Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Greater Danbury NAACP as they celebrate 60 years of outstanding advocacy and support for equal rights and an end to race-based discrimination in Connecticut and the Nation. Founded in 1957, the Danbury NAACP serves as a branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. By focusing on the Danbury, CT, area, this branch helps connect people in the region with the national NAACP mission. As part of the oldest civil rights organization in America, the Greater Danbury NAACP has had a valuable role in the progress we have made toward a society free from discrimination and respectful of individual civil rights. This year's theme, ``Steadfast & Immovable,'' exemplifies the branch's continuous dedication to leading the fight to ensure every person in our great Nation will truly enjoy equal rights under the law. The organization continues its rich history of collaboration with other civil rights groups. Recently, alongside other organizations and individuals, the Greater Danbury NAACP participated in an International Workers' Day event to emphasize the need for better treatment of immigrants. The branch's president, Glenda Armstrong, spoke at the event, emphasizing how, even with its founding centered on the inequality facing African Americans, the NAACP's goal of racial equality encompasses everyone in America. One of the national organization's key objectives, mirrored in the work of the Greater Danbury branch, is to use democratic processes to put an end to racial discrimination. In March, the Danbury NAACP expressed its support--along with its parent association--for the NO HATE Act. I introduced this act with Congressman Beyer to counter the rising number of hate crimes in America. The NO HATE Act will encourage more thorough reports on hate crimes by law enforcement, grant victims of these crimes the right to sue in civil court, and establish hotlines run by the State to make sure hate crimes were reported. These key measures align with the NAACP's vision of equality. Since its formation, the Greater Danbury NAACP continuously strives to eliminate racial discrimination and achieve social, political, economic, and educational equality for the people of Danbury, CT, and the Nation. I applaud their tireless work and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Greater Danbury NAACP on 60 years of dedication and advocacy on behalf of Connecticut residents.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Connecticut State Labor Council AFL-CIO as they celebrate 60 years of extraordinary and exemplary advocacy on behalf of Connecticut workers and their families. Since its formation in 1957 with the merging of the Connecticut Federation of Labor and the Connecticut State Industrial Union Council, the Connecticut State AFL-CIO has demonstrated an impressive dedication to the wellbeing of workers across the State. The organization seeks fair and equal treatment for workers through collective bargaining on their behalf and promoting legislation to create good jobs and provide people with the skills needed for them. Simply, they strengthen the middle class, allowing tens of thousands of people to own a home, raise their families, and retire with financial security. Uniting workers and their families toward these common goals, the Connecticut AFL-CIO has fought continuously and ceaselessly for better wages, benefits, and conditions for the working families of the State. Throughout its six decades, the Connecticut AFL-CIO has facilitated union member access to insurance plans, credit cards, and beneficial mortgage programs. Always looking for ways to raise the standard of living for our middle-class workers, the Connecticut AFL-CIO was one of the early leaders in the fight to achieve affordable and accessible quality healthcare, pay equity, and parental and medical leave for all employees. The Connecticut AFL-CIO also helps those who have lost their jobs, supporting fair unemployment compensation laws and education and job training programs. Since its formation, the Connecticut AFL-CIO continuously puts the needs of workers and their families first. I applaud their numerous achievements and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Connecticut State AFL-CIO on 60 years of service and commitment to Connecticut employees.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have been here before. We have been here in the wake of Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Orlando, numerous other mass shootings, and now Las Vegas. We can all agree that our hearts and prayers, mourning and condolences go out to the families of loved ones who have suffered this senseless, horrific violence. We can also agree that many of the details are unknown about the shooter, and a lot of investigation will be done. We can all agree that Las Vegas was struck by evil; call it pure evil. We know what it looks like in Connecticut because we saw it firsthand in Newtown. We lived through the heartbreaking, unspeakable violence of that day, just a few years ago, when evil visited Newtown and caused the death of 26 beautiful human beings, including 20 children. America came together in support of us in Connecticut, and today we should come together in support of the people of Nevada. My heart and prayers are with them, but thoughts and prayers are not enough. We know the evil that visited Connecticut also brought forth good in other people--in the first responders, the doctors, and countless members of the community and people of America who united. I will never forget that day in Newtown when the community came together in St. Rose of Lima Church for an evening of mourning. I said then that the whole world was watching. Indeed, what the world saw was courage and resilience of truly heroic proportions--some of the good along with the evil. When I saw those images today in Las Vegas--the sound of that gunfire, the pandemonium, the reports of injuries and deaths--it brought back to me that day in Newtown. I was not there for the shooting, as I had gone later in the day, but the memories of that day and of the successive days, weeks, and years had been brought back. My heart broke, but my stomach also churned with anger. I was frustrated and furious. I am now furious because Congress has failed to act. Nothing has changed since Newtown. Congress has been complicit when we have had numerous opportunities and many reasons to make America safer and adopt commonsense measures that 90 percent of Americans support. So thoughts and prayers are not enough. Hand-wringing and soul-searching is needed, but it is insufficient. What is needed now is action. I am under no illusions. Nobody needs to tell me where the votes are at this moment. We need to be realistic about what the agenda is in our going forward. We need to be very clear-eyed and realistic, but we also need to recognize that we can win this fight. Between the time that Ronald Reagan had almost been assassinated and the day that the Brady bill had passed, it had been almost 10 years. We need to be in this fight as a marathon, not as a sprint, and that is the determination and resolve that must be brought to this effort. It was 5 years ago when a man wielding a semiautomatic rifle murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The cries of grief echoed around this country, and there was a moment when action could have been taken. We need to seize this moment. Then, the vote, shamefully, failed to reach 60 for commonsense measures, like background checks. We needed 60, and we had a majority, and our colleagues in the House of Representatives told us that that measure would have passed there. Since then, every day in this country an average of 92 Americans die due to gun violence, which is 33,000 Americans every year, and 59 is the death toll as of this moment in Las Vegas. Day after day, 92 Americans are killed as a result of gun violence, and 60 of them are suicides, but that is no less a death, and it is a preventable death if there are commonsense measures that will stop this carnage. I would be happy never to speak about this topic, never to complain again about Congress's complicity, but our hearts break, and our stomachs churn with fury. America's should as well. After Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Charleston, Chattanooga, Lafayette, San Bernardino, Orlando, and, now, Las Vegas, these cities have become synonymous with mass shootings--unjustly tarnished. What is needed is national resolve. For anyone who says that we should only mourn or offer condolences, let me just say, very simply: Let us honor those victims and keep faith with their memories, so that their lives and losses will not be in vain, by taking action that makes America safer. Let us redouble our determination. The bills are ready to go, the agenda is set, and the action is clear. Let us honor their memories through action. If the President believes this carnage was pure evil, let him lead--if not today, tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, Wednesday, when he visits Las Vegas. If these actions were pure evil, let us all lead by our example, and let us move forward to stop this carnage in the future. We grieve these losses, but we need to recognize that the measures now before Congress are a travesty and a dishonor to those lives that were lost. One of these proposals is an innocuous-sounding Hearing Protection Act--let me repeat: the Hearing Protection Act--which could come to a vote as early as this week in the House of Representatives. This measure would gut regulations on gun silencers. Now, let's be very clear. Silencers are already widely available to hundreds of sportsmen who pay the fee, register, and wait for a short period. This legislation would make it terrifyingly easy to buy a gun silencer. Hunters and recreational shooters deserve to have silencers but only if they comply with those regulations. This measure would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and make it more difficult for law enforcement, especially in urban areas, to identify gunshots, locate shooters, and protect civilians. In one interview after another of the victims of last night's shooting, there was a common refrain: They ran, and they escaped because they heard those gunshots. The only supposed reform measure before the Congress right now that has been given a chance of passage is a proposal to make it easier to buy gun silencers. The only thing that led those individuals to escape--or one of the only things--was, in fact, the sound of gunshots. How many lives would have been taken last night if the shooter had had a silencer? Another proposal is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would essentially eliminate the States' ability to regulate concealed-carry permits in their States, undermining the laws that States like Connecticut have put in place to keep our residents safe. In the wake of Newtown, Charleston, Orlando, and, now, Las Vegas, Members of Congress should come together to protect our lives from these senseless killings. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is not about politics. It is not even about policy. It is about public safety, simply. We should not be undermining protection. What a travesty and tragedy and what a dishonor to the memories of those victims in Las Vegas to now be on the verge of weakening rather than strengthening our public safety laws. Let's join hands across the aisle and across both Houses to stand up to the gun lobby, the NRA, and other special interests and release and break their grip on Congress. More than thoughts and prayers are necessary, although they fulfill a vitally important function. Talk must be turned into action. Waiting simply means more deaths, and delay means time. Time is not on our side with there being 92 deaths, on average, every day as a result of gun violence. Let us join together and combat evil. Certainly, it was there in Las Vegas, but it will visit other communities, as it does every day. Those 92 deaths and mass shootings will continue unless commonsense, sensible measures, like a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, are adopted, as well as there being mandatory background checks for all gun sales. Until this is adopted, America will be more at risk. We must make America safer, and that is an obligation that we share across the aisle and across the two bodies of Congress. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here for the third time in as many days to talk about this Nation's response to a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of Americans--the people of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It is similar to the situation in Florida, in the gulf coast, and, some years ago, in Connecticut and in other parts of this country when they faced a natural disaster that was almost as devastating as an attack would be by a foreign power. Analogous but different, this category 4 Hurricane Maria caused consequences as devastating and destructive as any that man could do. It is a natural disaster, not manmade, but it is turning into a manmade disaster. So far, the response from our government has been underwhelming. In fact, it has been inadequate and anemic. It has been shamefully slow and undersized and should be vastly upgraded and increased. Just moments ago, I learned that Lieutenant General Buchanan has been appointed to head the military efforts in Puerto Rico. That appointment followed a call just an hour or so ago with all of the representatives, including FEMA, the Department of Defense, other Federal agencies, and the Red Cross, during which I urged our U.S. military to be mobilized, much as we would be in responding to a natural disaster in Connecticut or Texas or Florida or other places in this country on the mainland where we have seen the same kind of storm. The 3.4 million people in Puerto Rico are almost exactly the same number as the population of Connecticut. I hope, and I believe, the response would be better in Connecticut if we were to face the same kind of natural disaster. Yet the manmade disaster is the failure to move food, fuel, medicine, water, other necessities, and communications equipment from the ports and the airports into the interior of the country, even into the major cities, where currently apparently a lack of drivers and passable roads make it all the more difficult. Whether the supplies of food and fuel and medicine and water are adequate on the island or need to be increased on an emergency basis and whether there are sufficient shipments and airlifts going into the island, the simple fact is that Puerto Rico faces a disaster--manmade after natural. I commend the loyal and dedicated people of FEMA and all of the National Guard, including the National Guard of Connecticut, who have performed with such heroism and dedication in the face of the most difficult circumstances imaginable, but their efforts need to be matched by many others. There are 4,500 American military personnel now in Puerto Rico. Rather than 5,000, there should be 50,000 of our National Guard, not to occupy the island, not to enforce martial law but to make sure the logistics--the transportation, the means of delivery of the lifeblood of that island in food and fuel and medicine and water and other basic necessities--are sufficient to move those basic supplies to the places they are needed. The troops who are there now are performing heroic, Herculean work, and so are many volunteers, along with FEMA officials, the Coast Guard, and others, but they need more help. Nearly a week after this storm, Maria, more than 90 percent of the island's residents are without power, 42 percent have no water, the vast majority of the country's 69 hospitals cannot function, and only 10 percent of the cell towers are working. If those conditions existed in Connecticut, I would be on the floor 24 hours a day. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have no one here, and they have no elected Representatives in the House of Representatives. They are voiceless or at least voteless in this body. We need to stand for them, speak out, and fight for them. That is why I am here for the third day in a row. We need a plan and a strategy, which has been lacking from this administration. In that phone call earlier today with FEMA officials and the Department of Defense, I asked about a plan. They are working on it. The military, U.S. Northern Command, is working on a plan. They could not tell me when it will be ready or what it will say or what the total number of troops or other logistical supplies will be nor could they commit that there would be a waiver under FEMA regulations of the C through G conditions, which apply to permanent recovery. The only decision that has been made is A to B, which provides for debris and other emergency responses over the next 180 days, and that is part of what the island needs--a longer term plan as well as an immediate one to make sure there is a road to recovery, that there is a path that will provide hope. Not only is the well-being and health of this island threatened but so is hope, which is so important for progress to be made. The people of Puerto Rico have been met with, at best, ambivalence and ambiguity by the President of the United States. Earlier this week, he seemed more inclined to blame the island itself and the size of the ocean than in advocating for help. I hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis. With the kind of situation that is there now--the danger of epidemic as well as immediate health threats before disease takes hold--we must act before people die. We must come to the aid of Puerto Rico. They need medical care. They need access to food and safe drinking water, and, yes, they need greater security. The 78 mayors of Puerto Rico, along with the Governor, are doing also heroic and Herculean work, but a whole of government response is necessary from this body and from the Federal Government at a much higher magnitude. In the long term, we must have a martial plan--a strategy for rebuilding the island's roads, bridges, rail, airports, ports, and VA facility, much as we do in this country, except that, there, the need is so much more dire and immediate. Hospitals, transportation, electricity, power, communications, safety, housing all have been destroyed, and the consequences will be deadly. My hope is that Lieutenant General Buchanan will expedite that plan. So far, it has been lacking. It should be done today. It should be integrated with the FEMA approach, and I hope they will permit visits by Members of the Congress who, so far, have been prevented from going there. The American people deserve to have elected Representatives there because Puerto Rico has none here. The extraordinary work done by the cable TV and reporters for the print media and others who are there have given us a picture--and often a picture is worth a thousand words--of the devastation that now continues from a manmade disaster that must be avoided before it takes lives and destroys hope. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in the last 24 hours since I came to the floor to talk about Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, there has been progress but far less progress than is necessary at this critical time of humanitarian crisis, when the people of those islands literally face a chasm, a deepening canyon of needs and challenges. Over the next 24 hours, over the next 24 days, over the next 24 months, this crisis must be met with a strategy, an overarching plan, a Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico that commits the resources unequivocally and unambiguously, making sure we match the depth of this crisis with a magnitude of resources and commitment that is needed and deserved. That kind of response, which has been lacking so far, is absolutely necessary for the hope of Puerto Rico because as the threats of disease and contaminated water increase, not to mention the lack of proper medicine, healthcare, roads, transportation and communication, food, water, medicine, basic necessities rise on that island, the people of Puerto Rico will lose trust and confidence in fellow Americans that must do more. We need to give them the hope they deserve, and that hope has to be more than rhetoric and more than patting ourselves on the back as the President has done. It has to be a real commitment. In fact, there is no reason for back-patting. The response so far has been inadequate, lacking the full attention and commitment that is needed. It has been a story of inattention and inadequate strategy so far to meet this deepening humanitarian crisis. The people of Texas, Florida, and throughout the gulf coast and the Southeast who have been affected by the storms have received the full commitment of America. It is what we owe our fellow Americans. That same commitment is owed to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We saw an immediate disaster response there that must also be devoted to Puerto Rico. The emergency aid and full funding made to the victims of those storms in the gulf coast and Florida must be given to Puerto Rico, and I am hopeful that a relief bill will be fashioned this week. I am also hopeful that the financial control board that has responsibility for Puerto Rico's internal finances can be given the flexibility and that the Government of Puerto Rico will be given the flexibility that is needed to deal with this disaster--nothing less than a full court press, a full plan and strategy, and a plan that directly addresses the needs of Puerto Rico in so many areas. On transportation, what is the plan to ensure that basic goods can move from one end of the island to another? Right now the roads are unusable. By all accounts, getting things across the island by road is impossible. Radar and navigation systems at the airports are down. The transportation mechanism of the island is literally ripped apart. So potable water, food, and fuel are impossible to move where they need to go. That state of affairs is inadequate and unacceptable in America in 2017. Electricity and power are disrupted across the island. What will be done to restore power and electricity throughout the island? What will be done to make sure that diesel is available there and in the Virgin Islands? Many of the machines essential for lifesaving at the hospitals cannot be powered by generators alone. That state of affairs is inadequate and unacceptable in America in 2017. All five of the hospitals in Arecibo, one of Puerto Rico's largest cities, are without power. Many other hospitals are shuttered as well. Clinics are closed. Mosquito-borne diseases are a real and present danger. Deadly ailments in contaminated food and water may cause serious and possibly deadly diseases. As these diseases spread, what is the plan to stop this kind of inadequacy? It is unacceptable in America in 2017. As to communications, or the basic ability to talk to each other, to reassure each other, and to know what is going on with relatives and loved ones and friends--no wonder that angst and alarm are spreading beyond Puerto Rico to Connecticut, where those relatives and friends live now--this kind of lack of communication is unacceptable in America in 2017. What is the plan to correct it? On public safety, looting and theft are becoming more prevalent. As the days drag on, law and order will deteriorate unless public safety is addressed more effectively. There is another kind of challenge. A dam that is about to burst and could cause havoc in surrounding areas is a clear and present safety danger that illustrates again the weakness of Puerto Rico's infrastructure. Towns throughout the island have suffered severe flooding. So housing and basic shelter are inadequate. What is the plan to rebuild? Payment for medicines cannot be made unless cash is available, and the lack of electricity means that the ATM machines are not working. If there is no cash for residents to buy basic goods, including food and water, how does the administration plan to solve this problem? This kind of inadequacy is unacceptable in America in 2017. Rebuilding will require a long-term commitment. It will require a plan and a strategy, not just over the next 24 hours or 24 days but 24 months and longer. It must deal with a financial situation that is a storm of its own. As I described it yesterday, this storm is not a natural disaster. It is a manmade disaster, the result of healthcare and tax programs that are beyond any fault of the people of Puerto Rico. It is not of their doing. Vast swaths of resources have been swept away in Puerto Rico, including many of the attractions important for Puerto Rico's tourist industry. The same is true, for example, on the island of St. John in the Virgin Islands. Tourism is a key component of Puerto Rico's economy. It may take years and possibly decades to restore. What is the long-term plan? What is the strategy for Puerto Rico and for the Virgin Islands? There needs to be a kind of Marshall Plan for rebuilding because the devastating damage done is no less than what Europe suffered as a result of World War II. We have an obligation--certainly, no less than rebuilding our European allies--to restore and rebuild Puerto Rico. All of these natural disasters and the financial manmade storm come as Puerto Rico continues to endure the struggles of its internal financial commitments that are necessary for the lifeblood of the economy. Jobs and economic progress must be the end goal. With so many questions about the President's plan or lack of plan, I am struck by the need for this body and this Congress to take the initiative. I think we will need to begin action, begin hearings, and begin a process of building a plan if the administration fails to present it. I believe, too, that we share so much with the island of Puerto Rico in people who have come to Connecticut and other parts of the country that we will find a ready and enthusiastic audience and support for such an effort. In the past 2 days, after silence through much of it about Puerto Rico, the President seemed to blame the island itself, its financial struggle, other storms, and even the size of the ocean. There should be no excuses. There must be a call to action. I thank the Coast Guard, our military, the first responders, the rescuers, and relief organizations--from Americares to the Red Cross to Save the Children--that have devoted so much and given so much in these times of crisis. They have been stretched thin. They have performed with courage and generosity and so have the donors who have come forward in Connecticut and around the country. People are calling my office asking what they can do for the people of Florida and the gulf coast and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They are all fellow Americans, and we owe it to them to do more and do better to make sure that we keep faith with our fellow Americans. I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to talk about this subject.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to talk about the terrible humanitarian crisis faced by the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the gulf coast and the people of Florida, who have endured the fury and ferocity of Mother Nature at its worst. All of the people who live in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are Americans. First and foremost, they are Americans who are going through one of the toughest periods of their lives, a time that no American wants to face alone. My message to the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: You are not alone. You are not alone in this humanitarian crisis. Congress will act. We will provide the kind of relief package--food, medicine, whatever supplies are necessary not only to endure and survive but to eventually thrive. That is more than just rhetoric; that is a promise this Senate must make to our fellow Americans. These Americans citizens in Puerto Rico, for example, have lost their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods, and, some of them, loved ones. I come to this floor on this issue that has preoccupied me and others because it is truly a story of two storms. It is a tale of two catastrophes--one of them resulting from nature's fury but the other manmade. We know very visibly and dramatically about the storm that directly hit Puerto Rico, and it is called Maria. It was side-glanced by an earlier storm that missed it with its full fury, but Maria was a direct hit, leaving more than 60,000 American citizens without power, passing within miles of San Juan, home to 400,000 people. It was the strongest storm to hit the island in 80 years. The winds tore off the trees and dumped more than 2\1/2\ feet of rain on the island. It razed houses there and on the U.S. Virgin Islands, leaving a wasteland, crumpled structures, scarred concrete, shells of buildings, no electricity, and virtually no telecommunications for most people. There are 3.4 million people in dire need of housing, food, water, medicine, diesel, gasoline--the necessities of life. There is a humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico that requires an immediate and unconditional response from Congress--not from just the Senate but from the House and from the President. One area where the President had made an announcement today concerns the potential matching amounts of money that Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands may have to provide. There should be no match. There should be no requirement that Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands provide a share of the money needed for rebuilding and recovery, and the President should waive every bit of the required matching share. Every dime, every nickel should be waived. That leads me to talk about the second storm that has hit Puerto Rico. It is less visible and less recent. It is the result of a continually building set of headwinds, a financial storm that had built over many years and has now reduced Puerto Rico to a state of near insolvency, virtual bankruptcy--$74 billion in debt that would have been a severe storm for the people of Puerto Rico--not of their making--even without the hurricane that directly hit the island. We have an obligation as immediate and dire with respect to rebuilding and recovering from that second storm as we do for the first. That is the reason I have been involved over a period of many months in seeking to construct solutions, beginning with the PROMESA Act. And I intend--and I commit that I will continue seeking that kind of solution, not just solutions to the buildings that have been collapsed but to an economy that will collapse if we do not act. That is an important obligation that we share to fellow Americans, because this storm is not due to their neglect or profligacy; it is due to the tax laws and healthcare laws that unfortunately failed to treat them fairly. Delay in meeting the astronomic costs of Hurricane Maria would be unacceptable and unconscionable. We must act promptly. I am hopeful that it will be this week. I am talking to our leader, Senator Schumer, who has provided such strong vision and courage in this area. He has been a champion of Puerto Rico, and I hope he will help us craft a solution that is immediate, vigorous, and prompt. The administration and Congress must ensure as well that the Federal Government plays a robust and responsible role in funding and financing these recovery efforts so that no additional damage is done to Puerto Rico's already fragile economy. It is time to forgo the miasma and bureaucratic rigmarole of Federal redtape and financing constraints, while flooding is still an acute risk to life and health and recovery efforts are just beginning. The Puerto Rican Government must be granted direct and instant tools to bring electricity back to the people, to feed the hungry, to provide drinking water and shelter to lives that have been upended by this unforgiving storm. All arms of the Federal Government should be brought to bear to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico. This morning, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, whether he would be ready, willing, and able to help and provide additional assistance on behalf of the Department of Defense and the military that he commands, and his unequivocal response was yes. I commend and thank him for that willingness to help our fellow Americans. And he affirmed they are our fellow Americans, they serve in our military, and they give back to communities in this country. I am proud to represent 300,000 fellow Americans who have come from Puerto Rico to Connecticut, and they, in turn, reflect families there. I have spoken to friends in Puerto Rico who described to me the dire images outside their window--similar to the images we have seen on national television. Puerto Rico's debt troubles are no secret to anybody here today. We have discussed them, debated them, and failed to provide adequate assistance to meet them. We must work on two tracks--the immediate recovery effort in the face of this truly destructive hurricane but also the financial peril that continues to put Puerto Rico's economy at risk, jobs in jeopardy, and the island's precarious financial position as much at risk as its water and roads are. Puerto Rico's infrastructure, energy, water, schools, hospitals, transportation, and other vital facilities necessary for a functioning economy must be rebuilt and made whole. That is our obligation. And the same is true of the Virgin Islands, where fellow Americans are equally at risk, their safety in jeopardy, and their economy potentially struggling. We owe it to our fellow Americans and friends and families--there are people in Connecticut who have friends and family there--and all of us who share a love for these islands that are populated by patriotic Americans dedicated to our country. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Connecticut State Medical Society, as they celebrate 225 years of dedicated service to the medical profession and to the improvement of health services for Connecticut residents. Founded in 1792, the Connecticut State Medical Society consists of more than 7,000 physicians who provide healthcare across the State. The society enhances the profession of medicine by providing educational courses and innovative learning experiences to physicians, which helps improve the overall quality of healthcare services and safeguards patient health. For two and a quarter centuries, the society has set an impressive example for all physicians and served as a leader on countless issues that impact the health of our citizens. Early member physicians founded the Yale School of Medicine, the State's first general hospital--now known as Yale-New Haven Hospital--the world's first tumor registry, and many other medical milestones that have shaped the health of Connecticut and the Nation. Most recently, the society has been at the forefront of efforts to combat the current addiction crisis and opioid abuse by working with policymakers to enact State laws tightening opioid prescribing, expanding knowledge and understanding of opioid addiction, and providing greater access to treatment. The society has also worked for many years to educate physicians, patients, and the general public on opioid abuse, as well as mental and behavioral health issues. To its credit, the society goes beyond improving the quality of health services for the people of Connecticut. It has strongly advocated for affordable and accessible health insurance coverage while fighting against harmful consolidations of healthcare facilities that would result in less health service availability at a higher cost. The society is helping to address inequities in health services and disparities in health outcomes. Further, the society is a strong advocate for transparency throughout the entire healthcare insurance delivery system, ensuring its health services are easy to understand. Steeped in rich history but always forward thinking, the Connecticut State Medical Society is a catalyst for positive change. I applaud the society's accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Connecticut State Medical Society for its 225 years of service.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time before we close business today, as the last speaker of the day. Let me first of all say how deeply we feel about folks who have been affected by these mammoth storms in the gulf coast, in Florida, and in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, as well as others elsewhere. Our hearts and prayers are with them. I am here today to talk about another potential disaster to our country, although it is of a completely different kind and not a physical disaster made by nature but a disaster potentially of our own making--one that can be prevented and avoided. I am horrified that I am here again, fighting back again, against a proposal that would devastate the health and finances of so many families in Connecticut and around the country. This proposal--the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill--is cruel beyond measure. It is undoubtedly the most extreme proposal we have seen from my Republican colleagues in their political crusade to destroy the successes of the Affordable Care Act. How illogical and irresponsible to pretend, as my Republican colleagues continue to do, that any proposal that cuts billions of dollars from Medicaid and decimates important Affordable Care Act provisions protecting people with preexisting conditions and high medical costs will somehow result in a better healthcare system. In fact, it will vastly diminish and in some respects destroy that system. The Republican obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act and gutting Medicaid really has to end, and it has to end today. My constituents in Connecticut made themselves heard loud and clear in saying that past proposals were sickening attempts to ruin the gains we have made in providing better healthcare to many people. Those folks who came to town meetings and emergency field hearings, who wrote, who phoned, who made their views known, were the catalyst in defeating these ill-advised efforts before. I can assure you that, once again, they will be heard. They will make themselves heard. They will, once again, guarantee its defeat. Under this lethal proposal, hundreds of billions of dollars will be cut from Medicaid. Those severe cuts will cause Connecticut more than $2 billion by 2026. In 2027 alone, without the reauthorization of funds, Connecticut would lose $4 billion. In 2027 alone, $4 billion would be lost to Connecticut without reauthorization. Those are not just dollars, those are lives. They are hundreds of thousands of lives. This bill would end the patient protection that countless Americans have come to rely on in their oftentimes lifesaving care. States would allow insurance companies to reimpose annual caps and lifetime limits; insurers could decide to drop essential health benefits, like maternity care or mental health services; and those with preexisting conditions could see their premiums skyrocket, leaving them with no affordable options and nowhere to turn. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe. This is not hyperbole. It is not exaggeration. It is reality. In a recent report on this legislation, there was a finding that a person with metastatic cancer would see a $142,650 premium surcharge; a pregnancy would mean a $17,320 premium surcharge; and, during a deadly and unrelenting opioid epidemic, people struggling with substance abuse disorder could expect to see a $20,450 premium surcharge. These effects are immoral and incomprehensible. They will lead to many Americans needlessly losing their health insurance and very likely their lives. When I see the true effects of this bill and what they are likely to be, I can't help but think of a little boy in Connecticut whom I mentioned on the floor before. He is 7-year-old Conner Curran. Conner has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a chronic and terminal condition that will slowly erode his motor functions unless there is a cure, and none exists now. This disease will eventually take his life. He is a young man of extraordinary courage and strength and so is his family. His parents have told me that although he appears healthy, he will slowly lose his ability to run, walk, or even hug them goodnight. In fact, earlier this summer, just days before the last Republican effort to gut Medicaid and repeal the Affordable Care Act--which failed in the Senate, fortunately--Conner's family had two lifts installed in their home so he could move up and down the stairs more easily. The video shows Conner's infectious smile as he tries out the new lift, not fully understanding the disease that necessitates it but enjoying his newfound freedom. He is just a little kid. His mom wrote that this experience shows just how important Medicaid is to their family. As Conner gets older, he will only need more and more help, more medical services and equipment, and more financial support for his family to enable that kind of care. He will need a loving and compassionate healthcare system that will protect and care for him when he is at his most vulnerable. That is the only way he will have a fair chance at life. This bill, to put it mildly, deprives him of that fair chance. So I question whether my Republican colleagues can look Conner or his family in the eye and explain to them why protections for children with preexisting conditions should be weakened, diminished, eviscerated. I question whether they can look at Conner's smile and tell him why Medicaid will be eliminated. This is the program that one day will make sure he has everything he needs to live. It is a program that should be enhanced, not cut by hundreds of billions of dollars. Tell his parents why the insufficient or temporary funds my colleagues have proposed to replace Medicaid will run out in 10 years, as a shadow of Medicaid that you have left behind goes dark. See whether Conner's family cares about your legislation. See if your empty promises leave them reassured. I can tell you, Conner's parents are two of the kindest, most wonderful people you will ever meet. They are also among the hardest working. They worry about countless things every single day. They worry about Conner's slowing body and medical research that could save him before that pernicious disease takes his life. They worry about his independence. They worry about his two brothers and the toll this awful disease will have on them. They worry about those stairs-- the ones that will have a lift. I promise you, Conner's parents worry nonstop. All of us worry about our children. They worry about Conner unceasingly. I will say it again. I am ready to work with all my colleagues on solutions to the healthcare problems our country faces. They are urgent and important--critically important--to address. I refuse to stand silently and let this cruel proposal give Conner's family even more reason to worry. We as a country are better than these reprehensible proposals--first, repeal and replace; now, Graham-Cassidy. They are all different versions of TrumpCare that is a catastrophe which will lead to a humanitarian crisis. This heartless proposal should be put behind us. We should work together as our colleagues Senators Alexander and Murray are doing and, at least for the moment, give Conner some assurance that we are making things better for him, not worse, and the parents who worry about their little boy know that at least we are moving in the right direction, not rolling back the progress we have made. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the leaders of the Armed Services Committee. I know the Presiding Officer serves on that committee so he is well aware of the extraordinary work and service done by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed and our colleagues on the committee who have cooperated so collegially, in a bipartisan way, to produce a defense bill that supports our military men and women and their families and, more importantly, supports the United States of America in continuing to be the greatest and strongest power ever on the planet. I want to talk about some of the specifics of that measure but first want to honor the 17 sailors who perished on the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald. Two of them were sailors from Connecticut, and I want to pay tribute to ET2 Dustin Doyon of Suffield and ST2 Ngoc Truong Huynh of Watertown, CT. They were true patriots. Their families should be proud of them. All of Connecticut celebrates their extraordinary service and sacrifice to our Nation, even as we are struck by the grief and share the sadness of their families as best we can. I know we also feel we owe it to them, their families, and all families of the men and women in uniform to be safe. The investigation is proceeding into the circumstances surrounding the crash that caused their deaths. I will be interested, and I hope that investigation will be expedited. The NDAA is a vital measure that preserves our national security in an uncertain era of unprecedented threats and delivers support necessary to sustain our servicemembers and our national defense. A number of the provisions I helped craft in this measure will improve opportunities for veterans, military sexual assault survivors, help with the Ukrainian soldiers, and extend the Afghan special immigrant visa program. Those measures, among others, I am proud to have participated in crafting and supporting. This year's bill invests billions of dollars in submarines, helicopters, and the Joint Strike Fighter engine, all produced by Connecticut's highly skilled and dedicated workforce. The bill includes over $8 billion for Virginia and Columbia class submarines, including over $1 billion above the President's request for Virginia funding and full funding for the Columbia class program following a successful amendment I led to secure our undersea superiority and grow Connecticut jobs. Nothing is more important to our national defense than our undersea superiority. The stealth, strength, and power of our submarine force is vital to our national security. The measure also includes $25 million for undersea research and development partnerships which Electric Boat and the University of Connecticut are well poised to take part in. This defense measure provides, as well, $10.6 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, adding 24 above the budget request submitted by the President. Those 24 are necessary, and they are important now. It includes $1 billion for 48 Army Black Hawks, $1.3 billion for six Marine Corps CH-53Ks--two more than requested--and $354 million for the Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter Program. Today our Active and Reserve components are deployed together in Afghanistan, and the National Guard brings unique capabilities to the fight. I am very proud of the Connecticut National Guard. I am proud to be a supporter, to work to protect and secure their vital mission as they work for us. This year's NDAA authorizes $7 million in military construction for a new base entry complex, bringing the 103rd Airlift Wing into compliance with the Department of Defense's antiterrorism and force protection requirements to support their C-130 mission. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. For these reasons and many others, this bill keeps faith with our military men and women. It secures our national defense. It provides the assurance going forward that we will remain as strong as we need to be as the world's only superpower, guaranteeing not only our own freedom but that of others around the world. As we consider amendments on the floor, I urge my colleagues to reject the new BRAC proposal that was introduced by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed as McCain amendment No. 933. With all due respect, I support the intent. Again, I thank them for all of their work on this bill, as it has been an extraordinary accomplishment to bring it this far and to, hopefully, within the next few days, get it over the finish line. The intent is good. Our military is capitalizing on future savings where they exist, and it must continue to do so. Base closings will be necessary, as that is a stark fact of life, but I cannot support the BRAC effort they have proposed. The BRAC amendment would set in motion a long and time-consuming and convoluted base closure process. Connecticut is all too familiar with that process. We had a near-death experience with our base not all that long ago. It was an experience that should sound alarm bells not only for Connecticut but for other States my colleagues represent. As a Senator who represents one of the last military bases in New England, I am deeply concerned that there may be harm to civil-military relations and harm to our national security that will be caused by closing bases in our region. The first obligation of Congress is to do no harm to these military bases. Connecticut has seen this process before. It took almost a decade for the Connecticut Air National Guard to be assigned the C-130 flying mission that was the outcome of the last BRAC round. To carry out this mission, the Connecticut Air National Guard began deploying in support of operations in the Middle East this year. I know personally about that BRAC process. I was involved in the BRAC Commission proceedings, and afterward I was involved in literally suing the Secretary of Defense to preserve the flying mission of our base at the Air National Guard in Connecticut. Closing that base to the Air National Guard, to the C-130, or to other planes like it would have been a disgraceful outcome, but we succeeded in reaching a result, through settlement, that preserved it. The submarine capital of the world, also known as the ``First and Finest Submarine Base,'' is in Connecticut. The fate of that base, the Naval Submarine Base of New London, was unnecessarily put in jeopardy in 2005 as it endured unnecessary questions over its viability and military value that delayed investments and the homeporting of submarines there. Given the importance and prominence of our submarine fleet today, as well as the $17 million since 2005 that the State has invested in this base--$17 million invested by the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut--it is inconceivable that we would close this asset. It is home to 16 submarines as well as to a submarine training school. BRAC is long on unrealized returns and short on increased readiness. In 2005, BRAC was anticipated to cost $21 billion and save over $35 billion in the next 20 years. In reality, costs have ballooned to $35 billion, and savings will be less than one-third of what was initially projected--just $10 billion. That is the 2005 BRAC verdict; that it costs more than it saves. Simply put, BRAC cuts capabilities, and we can never get those capabilities back. At a time of global uncertainty and an expanding threat environment, we should be investing more, not less, in our readiness. As a first step, I would welcome an independent study on where excess capacity exists today, but I am concerned that this amendment sets into motion a BRAC authorization before Congress is provided with the justification for doing so and where and how it should be set in motion. I am concerned this amendment employs a force structure baseline that has not been adequately assessed by the Department of Defense. That force structure baseline is the lifeblood of our future military, and moving forward without it provides a distorted view of where excess capacity may exist. The BRAC amendment eliminates the independent commission that was previously designed by Congress in an effort to take politics out of the process. I deeply respect my colleagues who support this measure, but I have no confidence that they will be able to set aside the impact closures will have on their individual States. Let's be very blunt. This measure will exacerbate the role of politics in this process, not diminish it. While an independent commission is by no measure completely above politics, removing it will aggravate the roles that parochialism and politics play in deciding the future of military installations. Under the rules of the Senate, this body stripped itself of the ability to even make requests for individual military construction projects at specific bases. It follows that deciding the fate of entire military bases should also be a power we keep from ourselves. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, for our own sake, as Members of a body that should support our national defense, keep it as free as possible from politics and parochialism, and make sure we insulate it as much as possible from the currents and forces of special interests. I admire and respect the time and effort our committee leaders have devoted to this amendment. If it is defeated, I will work with them to address the issues I have outlined. Base closing must be considered. There are bases that can and should be reduced and perhaps completely eliminated, but I cannot support the BRAC amendment before us, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for all of their great work on this very important measure, which I hope will be passed shortly. 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 ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Margaret Read, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have seen the chaos and confusion created by the President's rescission of DACA that has created a humanitarian crisis in our country. That statement may seem like an exaggeration, but, for me, it is very clearly a statement of fact. I know it because I have seen it. I held an emergency field hearing on Monday morning, and I listened to the stories of Dreamers--young people brought to this country, many of them before they could even say their own names, let alone know where they were going. This country has given them education, a place to live, a sense of freedom, and a sense of future. That future now is cut short. They have been threatened with deportation in just 6 months. Their employers, their universities, their communities have no idea whether they can stay and continue their lives, productively and importantly to them and their communities, those workplaces and schools where they currently give back. They not only live and work here, but they give back. Maybe, most importantly, there is the promise that has been made to them--the promise that was made to them when they came forward and they provided the United States of America with information--some of the most personal information that exists--about their Social Security number, their birth date, their address, and their family. The promise to them was that information would never be used against them and that they had a place here for the time that DACA guaranteed it. That promise now is about to be broken. Great countries do not break promises. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. It should not be breaking promises to innocent young men and women who know only this country, speak only this language, have friends here alone, and actually families here. This rescission of DACA threatens to tear apart families, decimate lives, and create disarray and derailed futures. We are a country that is better than this rescission. We are and remain a country that keeps its promises. At our hearing, I heard from young men and women like Carolina Bortolleto, originally from Brazil, brought to the United States when she was 9. She has lived in Connecticut for 19 years. She knew she was undocumented, but what she didn't know was that getting a job after school, a driver's license, applying for scholarships and financial aid for colleges would be out of bounds for her. Seven years ago, she graduated from college with a degree in biology, but she was stuck. She had a diploma but couldn't use it. To fight for others like her, she cofounded CT Students for a DREAM. That organization has grown and become a formidable and powerful advocate for Dreamers. When DACA was adopted in 2012, it changed the lives of young people like Carolina. It opened a new vista. She could get a driver's license and a job at a nonprofit where she was volunteering. She testified that she finally felt free and independent. She could be the person she wanted to be and the person the United States wanted her to be because she was contributing to our great Nation. What we know of the Dreamers is that there are many like Carolina and like Alejandra. Alejandra Villamares was brought to the United States from Mexico at age 1. She and her family first settled in a small town in Colorado. She recounted in her testimony difficult memories of growing up undocumented. She remembers her older sister coming home from first grade crying because she had been bullied by other students. She was bullied because she couldn't speak English. Her teachers also couldn't understand or help. She remembers her mother's anguish and pain when she heard about this bullying. Alejandra later encountered the same problems as her sister did. When she was 11, her father was deported to Mexico. Her mother ran into the threat of financial problems, and the threat of deportation always lingered. She told us at this hearing about this life story, powerful and moving, but with a seemingly happy ending because she was able to go to Wesleyan, one of the best colleges in the country, and major in film studies with a certificate in international relations. President Trump has put a target on the backs of these young people. Alejandra's happy ending will be dashed. It will be a nightmare and a tragedy if this order truly goes into effect. President Trump has thrown this ticking timebomb into the lap of Congress. It has potential real effects on real lives like Alejandra's and Carolina's and 10,000 like them in Connecticut--800,000 around the country--people whom the President has described as incredible and terrific, people whom he said he loves. It would be the height of hypocrisy and inhumanity to deport them. It would be unprecedented in our history to have this kind of massive ejection from this country by plane, by boat, by car, by walking. It would be shameful and shocking for America to force this massive deportation, but it would also be an absolutely reprehensible and unforgivable violation of our promise, breaking our word, and violating certainly morality, if not law, and there would be legal claims based on due process and other rights that could be violated. As I said, Carolina Bortolleto is originally from Brazil, but she was brought to the United States when she was 9. She has lived in Connecticut for 19 years. Growing up, she knew that she was undocumented, but she didn't know what that meant until high school, when she saw the opportunities that her classmates could have and that she couldn't--things like getting an after-school job, a driver's license, applying for scholarships and financial aid in college. Seven years ago, she graduated from college with a degree in biology, but she felt stuck. She had a diploma but couldn't use it. To fight for others like her, she cofounded Connecticut Students for a DREAM, which has grown into a formidable organization that advocates on behalf of immigrants. When DACA was enacted in 2012, it changed Carolina's life. She got a driver's license, a car, a job at a nonprofit where she had been volunteering. She told me that she finally felt free--that she finally felt independent. She told me that she could be the person that she had always wanted to be. Finally, she could plan for her future with certainty. Excited about what was to come, she went to graduate school for a Master's in Public Health. She was on cloud nine--until last week, when President Trump made the decision to rescind DACA, threatening to take away all that Carolina has worked for--if we don't act. In New Haven on Monday, I also heard from a girl who has requested that I don't mention her name here. She is from Canada. When she was 4 years old, her mother passed away in a terrible car accident. She was brought here with her grandmother, a hard-working nurse, who later also passed away. She has had to endure unimaginable loss at such a young age. She was tremendously lucky that her aunt and uncle took her in as one of their own. She has grown into a leader at home who helps take care of her cousins, acting like a second mom to them. Her dream is to become a lawyer, and she works hard every single day toward that goal. If Congress doesn't act, this ambitious young girl--who has already endured so much pain and suffering in her life--will be torn from everyone she knows. The children she helps to take care of will lose a mother figure. America will be robbed of a bright new lawyer. I have heard some people treating Dreamers as bargaining chips in a political battle between the two parties. I have also heard that this is just about ``handouts'' for a particular group of people. That is simply not true. Let me tell you what I know: The Dreamers I have met represent some of the best of America--young men and women who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, eager to build bright futures, and prosper, and give back to the only country that they have called home. They want to stay here, and we need them. The statistics reinforce this point: If Congress doesn't pass the Dream Act, we will lose nearly $500 billion over 10 years. We will lose $25 billion in Medicare and Social Security taxes. In my home State alone, we stand to lose over $300 million a year. It is time to do away with the myth that the Dreamers work on the sidelines of American society. They are woven into the fabric of this Nation. They drive our economy. As I said, Alejandra Villamares was brought to the United States from Mexico at age 1. She and her family first settled into a small town in Colorado. Alejandra recounted difficult memories of growing up undocumented. She remembers her older sister coming home from the first grade, crying because she had been bullied by other students because she could not speak English. Her teachers did not understand her either and couldn't help. She remembers her mother's anguish at the pain and bullying her daughters endured. As Alejandra entered kindergarten, she began to go through the same struggle. When she was 11, her father was deported to Mexico. Her mother ran into financial problems. The threat of deportation was always lingering in the back of her mind. Things weren't looking good. And yet, she told me on Monday, ``I wanted this to be my country so badly. One thing I knew from the bottom of my heart was that I wanted to stay here, and that I was an American.'' In 2012, when DACA came into effect, she got her chance. She earned admission to Wesleyan, one of the best colleges in Connecticut, and she followed her artistic passions by majoring in film studies with a certificate in international relations. She felt more empowered to speak up and help others. She held sessions for her peers at her high school to tell them about the college application process, and later became a program coordinator of an educational non-profit to mentor over 200 kids to navigate the college application process. President Trump is putting a target on the backs of Alejandra and others like her. They will be deported if we do not pass the Dream Act. In just a week, the President's decision has already sown confusion and chaos. There have been reports of ICE temporarily detaining DACA recipients, including reportedly 9 in Texas on Monday. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have devastated Texas and Florida, but the White House has not announced any extension to the DACA renewal deadline. The administration has also been torn between two messages. The President has toed an apologetic line, telling Dreamers that they have ``nothing to worry about'' and that he will ``revisit the issue'' if Congress doesn't act--and yet his Department of Homeland Security has said that Dreamers should prepare to leave. If Congress does not pass the Dream Act, Alejandra, Carolina, and others will be at the mercy of a fickle administration. Their lives will be thrown into chaos. In the stories of the Dreamers, I see my father, who fled Nazi Germany when he was 17 with little more than the clothes on his back. He didn't know anyone, and he didn't speak English. He still believed in the promise of this country. These Dreamers believe in the promise of America, too. The character of our Nation is at stake. We must act now. Mr. President, I am convinced these stories are evidence that will be persuasive and convincing to my colleagues and that we cannot shirk our responsibility. We have a public trust to make America worthy of the American dream, to make that dream a reality for these young people, to make sure the Dreamers are protected against this cruel and irrational action that has threatened them. We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We do keep our promises. We must enable the Dreamers to stay. We must pass the Dream Act, without encumbrances or poison pills or extraneous amendments. We must pass the Dream Act now. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are here to stand this afternoon for close to 800,000 young men and women--10,000 of them are living in Connecticut--who have relied on a promise, not just any old promise but a promise from the United States of America. The promise to them was that they could come forward, share information about their cell phones, their addresses, their relatives, their workplaces, their tax information, and they would be permitted to live here, study here, work here, and give back to their communities. Now America is breaking that promise and betraying its values in the decision by the President of the United States to end the DACA Program. This decision is repugnant to the basic ideals of America. It is repulsive to the values that underlie the rule of law. I heard a commentator last night saying: You know, these DACA people, when they came here, they broke the law. Think of it for a moment. A 2- year old, a 3-year old brought by their parents, maybe by a stranger, maybe by other relatives, is breaking the law because that relative then failed to go through the steps necessary for documentation. Or there may have been a variety of other circumstances, such as persecution, threatened death and injury in the country where that young man or woman was born. But we know--because it is part of the DACA Program--that they were minors when they came here. They made no decision to break the law. They have been here for their entire lives, except for a few months or years. We know also that, for almost all of them, this country is the only one they know, and English is usually the only language they speak. Their lives are here. Their friends are here and families as well. But most important for the United States of America that made that promise, their futures are here. They are, as the President of the United States said, terrific people. We love them, as he also said. The announcement that he would end their legal status here, that they would be deported, that they would be ejected from this country is the height of hypocrisy and inhumanity. It is cruel and irrational, it will deprive our economy of hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, it will mean disruption in workplaces, and that is why employers are protesting the decision. It will mean schools will be uncertain about how many students there will be, and that is why university presidents and administrators are condemning it, but, most importantly, it will betray who we are as Americans--a nation of immigrants, a nation that keeps its promise. Now, let's be very clear. When the Attorney General of the United States says there will be an orderly wind down--I think those are the terms he used. There is no such thing as an orderly wind down of DACA. There is disruption and destruction, already chaos and confusion, terror among the young people who are living their lives now seemingly on borrowed time. It is borrowed time because the President of the United States has thrown a ticking timebomb into this body, in effect playing chicken with their lives. They are the ones whose lives will be blown up if that timebomb explodes. They are, indeed, voices and faces who have come to us in the last day or so, two of them from Connecticut I met with or saw. The first is Mirka Dominguez-Salinas. She has been in the United States for 16 years. She is pursuing her dream at Southern Connecticut State University of becoming a teacher. She was student teaching last week, but her future career in education has suddenly been jeopardized. Jonathan Gonzales, too, is a student at Southern. He has a double major in economics and applied mathematics. He also mentors other students at public schools in New Haven. He has the freedom basically to live as anyone else in this country, to drive to work, and his freedom, too, is in jeopardy. They have come to Washington, DC, today not only to share their stories but to raise their voices and represent those 10,000 others in Connecticut, like Vania, who was born in Mexico and brought to Willimantic at age 3. She thinks of Connecticut as her home. It is the only home she knows, where she went to school and made her friends. Would she be sent back to Mexico, where she knows no one, has no job or connection? Will she go by plane or will she be forced to walk to the border or maybe by car? We are talking about deportation--physical ejection from the country--not a vague concept of maybe in a few years. We are talking about deportation of 800,000 people, beginning in 6 months, on a scale, a magnitude, and scope that is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America--the same country that welcomed my father at the age of 17, when he fled Germany to escape persecution and knew virtually no one, had not much more than the shirt on his back and spoke almost no English. Just as many of them came to this country at a much younger age, and this country gave them, as it did my father, a chance to succeed. There is no orderly way to wind down this program. There is only grief, pain and suffering for those 800,000 Dreamers but also for the rest of us, for our economy, for our sense of self and morality. As far as the rule of law is concerned, these young people are not the lawbreakers. It is the Attorney General of the United States who is wrong about the law but, more importantly, wrong to decline to defend the law and prejudging, instead, what the result would be if this case went to court, if those 10 attorneys general went to court on DACA to prove their case, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Where does Attorney General Jeff Sessions have the power to prejudge what the Supreme Court of the United States would do? So we have a decision ahead of us, which is to rise to the challenge, to diffuse that timebomb, to pass the Dream Act, to enable these young people who are faced with terror and anxiety to have a chance to continue productive and important lives and to avoid the economic nightmare for employers and job creators who depend on them. We have the opportunity and obligation now to make sure these young people are protected, not punished, because their futures are at stake, our future as a nation is at stake, and I am here to say to Jonathan, to Vania, to all of the Dreamers that we will fight as long and hard as possible to make sure the American dream is alive and well for you. That dream was promised to you by a great country, and great countries keep their promises. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, sometimes bipartisanship and comity do work. They have in the last 24 and 48 hours on two measures that are critically important to help our Nation's veterans have access to benefits and healthcare that they vitally need, that they deserve, and that they have earned. Those measures relate to appeals reform and to the Choice Program. Last night the Senate passed by unanimous consent--which means without any objection--H.R. 2288, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. I am proud to have worked on this measure with the chairman of the VA Committee, Senator Isakson, when I was the ranking member of that committee during the last session. I thank him for his leadership, his vision, and his commitment to this very important cause. This bipartisan measure now goes to the President. It provides a significant step toward securing benefits veterans have earned. Once these reforms are fully funded--and they should be--our Nation's veterans will no longer be bogged down by a cumbersome, time-consuming, irksome, and, in fact, aggravating process that denies them fair and full consideration when they appeal their claim's denial. This reform will begin--it is only a beginning--a better system involving transparency and communication for veterans and their families. As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I heard testimony that the Department of Veterans Affairs' appeals process desperately needs updating and reform. We all in this body have heard from our constituents again and again and again about the antiquated delay and burdensome process that exists today. The average wait time on an appeal today is 5 years. Let me repeat that. The average wait time on an appeal is 5 years. Nearly half a million veterans are caught in a quagmire--often a quicksand--of repeated consideration, unable to claim benefits because of the VA's existing backlog. Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2017, the number of pending appeals increased from about 380,000 to 470,000. That is an increase of more than 20 percent. The increase in those appeals was the ``bad news'' side of improvements in the process to consider the initial appeal. There were more appeals because more claims were disposed of, but that is no excuse for that kind of delay in appeals. We worked with the VA and veterans groups to devise a new appeals system that allows veterans to choose an option that is right for them. The bill that passed yesterday will create three separate paths. They can choose among them for veterans seeking redress from a decision by the Veterans Benefits Administration. This reform is vitally important because it gives Secretary Shulkin the authority to test the new system before its full implementation. I know it will take time to implement these changes. It should take less time than is predicted because the Veterans Administration owes it to our heroes--the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our Nation. My constituent caseworkers in Hartford have tried to assist many individual veterans with their claims, and these efforts must continue around the country in all of our offices even as these new reforms are implemented. The second area where we joined together in a bipartisan way relates to the Choice Program. We have agreed to continue funding by providing $2.1 billion and authorizing 28 new leases for medical facilities across the country to improve access to the high-quality care provided at VA hospitals. Make no mistake, this action is a down payment, not the final word. I am going to continue to champion further reforms to make sure we improve VA healthcare and enhance access to VA medical facilities. I am particularly concerned by recent findings made by the VA inspector general, Michael Missal, about a troubling lack of health information sharing between VA and non-VA providers relating to chronic pain treatment. To put it very simply and bluntly, the lack of information sharing makes opioid addiction far more likely than it should be, especially among veterans who seek care from private providers through the Choice system. Connecticut was one of the first States in the country to have a statewide prescription drug monitoring program. I urged Secretary Shulkin at a hearing last year to make sure the VA prescription drug monitoring program exchanges information with the State system, which has data from private providers. The sharing of information is vital to prevent doctor shopping and excessive prescriptions. Without it, veterans potentially are susceptible to weaknesses and gaps that enable them to seek excessive prescriptions of opioid pain killer treatment that can lead to addiction and worse. We cannot allow the Veterans Choice Program to exacerbate opioid addiction. We must do everything we can to stop the opioid epidemic that is ravaging our communities. As Senator Manchin of West Virginia and other colleagues have made clear, the VA must close the information gap on opioid prescriptions through improved opioid safety initiative guidelines and enhanced prescription drug monitoring programs. While we work in Congress to reform the Choice Program, I call on the VA to immediately take certain commonsense steps, none of them novel or original. They have been identified by the inspector general: First, require all participating VA Purchased Care providers to receive and review evidence-based guidelines for prescribing opioids. Second, implement a process to ensure all Purchased Care consults for non-VA care include a complete, up-to-date list of medications and medical history. Third, require non-VA providers to submit opioid prescriptions directly to a VA pharmacy for dispensing and recording in the patient's VA electronic health record. Fourth, ensure that if facility leaders determine that a non-VA provider's opioid prescribing practices conflict with the guidelines, immediate action is taken to ensure the safety of all veterans receiving care from that non-VA provider. These are basic protections for our veterans. They are protections against overprescribing opioids or negligent misconduct--and worse--on the part of non-VA providers and others. My hope is that we are beginning on a path to better information sharing between those prescription drug monitoring programs at the State level for non-VA providers and the VA facilities and providers who care for our veterans directly. That information sharing is not a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity. We must help veterans of every era with their need for prompt appeals dispositions and effective healthcare that also protects them from opioid addiction. I am hopeful the Senate will quickly pass the Harry Walker Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, which has been unanimously approved by the House, to make comprehensive improvements to the GI bill. I helped to draft this measure and lead it, and I am proud the House has approved it. We must also help veterans of all eras suffering from toxic exposure and make sure we award a Congressional Gold Medal to the American Legion and make USERRA protections for our servicemembers meaningful and enforceable. These steps are part of an unfinished agenda that we owe our veterans. We cannot shirk that duty. We cannot postpone it. It is an obligation, not a convenience. I look forward to moving forward with these efforts, as we have done with Choice and with the appeals reform, and to learning what we know already--that we can work together across the aisle when it comes to keeping faith with our veterans and making sure that no veteran of any era is left behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I know that later this afternoon, we are going to vote on the nomination of Christopher Wray. I am proud to support him, as I was during the Judiciary Committee, voting for him, as did every other member of the Judiciary Committee. The reason is quite simply that he is a professional, as nonpolitically associated as anyone can be going into this position. Like the FBI itself, he is known for his independence and integrity. There are two qualities needed today for the FBI and its Director, and those are independence and integrity. The FBI is one of the most important law enforcement agencies and certainly one of the most important in the country. The FBI Director doesn't serve the President. He serves the Constitution and the people of the United States. He must be independent of political interference, and his or her integrity must be unquestioned. The FBI deserves a leader with the integrity and strength necessary for that solemn mission, and Mr. Wray has shown himself to be that kind of leader. Those qualities are especially important because never before have the rule of law and our law enforcement been so threatened by political interference, and it begins at the very top. The reason Christopher Wray has been nominated to serve as FBI Director is that the vacancy was created by the firing of Jim Comey for reasons that have led to an aspect of the ongoing investigation by the special counsel. The reason that position is vacant is because 3 months ago Jim Comey was fired by the President because of ``the Russia thing.'' The Russia thing was very much on the President's mind, more so than any of the reasons given in the memos done by Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, according to the President himself. ``The Russia thing'' is the FBI and special counsel investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian Government to influence our election. There is no question that there was a campaign of interference and meddling through cyber attacks, disinformation, propaganda, and other means, and there is no question that the Russians will do it again unless they are made to pay a price. Others may well collude or conspire with them--Americans--unless they are compelled to pay a price. We have only to look at the morning headlines to see how far-reaching and significant this investigation may be. The news that the President himself wrote a statement to be issued in the name of his son about a meeting with the Russian who promised ``dirt'' on Hillary Clinton and directly misled about that meeting shows what is at stake. The misleading words put into the President's son's mouth by Donald Trump himself are potential pieces of evidence relating to criminal intent fitting the mosaic that the special counsel has assembled. They add weight and color to that mosaic; they are not alone proof. The report today is proof that certainly describes a pattern of conduct--pieces of a pattern that fit together into a mosaic providing evidence of intent concerning potential obstruction of justice. So the likelihood of a threat is increasing--the threat of political interference, the threat of firing Bob Mueller, the threat that Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be used as a vehicle to lead to Bob Mueller's firing. Even before Jim Comey's dismissal, I called for an independent special prosecutor at the Department of Justice. In fact, I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee to vote against Rod Rosenstein's nomination as Deputy Attorney General because he failed to commit to appoint a special prosecutor, and I believed a special prosecutor was necessary not only to determine the full extent of Russia's meddling in our democracy but also to protect that investigation from the President's efforts to shut it down. This belief was brought into stark relief by Jim Comey's firing, and it precipitated the appointment of Bob Mueller. The firing of Special Counsel Mueller would precipitate a firestorm on both sides of the aisle. It would put the President over a precipice that likely could lead to the most drastic action possible in this democracy. That precipice can be avoided, and Congress must play a role in avoiding it. We are in talks across the aisle about action that can be taken to provide a check and a firewall against that kind of firing--drastic action that would put the President over that precipice politically and morally and legally. Also, my hope is that the new Chief of Staff, General Kelly, will add a voice of reason and wisdom, perhaps, to check some of the more rash and impulsive action that might otherwise be taken by the President. The special counsel was given a clear mandate to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I believe that Special Counsel Mueller has the guts and backbone, as well as the expertise, to uncover the truth, to follow that evidence, and to bring charges if they are appropriate and necessary, if he is assured the resources and independence to do the job. That is why Christopher Wray's nomination is so critically important. He will be a key decision maker in providing those resources and investigative agents necessary to do the legwork and the review of documents and other hard work--challenging work--that is necessary so that the special counsel may have the facts and the evidence. The FBI Director is also going to be important in assuring the independence of that special counsel. As an ally and a source of support, the FBI Director will be critical. The most important priority, in fact, for Christopher Wray will be to protect the independence and integrity of that special counsel investigation just as he must protect the FBI's, because they are intertwined and identified at the core. They involve the rule of law-- the essence of our democracy--and the belief and trust that wrongdoing will be investigated and prosecuted no matter how powerful the target and no matter how wealthy or powerful the wrongdoer. That investigation has expanded appropriately to include financial dealings on the part of the President of the United States. Any attempt by the President to set limits on that investigation is inappropriate and potentially illegal and further evidence of criminal intent. In short, the mandate for both Director Wray and Special Counsel Mueller must be unconditional. There must be no limits set by political interference. The nominee whom we vote to confirm today must sustain and secure that ongoing independent investigation from any interference no matter how powerful the source, including the President of the United States. No one can set limits, because no one is above the law, and the special counsel must have the freedom to decide where the investigation will lead because he will follow the facts where they lead. The FBI Director has a broad and inclusive mandate. In addition to protecting the United States against corruption and wrongdoing involving misuse and abuse of power, he must also protect the United States against terrorism and foreign intelligence threats. He is charged with providing leadership services to State, Federal, and municipal agencies and partners, and he is responsible for protecting civil rights. On Friday, July 28, 2017, President Trump gave a speech in Selden, NY, in effect encouraging law enforcement to use or misuse excessive force. More specifically, he directed law enforcement not to be ``too nice,'' and he described, graphically, how officers should potentially allow arrestees to be banged on the head or otherwise mistreated. With his comments, President Trump did a disservice to countless law enforcement officers who work hard to keep our neighborhoods safe while maintaining good relationships with the communities they serve. I will be joining with colleagues and working with the very distinguished senior Senator of California, who has joined us on the floor, in asking that our law enforcement leadership take action to express its disapproval of that kind of misconduct, and my hope is that, specifically, the Department of Justice will express its disapproval of such misconduct. The FBI has a special obligation to condemn such violations of standards and laws, and I hope that the new Director, Mr. Wray, will join dozens of law enforcement leaders across the country in making clear that the President's remarks have no place at the FBI. I believe that Christopher Wray has the experience and credibility and the expertise to lead the FBI in that effort, as well as in protecting the special counsel. Based on his career and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I believe that he will bring that leadership to the FBI. I regret that he will be the FBI Director only because it is the result of an abusive and improper firing of James Comey. The special counsel's investigation of that firing as a potential obstruction of justice is well warranted, and I know that Mr. Wray will do everything possible to enable it to be fair and effective, comprehensive and thorough, and to do justice. He will help the special counsel to do justice just as he will help prosecutors and law enforcement agencies across the country to do justice. The future of the FBI and our Nation are truly at stake. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I had previously submitted to the Record my intention to submit a motion to H.R. 1628 regarding the Prevention and Public Health Fund. That motion was also supported by Senator Nelson.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are here at a historic moment, and we listened to a historic speech just within the last 48 hours from our colleague, Senator John McCain. All of us welcomed him back and were inspired and overjoyed by his return and then by his speech asking that we go back to the regular order, that we have committee consideration of a bill, with hearings and markup and the democratic process really working. What threatens us tonight is the democratic process being brought to new lows. If this bill is passed with the assurance that it won't go to conference--and there are conservatives, and I could quote them. Senator Lindsey Graham said earlier today: There's increasing concern on my part and others that what the House will do is take whatever we pass--the so called ``skinny bill''--not take it to conference, go directly to the House floor, vote on it, and that goes to the President's desk with the argument, ``This is better than doing nothing.'' Here's my response. The ``skinny bill'' as policy is a disaster. The ``skinny bill'' as a replacement for Obamacare is a fraud. The ``skinny bill'' is a vehicle to get in conference to find a replacement. It is not a replacement in and of itself. The policy is terrible because you eliminate the individual and employer mandate which we all want eliminated but we actually want to have an overall solution to the problem of Obamacare, so you're going to have increased premiums and most of Obamacare stays in place if the ``skinny bill'' becomes law. Not only do we not replace Obamacare, we politically own the collapse of healthcare. I'd rather get out of the way and let it collapse than have a half-assed approach where it is now our problem. Senator John McCain said earlier today: I'm not supportive of the legislation as it stands today. I am in close consultation with Arizona governor over the so- called ``skinny repeal.'' Senator Ron Johnson said earlier today: Virtually nothing we're doing in these bills and the proposal are addressing the problems and challenges and the damage done to people. We will see, in effect, a betrayal of our trust, and I say that very seriously. I hope this body will keep faith with our democracy and make sure that a bill that is regarded as a bad bill--and rightly so because it will eliminate insurance for 16 million people, it will raise premiums by 20 percent in less than a year, it will drive up costs, and it will bring down the number of people who are insured by catastrophic numbers. We owe it to the American people to vote against this so- called skinny bill, which is really a sham repeal. It is a skeletal version of TrumpCare 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0. We can do that. With that, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from the State of Delaware.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Conner's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Sean and Frank's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Justice's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.