularly in the frontline against terrorism. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces are comprised of small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They operate as part of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, because the FBI has that responsibility for our national security, along with them as a team. When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all. They chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment's notice. These task forces are based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of the FBI's field offices. Without any exaggeration, these investigators and prosecutors protect us. They protect American lives from terrorist threats, both at home and abroad. Just last month FBI agents, working with the Newark Joint Terrorism Task Force, thwarted a plot of five men to join ISIS and carry out an attack in ISIS's name on U.S. soil using homemade bombs. Because of their brave and tenacious efforts and their countless hours of hard work--hour after hour, day after day--this plot, and many others like it, were disrupted and American lives were saved. America has always faced threats to our national security and public safety, even as they are more complex today than ever before. We need the kind of professionalism that the FBI and the Department of Justice and other agencies bring to law enforcement every day. For all of us who have been Federal prosecutors--whether a U.S. attorney, as I was, or in another capacity--these attacks are repugnant. They belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the ethos and tradition of justice and the rule of law in our democracy. Unfortunately, President Trump has failed not only to stand up for those law enforcement agencies, but he has actually hindered, actively and consistently, their vital work in protecting our Nation. He has undermined their stature and credibility. He has attacked their integrity, all without any basis in fact. President Reagan once said that facts are stubborn things. The American people should know the facts. If they do, they will appreciate that the facts show that the Department of Justice and the FBI, even with their faults, are a paragon of law enforcement. Their faults should not be minimized or dismissed. They ought to be addressed, but not by denouncing or demeaning their hard work. The numbers and statistics I have given and the examples I have cited are not meant defensively for them. They don't need my defense. Their actions and their work speak louder than anyone's words. I hope they will continue that service and sacrifice, undiscouraged and undeterred by these rash and reckless attacks from the President and surrogates who support him. I personally thank them for their service and sacrifice, as all Americans should, and I thank many of them for their friendship. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The article has the headline ``Trump picks top Koch recipient for secretary of state.'' The article says that ``former Kansas congressman whose political career was paved by Koch Industries'' received more money than others in similar situations. The reasons to vote against Mike Pompeo are many, but one of the principal ones is that he was one of the chief recipients of money from the Koch brothers or their organizations. In fact, since his first bid for Congress in 2010, Pompeo has received $400,000 from Koch Industries, $335,000 from employee contributions, and $65,000 from its corporate PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Pompeo nomination is a poster boy for the impact of money in politics, the influence of the Koch brothers on this administration, and the enduring effect of campaign contributions, of influence-buying and pettiness in government. The Koch brothers are blatantly using their influence in the Trump administration to advance an agenda based on their own self-interests at the expense of our democracy, and they have reached into the uppermost levels and echelons of this administration through individuals they have supported over years and years, such as Mike Pompeo. In July of 2015, 2 weeks before he kicked off his campaign for President, the President said through a tweet: ``I really like the Koch Brothers (members of my [Palm Beach] Club), but I don't want their money or anything else from them. Cannot influence Trump!'' Well, they are good friends. They are members of the club. And nobody can deny their influence on Donald Trump, their impact on this administration, or their enduring reaches and effects on public policy. If you have ever wondered where Republican ideological positions originated on lowering corporate taxes, undercutting healthcare, or loosening environmental regulations, look no further than a Koch front group called Americans for Prosperity. Americans for Prosperity is the recipient of the largest grants made by another organization called Freedom Partners. POLITICO describes Freedom Partners as ``the Koch brothers' secret bank.'' The group peddles dark money to front groups to drum up public support for policies that benefit the richest of the rich. The Americans for Prosperity organization has been called by the Washington Post ``the third largest political party in the United States.'' It was founded in 2004 by David Koch, who serves as the chairman of the board, and he has crammed the group with Republican operatives. Many of them work for the Vice President. They operate in 36 States. They are heavily involved in electoral activities, spending millions of dollars on TV ads that spread disinformation, falsely claiming that the middle class will benefit from policies designed to enrich the millionaire backers and billionaire backers of Americans for Prosperity. The organizations backed by these two groups and others have consistently claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit all Americans. They have consistently argued for measures that cause environmental degradation. In fact, the Koch brothers have an enormous stake in repealing regulations that protect the environment and put limits on polluting fossil fuel companies, repealing those regulations designed to accomplish that goal. Americans for Prosperity drives the Koch energy agenda. The group spent millions lobbying for its industry-backed champion, Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as others nominated for EPA and Energy Department positions. Once they were in place, these cronies wasted no time in seeking to dismantle the environmental regulations prohibiting oil and gas drilling on Federal lands, withdraw from the Clean Power Plan, which is aimed at cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and revoke a moratorium on new coal leases. There are other examples of influence by an American in modern political history but none so egregious as the Koch brothers in this administration. Most recently, we saw their influence on the judiciary in suppressing votes. The Koch brothers are throwing a lot of money behind the nomination of judges who are poised to rule in their favor, undermining judicial precedence and the rule of law. Its network is helping Donald Trump stack the courts with far-right ideologues. Donald Trump entered office with more than 100 vacancies on the Federal bench--an opportunity created in part by Senate Republicans who blocked many of Barack Obama's nominees before he left office. Judges enjoy lifetime appointments. If the Koch brothers succeed in rigging the judiciary against the needs of everyday Americans, the effects will be felt for generations to come. Americans for Prosperity is also behind shameless efforts to suppress votes. It has launched disinformation campaigns, sending out bogus registration mailings with incorrect deadlines in swing States like North Carolina and Wisconsin. When challenged, Americans for Prosperity claims that these blatant lies were the result of clerical error. Our Nation needs prosperity but not an influence-peddling organization that claims to be for prosperity but, in fact, leads to policy that undermines the prosperity of everyday Americans. My reasons for opposing Mike Pompeo's nomination go well beyond the campaign contributions he has received. His views are contrary to American values. He has repeatedly devalued and dismissed religious tolerance. He has allied himself with anti-Islam and anti-LGBT groups. At a time when the environment our children will inherit hangs in the balance, he is a career-long climate change denier, drowning in dark money from the Koch brothers' oil industry. His regressive views on reproductive rights jeopardize the healthcare of millions of women around the world. If confirmed, he will be responsible for executing Donald Trump's misguided policies, and he will reinforce Donald Trump's misguided instinct, expanding, for example, the global gag rule that prevents foreign aid from being provided to global health programs that discuss or provide abortion services. He will cut programs covering everything from HIV prevention, to maternal and child health, to epidemic disease response, putting our lives at risk. Money in politics has reached its apex in this administration, not only in politics but in government. Just within the last day or so, the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget gave a speech to a group of bankers in which he said: We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If you were a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. That quote from Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, was made to a group of about 1,300 bankers in plain view and hearing of the American public. First, the idea that a lobbyist would have to pay in order to have access to a Member of Congress or his administration raises the potential of bribery, extortion, and perhaps pay-to-play. It is pay-to- play and the image of it that has so sullied this town and government in general that President Trump swayed so many people by describing it as a swamp. Well, the swamp has been deepened, and it has been further polluted by exactly this kind of talk. I will say to Mick Mulvaney: You are destroying the credibility and trust of the American people and our honest colleagues, who come to work every day and try to help and serve the American people. Some of them still work in the Federal Government at high levels, in fear of losing their jobs because they adhere to a standard of integrity that no longer prevails. In fact, the mindset and mentality of pay-to-play has become the new normal in this administration. It is filled with people at the highest levels who regard unbridled and unapologetic graft as the new normal. That is what that quote says to the average American. It is typical of the practices of the Administrator of the EPA, who accepts virtually free lodging from a lobbyist who has access to him, as well as takes luxury flights and stays in exorbitantly expensive hotels at taxpayers' expense. Conflicts of interest, ethical violations, and other kinds of betrayal of the public trust have become commonplace at the top levels of the EPA. It is the mindset of a President of the United States who literally every day accepts benefits from foreign governments and payment in violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically in violation of the emoluments clause that prohibits such benefits and payments without the consent of Congress. Donald Trump has never come to the U.S. Congress seeking approval for the payments and benefits that go to the Trump Organization, which he still owns. That failure is a violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, and it is the reason that 200 of us Members of Congress have brought legal action to vindicate our trust and the trust of the American people that the Constitution will be followed and that we will do our job. We have standing to bring that action because the President of the United States is preventing us from reviewing those payments and benefits that go to him, which we have an obligation to review under the U.S. Constitution. That case will be heard in court in June. I hope the courts will vindicate the rule of law. I hope we will see an end to this corrosive and corrupting impact of money in politics and money in government through a web of deceit and contempt for the rule of law that betrays the trust of the American people. The Washington, DC, that is conveyed by these quotes and actions by officials at the very top of our government are not my Washington. They are not the Washington, DC, of many of our colleagues--honest and hard- working in this Chamber, in the House of Representatives, and in the executive and judicial branches--who continue to do their job. Among them are two of our colleagues: Johnny Isakson and Jon Tester. Senator Isakson of Georgia and Senator Tester of Montana have helped to lead the Veterans' Affairs Committee over the past few days as it raises concerns and questions about the serious allegations made by men and women in uniform or retired Active-Duty military. These concerns go directly to the ethics and integrity and character and ability of the President's nominee to be VA Secretary, Ronny Jackson, a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy. There is no realistic path at this point to confirmation of Admiral Jackson. He should have a hearing if he wishes. He should be considered if he chooses. But the administration owes the American people, as well as the Senate, answers to questions raised by the chairman and ranking member of the VA Committee. I have talked to both of them, as well as the staff, about this investigation, and I have participated in their thinking and support their efforts to uncover the truth. Facts are stubborn things. That is what Ronald Reagan said. It remains true even more so today in this inquiry. The administration has failed to vet this nomination. It failed abjectly to uncover the truth before it submitted this nomination. It owes the truth and the facts now to the Senate before there is any hearing. Documents and evidence should be provided, and the administration should reverse course, if necessary, and make sure that full access is provided to all of these documents and evidence. As recently as yesterday, members of the VA Committee were barred from viewing the FBI background check. The Inspector General's report of 2012 on Rear Admiral Jackson was not provided to our committee, and other relevant evidence and documents may exist, but they have been denied. I urge the administration to provide the facts, respond to the questions, and address the serious allegations that have been made, because they are consistent and credible and compelling. The more time goes on, the more serious and substantial these allegations become in their detail and depth and power. Time is not on their side, and so far, the administration has abjectly failed to respond. I thank Senators Isakson and Tester for their leadership and for their insistence on integrity and character because our veterans deserve it. Most importantly, our veterans deserve the very best leader, not one who will be encumbered by the baggage of allegations, unrefuted and unrebutted so far. Our veterans deserve the very best in healthcare and employment opportunities and skill training. Our veterans deserve that we keep faith with them and choose the very best leader, with experience in management, as well as a commitment to the high standards of integrity that befit the Veterans' Administration. It has seen problems. It needs improvement and reforms. The path forward for the VA is with a person and a leader who has unimpeachable integrity. I thank Senator Isakson and Senator Tester for their leadership and insistence on that high bar in the Veterans' Administration for the sake of our veterans. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about money in politics and, even more insidiously and potentially perniciously, money in government. The money in politics begins with the President's nominee to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I suggest to my colleagues that they read an article that appeared in opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Carolyn Lumsden, who received the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Ms. Lumsden, an opinion editor for the Hartford Courant, wrote an editorial series last year which revealed the breadth of the crumbling concrete foundations issue in northeastern Connecticut. Her work, ``Crumbling Foundations,'' gave a thorough look at this tragic situation where hundreds, potentially tens of thousands, of homes have foundations that need to be replaced because the concrete contains an iron sulfide that ultimately weakens the structure. Through her months of research, Ms. Lumsden spoke with homeowners, engineers, geologists, data analysts, bankers, and lawyers to understand the complete scope of this problem. ``Crumbling Foundations'' initiated much-needed, positive progress for the people of Connecticut, thanks in part to the data and personal testimonies Ms. Lumsden gathered. In the months following the series' publishing, the Internal Revenue Service approved tax breaks for homeowners, and the State of Connecticut approved $100 million in bonding over 5 years to help the homeowners suffering from crumbling foundations. I am working, along with my congressional delegation colleagues, on additional Federal relief to homeowners and funding for research into pyrrhotite. Ms. Lumsden's dedication to using her position as a journalist to assist the people of Connecticut is deeply admirable. For over 200 years, the American press has uncovered and reported vital information to the public about our communities. Thanks to ``Crumbling Foundations,'' our State is now acutely aware of this significant tragedy and is working actively to find a solution. I applaud her tireless efforts to uncover the truth of this problem and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Ms. Lumsden on her well-earned honor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to oppose the nomination of Kyle Duncan to be a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit. The court of appeals for that circuit and every other in our country is supremely important not only to people who live in its direct jurisdiction but for all people of our country. Courts of appeals make decisions that are binding on district courts in that jurisdiction and also have an impact on other judges and courts throughout the country at every level. From day one, the Trump administration has made attacking basic civil liberties a guiding principle of the policies it supports, including its judicial nominees. It is inexcusably seeking to turn back the clock on the progress we have made. We fought back hard against these arcane and irrational policies, but President Trump's attempt to stack our courts with extremist judges may, in the end, have the most long- lasting and devastating impact on our Nation. That is why I am here today, with many of my colleagues, to sound the alarm on Kyle Duncan. He has been nominated to this court, but he has made a career of seeking to turn back policies that protect the most vulnerable members of our country. He is out of mainstream. In fact, he is out of the stream entirely. His views are extreme, fringed, and, collectively, they make him unfit to be a judge on this court that I greatly respect. Out of respect to members of the court, we should confirm someone only if they meet high standards. Kyle Duncan has attacked the voting rights of minority groups--in one case, even defending a law that a Federal circuit court said targeted African-American voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' He has attacked the rights of same-sex couples, leading several efforts against marriage equality. He has attacked the rights of the transgender community to be safe in their schools and communities. He has attacked protections for Dreamers, making it harder for them to obtain documentation, such as simple driver's licenses. Over and over, he has attacked women's rights and women's health in a way that I think disqualifies him for this court. Like so many other nominees before him, Kyle Duncan is an anti-choice zealot who has shown time and again that he is more worried about pushing his personal ideology than faithfully upholding the Constitution. His views on women's rights and women's healthcare are more than morally repugnant; they are downright dangerous. In fact, Kyle Duncan has led the charge in defending unconstitutional and unnecessary laws that target abortion providers, attempting to legislate them out of existence with little regard for the women who will be harmed as a result. These laws, which have spread around the country at an alarming rate, serve no medical purpose. They put barriers between women and the care they need and deserve. Twice--twice--Mr. Duncan has falsely argued that these restrictions targeting abortion providers in Louisiana and Texas were ``medically reasonable'' and based on ``solid medical ground.'' These laws were rightly struck down both times. Indeed, these laws are the opposite of medically reasonable. In no way are they based on medical ground. With this nominee's enthusiastic support, these unconstitutional State-level restrictions have proliferated, shutting down women's healthcare providers, delaying much needed care, and putting women's health at risk. Kyle Duncan's peddling of misinformation as a lawyer fighting for these unnecessary and unconstitutional abortion laws is frightening enough. Imagine what he could do on the bench. He has fought to undo historic healthcare victories provided by the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. As we know in this Chamber--and I think we need to acknowledge--this mandate has made a difference in the lives of an astonishing 64.2 million women who were able to access birth control with no out-of-pocket costs in the last year alone. This has given women greater power over their health, their well-being, their futures, their reproductive decisions, and their finances. Yet Mr. Duncan has attacked the birth control mandate repeatedly. He sought to leave a woman's right to access affordable healthcare to the whims of her employer. Worse, he has absurdly denied that contraception is healthcare at all and has said the idea of contraception as a right is ``disturbing.'' It is a constitutional right. To him, it is disturbing. What kind of a judge will he be? Despite what Kyle Duncan believes, birth control is healthcare. A woman's access to it is a right, and his false, ideologically driven assaults are wrong. I will oppose Kyle Duncan's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Howard T. Owens, Jr., an exemplary public servant, leader, and friend. Sadly, Mr. Owens passed away on April 3, 2018, at the age of 83. He will be remembered for his outstanding legacy of dedication to Connecticut as both a statesman and a judge. Howard began his impressive career in public service as an assistant U.S. attorney and then as a State senator representing the city of Bridgeport and the town of Trumbull. I had the honor of briefly serving with Howard during my tenure in the Connecticut House of Representatives. Beginning in 1974 through 1988, Howard held this seat with the exception of one term in 1984. He took every opportunity while in the capitol to improve the quality of life for not just those who elected him, but for all the people of Connecticut, whether it was promoting mass transit, especially for the urban centers, as senate cochair of the transportation committee or seeking a fairer justice system as senate cochair of the judiciary committee. In 1998, Howard's passion for State service took on a new shape when he received the appointment to serve as a judge on the superior court. Throughout his time as a State judge, he presided over a number of high-profile cases, which earned Howard recognition for his patient, thoughtful oversight of complex divorce decisions. Although dedicated to public service, Howard always made time for his friends, especially when they needed help--in the courtroom, as well as outside of it. His legacy of unfailing service and dedication to his community is evident when speaking with anyone who knew him. A caring man with a good sense of humor, he carried out his work humbly and with a sense of devotion to those close to him and to the rest of Connecticut. Howard added inimitable wisdom to the capitol and the courthouse and is known by many of us throughout the State as a tireless supporter of Connecticut and the Nation's best interests. His commitment to the rule of law and loyalty to his friends and family have left a lasting, positive mark on Connecticut's legacy. My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Howard's family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife, Ann, and their four children. May their many wonderful memories of Howard provide them solace and comfort.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to take the time to recognize March 31, 2018, as National Stop the Bleed Day. Stop the Bleed is a program offered by the American College of Surgeons to help educate the general public on techniques to assist victims suffering from uncontrolled bleeding using direct pressure, gauze and bandages, and tourniquets. As someone who has personally been trained to ``Stop the Bleed,'' I can attest to its importance and value. Each year, more than 180,000 people die from traumatic injuries sustained as a result of events including vehicle crashes, falls, industrial and farm accidents, shootings, and natural disasters. The most common preventable cause of these deaths is losing too much blood in the minutes before trained responders arrive. Just like CPR training, a civilian familiar with basic bleeding control techniques is better equipped to save a life. The effort to make this training available to the public is driven by the goal to reduce or eliminate preventable death from bleeding. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Stop the Bleed Day so that we may raise awareness and work to end the loss of life from uncontrolled bleeding by getting trained to ``Stop the Bleed.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to be here as a former U.S. attorney and the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut. I have been involved in law enforcement for most of my career, and I am proud to stand here now in this Chamber, following the chairman of the Commerce Committee, whose dedication to this cause has brought us to the finish line, and my colleague Senator Portman, whose leadership on this bill is invaluable. I wish to second a number of points that have been made by Senator Portman and Senator Thune, most especially about the very collaborative effort involved in this bill--a bipartisan championing of a cause whose time has come--and, particularly, about our colleague John McCain and his wife Cindy McCain, whose energy, spirit, courage, and strength have really been an inspiration to all of us. I also want to thank Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Cornyn, because their contributions have been enormously valuable as well. There is a face to human trafficking in this country. Here is one of the faces. Desiree Robinson, whose story you just heard from Senator Thune, is one such face. Her voice is still. Her voice could not be heard directly, but her mother, Yvonne Ambrose, came to our committee and talked about her beautiful daughter, whose life was lost as a result of sex trafficking. She was killed after she was raped and after she was sold. Her story alone helped us to achieve unanimous approval in the Commerce Committee for this bill, and I hope it will lead us to an overwhelming vote today on the bill before us. I hope, as well, that it will lead us to defeat amendments that would, in effect, kill this bill--amendments that may be well intentioned, but, in fact, have an effect contrary to their stated purpose. This bill is completely bipartisan from beginning to end. It is the result of tireless work of advocates, sex trafficking survivors, and a bipartisan coalition of our colleagues. It now has 68 cosponsors. Its companion legislation passed in the House 388 to 25. It is the product of stakeholder consensus. It has the support of every major human trafficking organization, every major law enforcement group, and every part of the tech community--if not unanimous, at least of many of its leaders. This bill would clarify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was never intended to give websites a free pass to aid and abet sex trafficking. It was never intended to immunize completely those websites so they could knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. Those words are in the bill--``knowingly facilitate.'' The purpose of our measure, very simply, is to give survivors their day in court. Right now, the courtroom doors are barred to them, as a recent court of appeals opinion remarked, outrageously so. It would also open avenues of prosecution to law enforcement where they are currently roadblocked. My experience combating sex trafficking at the State level led me to colaunch and cochair the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking with Senator Portman, seeking to find solutions to this problem. As a State prosecutor, I was told that I could not pursue actions again craigslist or other sites nearly a decade ago because of that section and the interpretation. Clearly, the websites that facilitate this, knowingly encouraging and profiting from sex trafficking, must face repercussions in the courtroom. For law enforcement to succeed in combating sex trafficking, there have to be consequences. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children reported an 840-percent increase in reports of suspected child and sex trafficking from 2010 to 2015 alone. It found that spike ``directly correlated to the increased use of the internet to sell children for sex.'' Those numbers fail to tell the full story. In fact, this picture is worth a thousand words. This picture of Desiree shows her as a young girl, smiling. In fact, her mom told us that her smile could light up a room. She was a successful student who dreamed of becoming a physician in the Air Force. When she was in high school, a series of men reached out to her on social media. They pressured and manipulated her into letting them sell her for sex and then advertise her on backpage.com. Her mom, Yvonne, told us what happened next: On December 23, 2016, a 32-year-old man by the name of Antonio Rosales was looking through Backpage.com for a child to have sex with, just like countless others before him. . . . He knew Backpage.com was a site to go to in order to find young underaged girls to have sex with. During his search, he came upon a picture of my 16-year-old daughter under the posting, ``New girl in town looking to have fun,'' which was posted by her pimp. Desiree was driven to Antonio's residence by the pimp with the intent of having sex with this 32-year- old man, a man twice her age. This was the last night of my daughter's life. . . . On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2016, Desiree, my baby, was brutally murdered, and now my life has changed forever. She had been beaten, raped, strangled, and if that wasn't bad enough, he slit her throat, all because she said, no, she didn't want to do this again. She screamed for help, and there was no one around to help her. Yvonne Ambrose had the courage to come testify before us, and I have repeated this part of her testimony not because it is ennobling or pleasant, but because it is the hard, ugly truth about sex trafficking. It is the reason that we must pass this measure. It is also the reason why we need to defeat the amendments that would send this measure back to the House and its possible demise. Every one of the groups I mentioned earlier, including Desiree's lawyer, have urged us to defeat these amendments. I will read just one or two sentences from a letter that I received today from Desiree's lawyer about the so-called moderation amendment: At first glance, it appears that the Moderation Amendment is disguising itself as a good Samaritan amendment. However, in a nutshell, its effect is a really bad faith Samaritan immunity. This measure is narrowly tailored. It would ensure that State and local law enforcement can join the fight against these criminal websites. It provides survivors a right of action that would not only be a source of relief for them but also a means of remedy. The Good Samaritan amendment, unfortunately--perhaps, unintentionally--would simply protect the websites. The people who complain and take action certainly deserve protection. It is in the current law. One of the reasons why we want to defeat this amendment is that it would probably have unintended consequences in protecting websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave them up in order to continue profiting from them. I think the letter from the attorney for Desiree Robinson's estate, Gina DeBoni, objecting to this amendment is a powerful reminder that we need to stick to what we have and what we know will work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.