Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this body has a dual obligation--to ensure that there are sanctions against Iran for its destabilizing activity around the region and, indeed, the world but also sanctions against Russia for its interference with our election--one of the core democratic institutions of our Nation--as well as other acts that are hostile to the world order and to world peace. I support S. 722, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act, but I strongly believe it should have Russian sanctions included as well. As the Senate proceeds to this urgently needed measure, Iran's own Parliament has suffered an ISIS-claimed terrorist attack in Tehran. I condemn that act of terror--one of many the world has suffered because of ISIS. We are at war with ISIS as we are with terrorists--extremism-- around the world. It intentionally targets civilians. It uses violence to spread terror and destabilize the Middle East. ISIS has been a world terror organization. The fact that Iran's leaders themselves direct and glorify terrorism against Israel and the United States does not diminish the horror of what has occurred. People of all faiths from an increasingly diverse number of nations have become victims of this terror spread by ISIS and Iran. What occurred today is, sadly, more evidence that Iran's unconditional support for Bashar al-Assad is directly counter to the interests of the Iranian people and our ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS. We must hold Iran accountable. We must hold it accountable for its many malign activities through increasing and enforcing strong, targeted sanctions. I thank my colleagues, including Senator McCain, who just spoke so forcefully on the floor, Senator Menendez, Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, as well as other colleagues who have worked on this cause. We must hold Iran accountable for the threat its acts of terrorism pose to our national security. We must hold it accountable to the threat its missile program holds to our allies, including Israel-- our major strategic partner in that region. We must hold Iran accountable for the gross violations of human rights and war crimes that it and Russia together are perpetrating in Syria. In the last few months, Iran has tested and fired ballistic missiles, tested a new Russian-made air defense system against missiles, and harassed U.S. ships. It continues to arm and enable the Hamas terrorist organization, the despotic Assad regime, and the supply of weapons to Hezbollah. It has enabled Hezbollah to amass 150,000 rockets and missiles--all aimed at civilians in Israel. Last month, the State Department released a report on Iran's human rights violations. It continues to show a troubling trend of abuse and notes that Iran has more than 800 political prisoners and that it executed at least 469 people just last year. We know that sanctions must be targeted and continually strengthened to deter Iran. This legislation will impose sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, human rights violations, and ballistic missile development. That includes sanctioning any person who knowingly violates arms embargoes or materially contributes to Iran's ballistic missile program. It also includes terrorism-related sanctions on members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates-- going beyond members of the Quds Force, who are already sanctioned. In no way does this sanctions program contradict or undermine the nuclear agreement with Iran. That agreement provided us and our allies the time and space to now push Iran to end its malign activities without the imminent threat of a nuclear weapon. Congress must do everything it can to authorize new measures against Iran and ensure that this new administration effectively enforces them. We must also seize this opportunity to hold Russia accountable as well for its egregious, aggressive behavior and ongoing violations of international law. Russia's cooperation with Iran, including providing Iran with an S- 300 air missile defense system that it recently tested, strengthens Iran as it fuels and finances a network of terrorism. Under Putin's direction, Russia both enabled and tried to cover up crimes in Syria. It invaded Ukraine. It illegally annexed Crimea. It attacked and interfered with our democracy. Enough is enough. That is why I urge this body to adopt Russian sanctions as part of S. 722. Sadly and dangerously, our President has proven time and again to be unwilling to hold Vladimir Putin accountable. Congress must ensure that he does so. It must ensure that Russia receives a clear, unequivocal signal through this measure, Senator Cardin's Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, and Senator Graham's Russia Sanctions Review Act, as an amendment to be adopted by this body to the Iran legislation, which I helped author. These measures are critical to sending a message that we will hold Russia accountable for its lawbreaking, its support of terrorism, its interference in our elections, its annexation of Crimea, its invasion of Ukraine, and its violation of the INF Treaty. I can accept nothing short of including these Russia bills to move forward to a final vote. I will support S. 722, but I believe there is a track and a path for this body to do both, and we must do it. The imposition of mandatory sanctions codifying former President Obama's Executive orders regarding Ukraine and malicious cyber activity, as well as targeting individuals and entities contributing to Russia's oil and gas industries, should be part of this final passage. We cannot afford to wait any longer to take action. I am disappointed that the President has seemed disinterested or at least unwilling to join in these sanctions against Russia. Unfortunately, the testimony that former Director Jim Comey will deliver tomorrow provides evidence as to possible motive and intent in his discussions with Comey that reflect on his apparent willingness to tolerate this aggressive conduct by Russia without holding it accountable. This testimony from Director Comey is an explosive corroboration of the facts that have been reported--that the President asked for loyalty, threatening Jim Comey's job, and tried to influence the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation on multiple occasions. This conduct shows unequivocally the disdain the President has for the rule of law and clearly demonstrates that he believes he and his friends and family are above the law. I am saddened and I am chilled that this harrowing account will be given to the Senate Intelligence Committee rather than, in fact, in a fictional spy novel. Director Comey deserves credit for his willingness to come before the committee, for his apparent candor and truthfulness, and for his resistance to those demands for a pledge of loyalty and an end to the Flynn investigation, even when it meant his firing. His testimony should serve as evidence in the investigation led by Robert Mueller but also as evidence that Mr. Mueller must have unimpeded space, resources, and independence to conduct his investigation. I will take action as a member of the Judiciary Committee to seek oversight simply to ensure that those resources are independent and are safeguarded. With this documented proof, clearly the White House has sought to derail our law enforcement officials in their enforcing of the law. We must ensure an end to such conduct, and we must send Russia a signal that, in fact, it will be held accountable; that the investigation into its meddling in our election will be pursued vigorously and aggressively; that anyone in this country who colluded with or aided and abetted that meddling will be held accountable; and that there will be no obstruction of justice. This goal should unite us across the aisle on a bipartisan basis. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from New York in expressing the special respect and passion that we all feel in honoring this great holiday that remembers the service and sacrifice of great Americans, to make sure we sustain and preserve and enhance our democracy. Part of that democracy is indeed the rule of law, as well as protecting the institutions that make us great as a Nation, including our elections system and its integrity. Today should also be a time to observe and commemorate the continued respect for the law that makes us great. Part of that respect was demonstrated recently when the Deputy Attorney General appointed a special counsel to investigate possible coordination between the Trump administration and the Presidential campaign with the Russians as they interfered with those democratic institutions. Make no mistake, there is consensus and unanimity in the intelligence community, and more broadly among us in this body, that the Russians purposefully and relentlessly interfered in the 2016 election through a cyber attack on this Nation. In my view, it was an act of cyber warfare. The questions now are who and how in the Trump team may have colluded with the Russians in that illegal, outrageous activity and, indeed, whether there has been obstruction of justice since then. Mounting evidence indicates that there has been. I have joined many of my colleagues in praising the appointment of a special prosecutor because it is vitally necessary for a fair and impartial, as well as aggressive, investigation. The special prosecutor must follow the evidence wherever it leads, and I have confidence that Bob Mueller is the right person for this assignment. He has the grit and backbone to stand up to pressure. He has the prosecutorial experience and expertise to conduct a truly professional investigation. I called for a special prosecutor back in February. I was one of the first, if not the first, among our colleagues to do so because the conflicts of interest raised by the recusal of the Attorney General and the potential involvement of the Deputy led me to think that such an appointment was absolutely necessary. I now call on the President to support this investigation. With the utmost respect for the Office of the President, it should be unnecessary to call for that cooperation and support. My hope was that the President would say as soon as the appointment occurred that he would indeed cooperate. But, instead, he has continued to characterize this investigation as a witch hunt and a charade. He has demeaned and disrespected it and indicated that, if anything, there will be less than full cooperation. That would be a grave disservice to our democracy and to the American people. The integrity of our electoral system is bigger and more important than any single electoral contest or even any occupant of the White House. It is about the freedom and independence of this Nation, something we cherish and celebrate on this Memorial Day weekend. I urge President Trump to demonstrate his adherence to the rule of law by cooperating and articulating fully his cooperation with this investigation. I hope that not only President Trump but all of his associates will do so and that they will provide whatever testimony and documents are necessary to complete this investigation as quickly and effectively as possible. I also believe that the Attorney General of the United States owes the American people his adherence to the rule of law by committing himself to follow the guidelines that respect the press. Indeed, we would know very little, if anything, about many of the events that prompted the appointment of a special prosecutor without the free press reporting development after event after development that have led to this day. There are guidelines and regulations that protect the President against any kind of compulsory process or punishment. If there is punishment to be accorded to lawbreakers, the press should be recognized for the special role they have in our democracy and the special protections, the constitutional guarantee they enjoy under the First Amendment. There are guidelines under 28 CFR 50.10 that provide legal guidance and regulations that should be observed, and I hope that the Attorney General will demonstrate in deed and word his adherence to those guidelines rather than threatening to lock up reporters--as the President has unfortunately done currently in conversations with Director Comey--or punishing them. Whatever the violations of government officials may be, there should be an articulate, clear, and explicit adherence to those regulations by the Attorney General. Let's take a moment to go through where we are right now. Last July, after a disturbing series of reports suggesting the attempt by a foreign power to influence an American election, the Federal Government began to investigate the Russian Government's interference in the Presidential election. We learned just yesterday from a published report that this activity included conversations among Russian officials regarding how best to sway individual Trump officials and that the FBI's early handling of this matter may have been influenced by an unreliable document traceable to Russian intelligence--a form of interference in our justice system that is stunning. In December of 2016, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the Russians had orchestrated the theft of electronic materials from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. The Obama administration responded by implementing sanctions on the Russian Government. Shortly after President Trump took office, Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to officials about discussing sanctions with the Russians and was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. The White House waited 2\1/2\ weeks to take action and did so only after a March 9 Washington Post report and, in fact, days after Sally Yates' warning, fired her. We also know that Director Comey was warned or asked--in fact, demanded by President Trump that he pledge his loyalty and that he would be in jeopardy of losing his job if he did not. Shortly thereafter, the President clearly expressed to Director Comey his sense of that warning when he asked Director Comey to shut down, in effect, the Flynn investigation. As we all know, Director Comey resisted both of the President's requests. In early March, following sharp criticism about his failure to disclose meetings with Russian officials under oath, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Department of Justice investigations. Later that month, President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, became the third high-ranking Trump administration official caught misrepresenting potentially his ties to an admitted meeting with Russian officials from his security clearance application. On May 9, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, a stunning event amidst these unprecedented revelations. After clumsy and contradicting explanations seeking to advance a false narrative that the firing was a result of Director Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email matter, the White House essentially abandoned that conflicting series of stories, and President Trump admitted publicly that he was thinking about the FBI's Russia investigation when he decided to fire Comey. He boasted the next day in his meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister that he felt greatly relieved of pressure resulting from that investigation. The New York Times has reported that Comey was seeking increased funding and resources to expand the Russia probe. The Times also subsequently revealed that Director Comey had discussed with others and wrote memos detailing how President Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty and shut down the Federal investigation into Mr. Flynn. We must wait for all the facts to emerge, but even if only some of these reports are accurate, the conclusion is almost inescapable that the President of the United States fired the FBI Director in an attempt to shut down the investigation into ties between his associates, including Michael Flynn, and the Russian Government. The names of these associates have been well documented--Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Carter Page, as well as Michael Flynn. There is, unfortunately, more. Just in the past few days, additional disturbing facts and press reports have surfaced, including testimony by former CIA Director John Brennan before the House Intelligence Committee. He said that before he left office, he became deeply concerned that Russian intelligence services were attempting to manipulate Trump associates to influence the Presidential campaign. He noted that many Russian contacts of individuals linked to the Trump campaign emerged in those reports. The Washington Post reported that Comey had informed Congress about the FBI Russia investigation late in March and that Trump had asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Director Michael Rogers to push back on that investigation--in effect, to clear the President--and deny Trump campaign collusion with the Russians. According to this report, both officials, to their credit, refused to do so. In the Armed Services Committee, I asked Director Coats whether he discussed with Director Rogers any attempts by the administration to interfere with the investigation. He refused to answer--a pause and silence that spoke volumes. Revelation after revelation shakes our confidence in this administration's truthfulness and confidence. This investigation by the special prosecutor is vitally necessary. We must not lose sight of the damage that has already been done. These reports paint a deeply disturbing picture of possible obstruction, a mosaic pieced together by facts that show not only events and conversations but also motives. After a series of these events and conversations, they can no longer be seen as isolated or accidental or inadvertent. The cumulative effect, like threads in a fabric, is to establish a picture of motive, intent, mens rea, and criminal activity. Special Counsel Mueller must have the mandate and all of the funding and resources that he needs to follow the facts wherever they may lead--resources, independence--but also support. That is why, again, I call on the administration to express its support and its intention to cooperate. This kind of investigation can mean the difference between the upholding of our democratic institutions and placing them in jeopardy. Therefore, I urge that we as a body remain vigilant and continue the Judiciary Committee's oversight, inquiry, and investigative activity so as to assure that we know the reasons then-FBI Director Comey was fired--we have that responsibility as a matter of oversight--and continue that kind of scrutiny in order to assure the independence and resources the special prosecutor needs. Likewise, the Intelligence Committee's activities are absolutely necessary. Almost certainly, the special prosecutor will produce no report or elaborate public explanation. He will bring criminal charges if they are warranted by the evidence. He will seek convictions in court if those prosecutions are justified under his finding. A report with recommendations and finding as to how we can avoid this kind of interference with our democratic institutions in the future must be the work of the Intelligence Committee and of an independent commission, which I have supported. An independent, bipartisan commission can do the kind of public, transparent, vigorous, and independent work that is necessary, just in the way that we have done in the wake of other crises. I urge that we proceed on all of these fronts. They are vital to our democracy. They are an essential, inextricable part of freedom, the rule of law, and freedom of the press. I hope that the press will continue its unfettered use of its First Amendment freedom to give us the truth and to continue those reports that have brought us to this day, because the truth will be uncovered in the course of the criminal process. It will be uncovered by the Intelligence Committee and, hopefully, by an independent commission. The essential role of the free press in fostering government accountability is recognized by existing regulations, and the Attorney General of the United States should leave no confusion that the Department of Justice will adhere to those regulations. Indeed, 28 CFR 50.10 recognizes the ``essential role of the free press in fostering government accountability'' and, therefore, sets parameters and procedures, for approval by the Attorney General of the United States, under standards that are set forth for any government action that may, in any way, inhibit or impede the press. We will probably never know the real impact of Russia's intervention in the outcome of the 2016 election. These investigations are not about assessing the impact. They are about determining who participated criminally with the Russians in that interference. The American people deserve a thorough and impartial investigation into the Trump team's ties to that interference and the effort by President Trump and others to cover it up. In the wake of Watergate, the saying arose that the coverup was worse than the crime. It was then, and it would be worse--or at least as heinous--in the crime here. Make no mistake that the crime is, actually, a theft of our democracy--an interference by the Russians in our democratic institutions--which they will repeat if we do not make them pay a price and, likewise, if we do not make the Americans who cooperated with them pay a price as well. This principle is central to our democracy and our rule of law. In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the cooperation of the Trump administration as well as for recognizing the importance of the investigation--its independence, its resources--for the free press and the rule of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and friend Senator Schatz for his extraordinary leadership in this area that has brought us to the floor. I am proud to speak against the Federal Communications Commission Chairman's proposed order that is in fact slated for a vote at the open commission meeting tomorrow morning. That vote would undo the open internet order. What is at stake here is, really, First Amendment rights to free speech. Those rights are threatened. Net neutrality has never been more important. Allowing broadband providers to block or discriminate against certain content providers is a danger to free speech and the freedom of our press. These principles are fundamental to our democracy. We should safeguard them by stopping this proposed repeal of the open internet order. The internet's astonishing economic success is due to its being open and the access that it provides as an open platform. Anyone with a good idea can connect with consumers. Anyone who wants to reach across the globe to talk to others or to pitch and promote ideas and products encounters a level playing field, and that ought to be the reality. On February 25, 2015, the FCC adopted the open internet order to preserve that open nature of the internet. The order, essentially, embodies three rules--no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. Those principles are now at risk. In fact, they are in grave jeopardy. Those principles guarantee people, within the bounds of the law, access to different web content regardless of the political views expressed and regardless of the wealth of a site. They assure that the internet is open--that it is not a walled garden for wealthy companies. A lot is at stake here, and consumers and others should prevail because their interests are, ultimately, what is involved. Ultimately, the Administrative Procedure Act requires, in my view, that Chairman Pai prove, through a fact-based docket, that something has significantly changed in the market since the open internet rule was established in February of 2015. Without that change in facts, the decimation of this rule cannot be justified. We cannot allow Chairman Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at the behest of moneyed internet service providers. Chairman Pai's proposal, if it succeeds tomorrow, will deprive the American people, startups, and businesses of important bright-line net neutrality rules. For that reason, I will fight it, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate has under consideration the nomination of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General of the United States, one of the very top positions in the Department of Justice and in law enforcement. It is a position of consummate trust and responsibility, requiring full public confidence. I will oppose this nomination, and I will oppose all nominations for the Department of Justice until public trust and confidence in the rule of law is restored and sustained by appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our last election and potential links to the Trump campaign and Trump associates. I opposed Rod Rosenstein's nomination. In fact, I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee to vote against it and one of six on the floor to oppose it for exactly the same reason. I stated to him publicly and privately that the only way to preserve his own reputation--well established over many years--and the trust and confidence in the Department of Justice was to appoint an independent prosecutor. So far, regrettably, he has failed to do so. That question will be the first of my priorities when the full Senate meets with him tomorrow. We will demand to know from him what the timeline was for the firing of Director Comey, who said what to whom, why his memorandum was written, and whether he will now commit, after these most recent startling revelations just yesterday that the President of the United States suggested--indeed, explicitly demanded--that Director Comey stop his investigation involving potential ties of Michael Flynn to Russian interference in our election. Chilling facts raised in the last several days now raise serious questions about obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. So we consider this nomination at a truly unusual, very likely unique and unprecedented time in our country. The revelation last evening that President Trump asked the FBI Director to shut down the Federal investigation into his then-National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is evidence of severe political interference and possibly criminal wrongdoing in an ongoing criminal investigation. The evidence of obstruction continues to mount. We are witnessing an obstruction of justice case unfolding before our eyes in real time. Revelation after revelation continues to shake this country's confidence in our government and in this administration's competence. The need for an independent special prosecutor has never been so clear and convincing and so unquestionably necessary. I call on my Republican colleagues now to rise to this challenge, to shine in the light of history, and to commit that an independent special prosecutor will be appointed to uncover the truth and hold accountable anyone who has committed wrongdoing. Because so far we have no such special prosecutor, I will oppose this nomination. But I also have disagreements with Rachel Brand. I respect her record of public service. I believe she is simply not the right person to serve as Associate Attorney General because of her longstanding, apparently deeply held philosophy on the use and proper application of government power. When the Federal Government engaged in actions that threaten the privacy rights of innocent Americans, Ms. Brand has advocated nonaction. I believe the United States must protect the privacy of her citizens, and that fact is only one among many that cause me to disagree with her. The failure to nominate and appoint an independent special prosecutor will lead me to oppose all of the nominations that are set forth by this administration, including anyone nominated for the FBI. I think it should now be clear, if it was not before, that such an independent prosecutor is necessary. Parallels have been drawn by Members on both sides of the aisle to the Watergate scandal. To this day, we don't know whether President Nixon ordered the Watergate break-ins or simply was a beneficiary of the crime, just as we don't know now whether Donald Trump colluded with Russian interference in the 2016 election or simply benefitted from Russia's criminal aggression. The Watergate scandal gave rise to the saying that ``the cover-up is worse than the crime.'' In this instance, what we know is that the Russian interference was aimed at a wholesale theft of our democracy, far more serious than the Watergate break-in. What we do know about Nixon--and these facts became the basis for the first article of impeachment--is that he attempted to indirectly interfere with an FBI investigation into that break-in. Put very simply, while Nixon may not have directly threatened to fire the FBI Director if that Director continued to investigate Nixon associates, he made clear that his preference as head of the executive branch was that any such investigation should cease. ``History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.'' That is a saying that has profound truth here. We now have credible reports that President Trump attempted to do directly what President Nixon sought to do indirectly. He stopped a lawful, ongoing criminal investigation. Nixon ordered his staff to work through the CIA to pressure the FBI to drop the Watergate investigation. President Trump simply summoned Director Comey into the Oval Office, according to reports that certainly need to be verified, and ordered everyone else to leave the room, suggesting then that the Director drop his investigation. He did so just 2 weeks after having told Director Comey that he might not have a place in the Trump administration and making clear that Director Comey's loyalty to him might well determine whether Comey would keep his job. When Director Comey rejected Trump's suggestion, in effect, he was fired. That is the line of facts established by this mounting evidence. It is a serious charge. We should be cautious. If Director Comey did not write that memo or if, for some reason, there is a question about the truth, perhaps the suspicions are unfounded, but there is credible and significant evidence. Director Comey has established--to both his critics and his friends--that he is a man of probity and dedication to public service and to this Nation. We cannot feel confident about nominations for any of these positions--whether it be Director of the FBI or Associate Attorney General--from a President who has demonstrated such contempt for the rule of law and for law enforcement, which is the job of the Department of Justice. The White House's timeline and justifications for the decision to fire Director Comey certainly now, at this moment, fail to meet the test of credibility. We know from the President's own words in interviews he conducted late last week that the FBI investigation into possible collusion between individuals in the Trump campaign and the Russian Government was on the President's mind when he decided to fire the FBI Director. In at least two conversations, the President asked the FBI Director about this investigation and the related investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Late last night the Times revealed the details of one such conversation. It occurred in the Oval Office the day after Flynn resigned. The account written by Director Comey, which seems to meet fully the test of credibility, is absolutely chilling. ``I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,'' Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo reported in The New York Times. ``He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.'' When the FBI Director continued to pursue the investigation, President Trump fired him. We are witnessing this obstruction of justice in realtime, and these revelations are shaking our country's faith in the independence of our Nation's highest ranking law enforcement agency, our rule of law, and our national security. It is a theft of our democracy--literally, a threat to our national security--from Russian meddling in the election, potential Trump ties, and links to that interference in our democracy-- the core, foundational exercise of our democracy being voting--and then waiting for 2\1/2\ weeks when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates warned that Michael Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as National Security Adviser--blackmail from the Russians. She was fired only days later. When the investigation into that Russian meddling and Trump's ties to it continued, Director Comey was summoned to be told that the investigation should be shut down, and he was fired when he refused to do so. Very likely, part of that decision related to the request for additional resources that Director Comey made to Rosenstein shortly before he was fired and his refusal to rule out the President as a target of that investigation when he came before the Judiciary Committee. The facts will eventually form a mosaic, and that mosaic may dramatically show a picture of criminal conduct. That is the process of investigating and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing. Right now, that activity requires a fidelity to the rule of law in one's getting all of the evidence, including transcripts, tapes, memos, and other documents. They must be subpoenaed immediately so that they are not destroyed or concealed, so that they are preserved and produced. That must be done without delay, including there being testimony under oath, in public, from Comey, Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Don McGahn, White House Counsel. They should be called to testify by the Judiciary Committee, under oath, and in public. I hope that my colleagues will, indeed, rise to this challenge and shine in the light of history and commit now to an independent special prosecutor who can ensure that the truth is uncovered and that accountability is imposed for any criminal wrongdoing so that we will prevent any obstruction of justice because the American people deserve it, they need it, and they demand it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, there is a saying, an old adage, that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. Over the past week, the dramatic firing of James Comey has recalled past events--history that involved one of the major scandals in our Nation's past--the Watergate scandal. In Watergate, the saying originated--another very common saying--that the coverup is worse than the crime. The danger now in the United States--the greatest country in the history of the world, with the most effective and fair justice on our planet--is that, in fact, there may be a coverup, and that the truth will be stifled, and people who should be held accountable will not be. That is the danger. In this instance, in comparison to Watergate, actually, the crime is extraordinarily serious. In Watergate, there was a two-bit break-in or burglary, and the coverup, in fact, involved obstruction of justice. What we have here is a deliberate, purposeful assault on our American democracy by the Russians through a cyber attack that involved, really, in effect, an act of war--a combination of cyber, propaganda, and misinformation spread deliberately; it involved hacking into both major parties and the spread of the results of that hacking for one of those parties--possibly influencing the outcome of the election. The issue of whether and how the outcome of that election may have been influenced will be discussed and contended through the annals of history. Regardless of your point of view on what the impact was, the fact is, the criminal action by the Russians interfering with our election must be investigated aggressively and impartially, and the Russians, and anyone who aided and abetted them, must be held accountable. That is what the American people want. They want the truth uncovered, and they want to hold accountable anyone who colluded with the Russians in this attack on our Nation, anyone who aided and abetted or assisted them, anyone who bears a responsibility and should be held criminally culpable. The Watergate scandal was eventually successfully prosecuted. It took years to do so. The appointment of a special prosecutor was key to that effort. In fact, Elliott Richardson was not only requested, he was required to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his confirmation. He was specifically directed by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, and he agreed to do so. Archibald Cox was appointed, and then President Nixon fired Elliott Richardson as well as his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, because they refused to dismiss Archibald Cox. The principle here--the rhyming of history if not its repeating--is that sometimes investigations come so close to power and the truth about the power that there is an effort to stifle them. Watergate involved a two-bit burglary. This crime involves the theft of our democracy by the Russians and by others who may have colluded with him. So a successful investigation here goes to the fundamental principle that our elections will be free and credible, that they will be honest, without foreign interference or meddling by anyone. The firing of James Comey as FBI Director is reminiscent of what happened with the dismissal of two Attorneys General and then a special prosecutor because it raises the possibility that an investigation will be catastrophically compromised and undermined by the President of the United States. Just last week, I asked James Comey whether the President of the United States might currently be a target of the criminal investigation. Director Comey would not and could not rule out that possibility because he cannot speak about targets freely and openly, but we know some of the individuals implicated are close associates of the Trump campaign, including Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort. Each had different roles; for example, Paul Manafort was a leader of the campaign. We know that subpoenas have been issued from a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York for materials relating to Michael Flynn and to his associates. We know that then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates went to the White House and warned that he might be vulnerable to blackmail because he had lied to the Vice President. We know also that very possibly he lied to the FBI. He deceptively omitted from materials or responses he gave in his security clearance information about payments to him from the Russians and the Turkish Government and that he may have committed other very serious violations of criminal law, punishable by years in prison. That investigation is ongoing now. As I speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate, my hope is that agents of the FBI are doing their work, as they have done for decades, with integrity and determination and dedication. I know the work the FBI does, having worked with them as the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. It is not only one of our premier law enforcement agencies, there is none finer in the world. I have confidence that they will continue this investigation successfully, meaning that they will achieve a just result, if there is the right leadership. That is why I believe now there is no question that an independent special prosecutor must be appointed. There is no longer any doubt that an independent special prosecutor is necessary for the appearance and credibility, the appearance of integrity, and the credibility and objectivity of this investigation. The different contradictory stories surrounding the firing of James Comey emphasizes this point. Initially, the decision was made by Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General, but of course it involved also the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who never should have been involved because he was recused from the investigation. The reason given by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein involved the Hillary Clinton emails and statements made by Jim Comey 10 months ago--an explanation that defied belief, a pretense that was laughable and especially unfortunate--even tragic--from a career professional prosecutor like Rod Rosenstein. Well, that explanation now has been supplanted; in fact, as recently as this morning, in an interview the President gave to Lester Holt of NBC, acknowledging that he made the decision because he had lost faith in Jim Comey. Never mind that he reaffirmed that faith shortly after his inaugural. Never mind that he praised Jim Comey on the campaign trail. His reasons for dismissing Jim Comey also defy belief. This set of incidents shakes to the core the trust all of us should have in our justice system, in the integrity of our public officials, in the capability of that system to uncover the truth and hold accountable anyone who has violated the law. President Trump has now fired not one but two high-ranking Justice officials after they told him about suspicions that he or his associates have broken the law; first, Sally Yates and now Director Comey. Attorney General Sessions has shown through his role in the Comey firing that even after he has recused himself from an investigation, he will help the President punish Justice Department officials who are pushing that investigation forward. Maybe most disappointing, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein--the man now responsible for the Trump-Russia investigation--has permitted himself to become a pawn in President Trump's game. His credibility and integrity may well have been irredeemably sacrificed. The only way for him to restore it now is to appoint a special prosecutor. That power is his alone. The rules and regulations of the Department of Justice not only permit it, in my view, the standards of ethics require it because he now is irrevocably conflicted. President Trump, Attorney General Sessions, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein want Americans to believe Comey was fired because he publicly discussed his investigation into Hillary Clinton. That kind of statement betrays contempt for the intelligence of the American people because we remember President Trump applauding Director Comey's decision to discuss the Clinton investigation. He even used his letter firing Director Comey to publicly discuss the details of an FBI investigation, saying he has been told three times that he is not under investigation--albeit details I find very hard to believe. He has called this investigation a charade. He has called the allegations of Russia meddling and Trump associates' collusion with it a hoax. He has belittled and demeaned not only the judges of our Federal bench, but, by implication, the hard-working men and women of the FBI who are doing an investigation which he says is ``a taxpayer- funded charade.'' That statement is a disservice to the FBI--a nonpolitical, nonpartisan law enforcement agency without superior in the world. They deserve and need a special prosecutor who can lead them in this moment of crisis. Make no mistake, we face a looming constitutional crisis. The case of United States v. Nixon, which involved enforcement of subpoenas against the President, is no longer a matter of idle speculation; it is a real possibility. What the FBI also needs now are resources to make sure this investigation is conducted fairly, impartially, objectively, and independently, with sufficient agents, staff, and other support. In fact, in my view, one of the precipitating factors in the firing of James Comey was his going to the Deputy Attorney General and asking for more resources. As a prosecutor, I know resources are the lifeblood of a successful investigation. An investigation deprived of resources cannot reach a just result; it will be strangled, stifled, and stopped. And that is clearly the purpose of some in this administration, perhaps because it is coming close to people whom they want to protect. Congress can and must use every tool at our disposal to make sure the investigation of the Trump administration's and campaign's ties to Russia and the potential ongoing coverup of those ties is affirmed. The true and independent special prosecutor is the only one who can assure. Our Intelligence Committees can produce findings and recommendations. An independent commission, which I support, can hold hearings in public and also produce a report. But only a special prosecutor can bring criminal charges and hold accountable anyone and everyone who should bear a price. On both sides of the aisle, we have said the Russians must pay a price or they will do again in 2018 what they did in 2016, but so should the people who aided and abetted and colluded with them. If they fail to pay a price, they will do it again, too, corrupting our system, undermining the rule of law, and imperiling our democracy. If the President continues to object to an independent investigation or special prosecutor, people of good will on both sides of the aisle must stand up to him and demand one. I am encouraged by some of what my Republican colleagues have told me over the last 24 hours. I believe we are at a rhyming moment when the integrity of our justice system and our democracy is at stake. People, regardless of their political affiliation, owe it to our democracy to come forward, to recognize the gravity of this moment, and to stand up and speak out. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do so. We may disagree about a lot of things, but on this point, we should agree fundamentally. Part of our obligation is to call before us Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and, separately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as well as former FBI Director Jim Comey, to hear from them their views of this tragic and terrifying episode in our history. This firing must be a subject for our investigation. We owe it to the American people. I thank my colleagues in advance for proving that this investigation is no charade. It is no hoax. It is deadly serious, and the failure to appoint an independent prosecutor could be deadly to our democracy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about 55 million Americans who presently lack the authority to save for retirement directly from their paychecks. I am here to talk about preserving, protecting, strengthening retirement savings for all Americans, and I am here to talk about providing State and local governments with the tools they need to expand access to retirement savings accounts in order to reach that goal. I am here to oppose H.J. Res. 66. This misguided proposal would tear down ongoing efforts at the State and local levels to help families achieve financial stability in retirement after years of hard work and sacrifice. These ongoing efforts at the State level should be encouraged, not deterred. The numbers here tell a dramatic story. Many private sector employees have the option to set up and contribute to their own individual retirement accounts, often called IRAs. We know them well. But fewer than 10 percent of workers without access to a workplace plan contribute to a retirement savings account. This lack of retirement savings often leads to ruins--life-transforming disasters at ages when nobody deserves them, jeopardizing access to adequate meals, housing, healthcare, and other necessities for older Americans across the country. In response to this catastrophic possibility for so many Americans, in August of 2016, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides basic, critical guidance for States on how to administer programs designed to improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. These State-facilitated programs allow State governments to provide automatic enrollment in State-sponsored IRAs, with the opportunity, importantly, to opt out at any time. The rule that has been promulgated by the Department of Labor, which was also expanded to include a limited number of larger cities and counties, made it clear that any auto-IRA program established by a State or municipal authority must limit the employer's role in the program. In addition, the rule clarifies any ambiguity regarding the application of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. It makes clear the conditions under which ERISA does not apply. The misguided proposal before us today seeks to overturn all of this critical rulemaking, carefully devised and developed. If it is passed, the resolution will cripple efforts at the State level to ensure that retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all workers. I have always assumed that my colleagues across the aisle were in favor of State initiatives and State authority and State experiments and States addressing the issues of their citizens directly. These are basic States' rights--but not so much in this case. H.J. Res. 66, in fact, will be particularly harmful in States like Connecticut, which has already begun to bridge the retirement savings gap for nearly 600,000 people who lack access to employer-based savings for retirement in our State. The Connecticut Retirement Security Authority has pioneered this effort. I am very proud to say, Connecticut is among several States that have made real progress toward expanding secure pathways to retirement savings for their private sector employees. By leveraging State facilitation with private providers, these plans allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings which, in turn, allow more workers to adequately prepare for retirement, improving life for those workers and also reducing the burden on taxpayer-funded services. In fact, encouraging increased retirement savings yields important savings for Federal and State budgets in the future, not just now. Studies have shown that expanded retirement savings programs could potentially reduce Medicaid expenditures in Connecticut by over $65 million in the first 10 years after implementation. That $65 million in savings on Medicaid is for Connecticut alone. Think of the whole country. Think of the savings in Medicaid and other critical service programs that go to aid our seniors. They would much rather save for themselves. I ask my Senate colleagues who believe we ought to be spending our time expanding, not limiting, access to secure retirement solutions to join me in opposing this legislation. There are many of our Republican colleagues who have long called for reduced government spending and in increased autonomy for State governments. They should be joining in opposing H.J. Res. 66. There are many of our Republican colleagues who have long advocated giving people the freedom and the opportunity to plan for their own future. They ought to be joining in opposing H.J. Res. 66. I ask all of us now to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 because States ought to have the flexibility and the opportunity to implement proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare themselves for retirement. Give them that opportunity. Do not destroy it in H.J. Res. 66. 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, one goal we share in this body, which is a very bipartisan goal, is keeping faith with our veterans, making sure no veteran is left behind. I had the great honor to work as ranking member with Senator Isakson, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, on a bill called the Veterans First Act that unfortunately failed to cross the finish line during the last session. One of the major goals of that bill was to ensure accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs so employees of the VA who fail to do their job are held accountable. That goal of accountability is one of a number that must be pursued and will be sought during this session, including ending the backlog of appeals and providing better healthcare, ensuring skills training and job opportunities for our veterans. Today the President signed an Executive order at the Department of Veterans Affairs to designate an individual responsible for accountability and whistleblower protection, a worthwhile first step. It is a commendable step toward accountability. But that individual and the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection must have real responsibility and power and must be insulated from any kind of political interference through establishment through statute. That office should be established by statutory authority. That is why I will be advocating and likely introducing legislation that involves supporting and training employees and listening to veterans about what they want from the VA through that Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, to provide real accountability to the Congress by requiring reporting to Congress about what it finds and real whistleblower protection, so that anybody who complains about the VA's misdirected or misguided action is assured protection against any kind of revenge or retaliation, which is the essence of whistleblower protection, and a Senate-confirmed director so that the accountability function is, again, accountable to us. That kind of statutory embodiment is necessary to make sure that the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection has power and reporting requirements so that it is accountable to us as elected representatives and advocates for our veterans. My hope is that the Senate and House will adopt that provision, one that was contained in the Veterans First bill that Senator Isakson and I championed during the last Senate and which I hope we will pursue again in a very bipartisan way. I also hope that the Senate will take up and pass S. 12, the Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act of 2017. My colleague, Senator Moran, a cosponsor with me, spoke about it earlier today. It would provide reduction of benefits for senior executives and certain healthcare employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs if they have been convicted of a felony in connection with their work. VA employees who commit serious crimes in connection with their employment should not be receiving pensions. That is one of the key provisions to activate a deterrent to misconduct and also to assure that misconduct is adequately punished. Accountability for leaders who manage the Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Affairs would be another goal of this legislation, S. 12, so that the men and women who hire and fire are themselves evaluated when they do those jobs. These kinds of details are important--as important as any new office with an individual whose unspecified powers may include them or not. Right now they do not, under the Executive order, specifically include such enumerated powers. That is our job, to make sure that this office of accountability is real in its responsibility, is clearly assigned in its functions, is held accountable for its performance and has real teeth, not just rhetoric. I am hopeful that we will move ahead with this very, very important office to make sure that our veterans receive what they deserve--real accountability, a genuine assurance that the people who serve them will do their jobs, not just adequately but excellently. That is the goal that I believe we will share. I welcome this Executive order. I believe we can and must do more to make sure that the VA keeps faith with our veterans and leaves no veterans behind. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on Monday morning I stood with workers and fellow public officials in Bridgeport, CT, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the L'Ambiance Plaza disaster. Thirty years ago last Sunday, L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, 28 families lost loved ones, and 22 others were seriously injured in the collapse. Their worlds collapsed as the lift-slab construction used as the device for building L'Ambiance Plaza, in effect, imploded. The workers were constructing a 16-story apartment building when that disaster happened. The lift-slab construction method used at that site subsequently was banned. It was banned because it was unsafe. That disaster was preventable, as so many workplace injuries and deaths are preventable. That was a tragedy in the modern American workplace 30 years ago--L'Ambiance Plaza. It is an urgent and great need for this Nation to confront. L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, literally, within seconds, and when it was over, the 28 workers who woke up that day and left their homes never came back. Their families, who said good-bye, never saw them again alive. They were victims of workplace dangers that day, but so many others have followed them since. Those families are still affected, still grieving. One of them spoke at that ceremony on Monday morning, and it provides for many of us the memories of that day when literally hundreds of workers from throughout Connecticut went to that site, digging, often by hand, through the wreckage, trying to find the living survivors. On that day, and every day since, I have sought to increase the safety of our workplaces and avoid those kinds of tragedies. That is why I am here today, because that pledge would be, in my view, inconsistent with voting for the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. I will state at the outset that I commend Mr. Acosta for his record of public service during the Presidency of George W. Bush, serving as a National Labor Relations Board member and holding two positions at the Department of Justice, as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and, later, as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I want to thank him for his willingness to serve again. I say that in all seriousness, as a former U.S. attorney myself. I believe that, as Secretary of Labor, he will have important responsibilities if he is confirmed in the area of enforcement, and I am constrained to oppose his nomination because I believe, No. 1, that this administration needs a champion, not simply a bystander, and Mr. Acosta has given me no reason at his hearings and in his record to assure me that he will overcome what I see as a bias against enforcement in this administration. Last month President Trump proposed a budget that guts the Department of Labor. The budget admittedly is short on specifics and boasts little more than one page about the agency that is tasked with ensuring the safety of tens of millions of American workers. Let me make clear: It would slash resources at the Department of Labor by 21 percent. That is $2.5 billion. That means 21 percent fewer inspectors, 21 percent fewer investigators, 21 percent less enforcement. That is one-fifth less enforcement, when, in fact, five times more enforcement is appropriate. The budget, although short on details, singled out programs that helped to train workers and employers in ways to ensure avoidance of hazards on the job. President Trump has proposed the elimination--the zeroing out--of that program. At his confirmation hearing last week, Mr. Acosta demonstrated neither a willingness nor an interest in challenging the budget or the President's priorities, stressing that his soon-to-be boss, President Trump, guides the ship. I find that view and perspective alarming. There is an old saying that budgets are ``moral documents.'' It is a saying frequently repeated, but it has a real meaning when it comes to enforcement of worker safety. It has a real meaning to real people in their lives or loss of lives. It is a matter of life or death. Where you put scarce dollars and resources reveals moral values and moral priorities. President Trump has put his values on clear display in this budget. He believes in building a wall, a needless show project that he mentioned repeatedly in his budget, but he has given short shrift or no shrift to efforts that protect people who go every day to workplaces where they are in serious jeopardy, and where--as in L'Ambiance Plaza-- they can lose their lives. Voting for Mr. Acosta would mean failing to keep that pledge that I believe I made to the families of L'Ambiance, to the workers who lost their lives there, and to countless other workers in danger every day in workplaces that must be made safer--and can be--through vigorous enforcement of rules and laws that exist now and improvement of those laws. One of the greatest challenges facing our Nation today is fairness in the workplace, particularly fairness in pay for women, fairness concerning pay disparity between men and women, with women making a fraction of what men make for the same work. On this critical issue also, this nominee is silent. On other issues critical to the modern workplace--overtime pay, minimum wage, protecting workers' retirement, fighting discrimination, matters that affect women and minorities more than others--he has said little or nothing, certainly little to indicate that he will be an enforcer of laws that protect minorities and women and others who may be the victims of discrimination. There is no question that this nominee is far better than the President's first proposed person to fill this job, Andy Puzder, who rightly and fortunately withdrew, but the standard we should use is not whether he is better than his predecessor, who was found wanting even before the vote was taken, but rather whether they can be trusted to protect workers, to enforce rules vigorously and fairly, and to fight for a budget and a set of priorities that are critical to the future of American workers. On that score, unfortunately, I answer this question with a clear ``no,'' and I will vote against this nominee.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in less than an hour, we will consider the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States. We consider his nomination under highly unusual, if not unique, circumstances. Only today, there were revelations from the House Oversight Committee at a bipartisan conference indicating that General Flynn, formerly the National Security Advisor, may have broken criminal laws by his concealing payments from Russia--specifically, from Russia Today--in connection with his speaking fees and travel expenses in 2015. He concealed these payments in security clearance forms submitted in 2016, SF86 forms. False statements on such forms are a violation of our criminal laws. His potential criminal liability is a serious and important allegation that needs to be investigated further. What we know for sure is that the investigation of this allegation and others--this very colorful violation of Federal criminal law--can be done reliably, impartially, and credibly only by a special prosecutor. That is why I have asked Mr. Rosenstein to commit that he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this allegation as well as others involving the President's staff, campaign associates, and staff in connection with Russia's interference with our election. There is no question that the Russians sought to interfere and that they did so. That is the conclusion of the investigation that was already done by our intelligence community, and it is a conclusion that is virtually universally accepted. The only question now is this: What was the involvement and potential collusion and aiding and abetting of Americans in that Russian cyber attack on this country? In my view, it was an act of war. We can debate that question. What is undebatable is the need for a thorough, impartial, vigorous, and aggressive investigation that will give that information to the American people. It must be an investigation that can pursue criminal wrongdoing, if it is proved, and that can prosecute it and ultimately make that investigation transparent to the American people so they know what actually happened. I have asked Rod Rosenstein to follow the precedent that was established by Elliot Richardson under circumstances that were not unlike the ones we encountered here. The saying is that history almost never repeats, but it rhymes. What we have here is a situation that rhymes with the one that Elliot Richardson encountered when he was Attorney General-designee. He was requested to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his confirmation. He agreed to do so in 1973. He appointed Archibald Cox. That, in turn, led to the Watergate investigation and, ultimately, it vindicated the judgment on the part of our Senate Judiciary Committee that an independent special prosecutor was necessary under those circumstances. My colleague who is presiding, as a former State attorney general, knows well the importance of independence and credibility in any judicial role of this kind. This Nation now faces a looming constitutional crisis--again, not unlike Watergate, which ultimately resulted in United States v. Nixon before the U.S. Supreme Court, a subpoena that had to be enforced by that special prosecutor against the President of the United States. Only Rod Rosenstein can vindicate that important public interest. Only the Deputy Attorney General of the United States can appoint a special prosecutor because the Attorney General rightly has recused himself. Jeff Sessions has recused himself because of his own conversations with Russian officials, which he failed to disclose during testimony to the Judiciary Committee. Only the Deputy Attorney General can perform that vital function, and only a special prosecutor can do what is necessary to vindicate the public interest through a vigorous investigation into any criminal wrongdoing and to prosecute lawbreakers. I have confidence that our Intelligence Committee in the Senate will impartially and objectively do whatever it can to uncover the truth. But even if it succeeds--and there are obstacles and challenges to its success--it cannot pursue a criminal investigation, and it cannot bring criminal charges and pursue a conviction. It probably cannot make fully transparent or disclose all of the facts that it uncovers. Its custom is to issue a report and, when it does so, redacting information that can be considered classified or sensitive. It may well lead, in an abundance of caution, toward redacting rather than disclosing. That is why I have asked Rod Rosenstein, as a condition of his becoming Deputy Attorney General, to commit that he will appoint a special independent prosecutor. Call that office whatever you wish-- special counsel, independent counsel, special prosecutor. The role is what is significant. It is someone who will uncover the wrongdoing and follow the evidence and the facts wherever they lead. Neither Mr. Rosenstein nor Mr. Sessions can do so. Neither Rosenstein nor Sessions will ever convince the public that they are really pursuing their boss, the President of the United States, if there is evidence that leads to his culpability. They report to him. Rod Rosenstein reports to Jeff Sessions, and he, in turn, reports to the President of the United States. That is why the appearance and the reality of independence is so critically important, and that is why only a special prosecutor can pursue that interest. If we were in normal times, Rod Rosenstein would be an eminently acceptable nominee, and I would welcome his nomination without attaching any kind of request or condition. He is certainly an honorable public servant. He is a career prosecutor. I admire his dedication and commitment to public service. As U.S. attorney for Maryland, he certainly has an admirable record. He is, in some senses, what we value in the Department of Justice--someone who is committed to the rule of law. That is why I have been surprised and disappointed that he has failed to heed my request. Whatever happens today, I want to ensure my colleagues and, most especially, him and the loyal and dedicated members of the Department of Justice that I will support his work in his capacity as Deputy Attorney General, if he is confirmed today, because the professionalism of the Department of Justice is of preeminent interest for me personally, having served as a U.S. attorney and also as attorney general of my State, but it is also vitally important to the American people. We must consider his nomination in the light of the looming constitutional crisis that our Nation confronts. It is a crisis partly of the administration's making by its attacks on the judiciary, calling a member of the bench a ``so-called judge,'' saying to the American people that a circuit court of appeals will be responsible for any violence that may occur as a result of its ruling on the constitutionality of Executive orders related to immigration, demeaning and disparaging a judge because of his ethnic heritage--a judge born, in fact, in Indiana. These kinds of attacks on the judiciary undermine respect and trust in a branch of government that is the bulwark of our democracy and that, in my view, when the history of this era is written, will be regarded as having been one of its finest hours. We will be relying on it to protect our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. The independence of the judiciary is a sacred pillar of our democracy, and it must be free of political interference. The other hero of this era, in my view, will be the press, which has uncovered many of the facts leading to my conclusion, joined by so many of my colleagues, that there must be a special prosecutor. That conclusion is not mine alone. It has been joined by many of my colleagues, 10 of them having cosigned a letter I wrote in mid-February asking for a special prosecutor. The independence of our judiciary and of our prosecutors is so critically important for the trust and credibility of the American people that the rule of law will prevail and that no official will put himself above the rule of law. That is the threat and the constitutional crisis that we potentially face. Two high-ranking administration officials have been caught misrepresenting their ties with Russia. One of them is, in fact, the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who did so before the Judiciary Committee, under oath. Mr. Rosenstein has said that he wants to be approved by the Senate before he decides whether to appoint a special prosecutor, but that delay will mean that a man who was hired and can be fired by President Trump will decide whether the Trump administration will face a thorough and complete investigation. This body has a duty to insist on it before his confirmation. We must seize this opportunity to assure accountability to the American people and make sure also about their confidence in our electoral system. While Mr. Rosenstein has claimed he needs to be in office to familiarize himself with the facts of an investigation into the Trump administration before he can commit to appointing a special prosecutor, the row of facts are all a matter of public record now. We know Russia interfered in the 2016 election. We know the FBI is investigating Trump administration lawbreaking associated with that interference. That investigation has been confirmed by the Director of the FBI himself. We know Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with officials of Russia's Government, and yet he said under oath that he did not meet with those Russians. That is more than ample information to justify appointing a special prosecutor, but there is much more, including actions by Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone. These kinds of abundant facts are known now and warrant this action and also more than justify this body insisting that he commit to appointing that special prosecutor. That public information concerning known associates of the President and their Russian contacts includes General Flynn's actions disclosed today. On December 10, 2015, General Flynn was paid to attend an event in Moscow celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia Today, a propaganda arm of the Russian Government. He concealed the amount Russia Today paid him for speaking fees and travel expenses in those security clearance forms he submitted in 2016, the SF86. He dined with Vladimir Putin just 18 months after leaving his position leading the Defense Intelligence Agency. As a retired general, he is prohibited from receipt of consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honorary or any other kind of salary from a foreign government without congressional consent. That action also is a potentially prosecutable action. After the election, General Flynn spoke repeatedly to Russian Ambassador Kislyak regarding lifting sanctions on Putin, an amazing act of disloyalty. Misleading Vice President Pence and the American public on the nature of these secret discussions, he demonstrated a lack of candor and credibility inconsistent with the role of National Security Advisor, and therefore he was compelled to resign. The President also selected Carter Page to serve during the campaign on his foreign policy advisory committee. He is the same individual we have learned who was under investigation for his contacts with Russian agents. The President's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked for years on a disinformation campaign to benefit the Putin government and was paid millions of dollars to do so. The President's son-in-law Jared Kushner held an undisclosed meeting with both the Russian Ambassador and also executives from a Russian bank, EDB, a bank built by Putin's cronies. The President himself has sold real estate to Russian investors seeking to profit from their corrupt activities in Russia or, as his son, Donald Trump, put it, ``We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'' The administration's supposed attempts to investigate itself have produced mixed signals and clear conflicts of interest such as House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes's ill-fated trip to the White House to discuss his committee findings. The robust congressional oversight hearings that we all hope will happen are certainly essential, but only the Department of Justice can analyze these facts and information which are only the tip of the iceberg--analyze it, digest it, determine its relevance to a criminal investigation and to a prosecution, pursuit of a violation of law and charges. The FBI can investigate, but it cannot bring charges. Only a lawyer from the Department of Justice can do so, and only a special prosecutor can make that judgment independently and impartially without having to worry about what his boss thinks or what his boss's boss thinks. So I have reached the conclusion reluctantly--because Rod Rosenstein has a very admirable record of public service--that I must vote against his nomination in just a short time because of his failure to commit to a special prosecutor. I have no illusions about convincing my colleagues about joining me to vote on cloture with a degree of realism about the views of this body on his nomination, but I hope he will heed the example of Mr. Richardson in 1973 and also of Jim Comey, who at one point also resorted to a special prosecutor to investigate a controversial matter that arose during President George Bush's administration. There is clear, unmistakable, bipartisan precedent for a special prosecutor under these circumstances. There is not only precedent, there is historical imperative. At the root of this constitutional crisis is a concern for the rule of law, for preserving the public's faith and trust and respect for our justice system. It is at the foundation of what we do when we vote. When we make laws, we presume they will be rigorously and fairly enforced without fear or favor, and that no official, not even the President of the United States, will be placed above the law. That is the lesson of Watergate, but it is also the lesson established throughout our history, going back to the Founders and the preeminent role played by our U.S. Supreme Court. I will support Mr. Rosenstein in his efforts to pursue the truth and pursue justice, as I believe he must do, and I hope he will do because the credibility the of the Department of Justice and our justice system is so much at stake. I urge my colleagues to vote against his nomination, as I will do, but I also pledge my support for him and the loyal, dedicated, hardworking members of the Department of Justice if he is confirmed. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, yesterday was Sunday, April 23. In Connecticut, April 23 is a solemn day. It is the day when we pause to remember and reflect upon the lives lost and the lives forever altered by one of the worst workplace disasters in Connecticut history, the collapse of the L'Ambiance Plaza construction site in Bridgeport. On almost every April 23, I have stood with laborers, families, officials, and others at the L'Ambiance memorial park to recognize the heartbreaking loss. It is a somber, sobering moment. On that day--30 years ago yesterday--workers were constructing a 16- story apartment building using a process known as the lift-slab method. This method allows floors to be built at the base of a building and then hoisted up, one by one, using hydraulic lifting technology. This process was at work at L'Ambiance Plaza when things went horribly wrong. Due to shortsightedness and failures by the building's developers, the massive concrete slabs that formed several upper floors gave way, crushing the floors below like pancakes, all within seconds. Twenty-eight workers lost their lives. Nearly 2 dozen others were seriously injured. Those who survived the collapse demonstrated tremendous bravery and unity in the days afterward as a massive rescue and recovery operation ensued. The techniques deployed in that operation were later put to use at the World Trade Center on 9/11. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the lift-slab method of construction used in Bridgeport ended nationwide, thankfully. Still, however, the pain and grief continues for the families who lost loved ones. Today, in recognition of this grave anniversary and in memory of the victims, I enter into the Record their names: Michael Addona, Augustus Allman, Glenn Canning, Mario Colello, Francesco D'Addona, William Daddona, Donald Emanuel, Vincent Figliomeni, Herbert Goeldner, Jr., Terrance Gruber, John Hughes, Joseph Lowe, John Magnoli, Rocco Mancini, Richard McGill, Mario Musso, Nicholas Nardella, John Page, Guiseppe Paternostro, Angelantonio Perugini, John Puskar, Jr., Anthony Rinaldi, Albert Ritz, Michael Russillo, Reginald Siewert, William Varga, Frank Visconti, and Scott Ward. We must honor their lives--and the lives of many other American workers killed or injured in the workplace--by ensuring that employees are able to work at facilities that are safe and secure, free from needless dangers and hazards. We can achieve that realistic goal through strong regulations, meaningful oversight, and effective enforcement. On this day, I pledge to continue fighting for workers and workplace safety. I pledge to fight against efforts to roll back safety rules and against efforts to hamper agencies tasked with enforcing those rules. I strongly urge and challenge my colleagues and this administration to demonstrate their concern for their constituents and all American workers by publicly adopting this same pledge. We owe nothing less to the 28 victims of the L'Ambiance Plaza disaster. Thank you.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. His philosophy represents the height of activism, because it would allow courts to substitute their policy judgments for agency expertise. Abandoning the Chevron doctrine and the principles it represents invokes a desire to destroy a broad array of rules that protect critical rights. One such rule was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the aftermath of a Connecticut tragedy at L'Ambiance Plaza decades ago when a collapse killed 28 workers in Bridgeport, CT. The rule prohibiting the use of the lift slab construction technique that led to L'Ambiance's collapse has now saved the lives of others. But would it have survived a review by Judge Gorsuch? My fear is that he would have struck it down and substituted the activist instinct of a judge instead--protecting the corporations that might use it. Today we still know very little about Judge Gorsuch's core beliefs because he evaded so many questions. But here is what we do know. We know that the man who hired him has said he passes his rightwing litmus test. We know that conservative organizations have spent millions of dollars on the prospect that he will move American law dramatically to the right. And we know that he will not answer questions that his Republican-appointed predecessors answered about core tenets of American jurisprudence. In short, he has left us with substantial doubt. Let me conclude on this note--that doubt. Important and critical doubt that should preclude us from confirming him today leaves women wondering how long they will have autonomy over their healthcare decisions, same-sex couples questioning whether they might be denied the right to marry the person they love, workers and consumers doubting their rights, and Americans fearing the Court will abandon protections of privacy, equality, and the rule of law. That is why I cannot support this nomination and why I urge my colleagues to support a filibuster to block it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we will vote today and tomorrow on the Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, in the midst of a looming constitutional crisis. Only in the past few weeks, the Director of the FBI has confirmed that his agency is investigating ties between President Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our recent election. The urgent need for an impartial investigation and the possibility of the Supreme Court's having to rule on a subpoena directed to the President of the United States is very real. The repeat of United States v. Nixon is far from idle speculation. The independence of our judicial branch has never been more important. It has never been more threatened. When the story of this constitutional crisis is written, I believe that the heroes will be an independent judiciary and a free press. An independent judiciary is the bulwark against overreaching and autocratic tyranny, and the free press has uncovered much of the facts that have prompted the FBI investigation and, I hope, eventually-- sooner rather than later--an independent prosecutor because only a special prosecutor can bring criminal charges that will hold accountable wrongdoers who have broken our criminal laws. In this constitutional crisis, respect for an independent judiciary is more important than ever before, but it is threatened by forces that are powerful and undeniable. It was threatened first by the denial to Merrick Garland of a hearing and a vote, relying on an invented principle found nowhere in the Constitution that the President of the United States--then Barack Obama--somehow lost his power to appoint Justices during the fourth year of his term. That act of political expediency demeaned this institution, the U.S. Senate, and it also disrespected our judiciary. It dragged the Supreme Court into the partisan mire that has caused such drastic dysfunction in this branch of government. President Trump demonstrated his own disrespect for the judiciary through his constant, repeated, relentless attacks, calling one member of the bench a ``so-called judge'' simply because he ruled against him and struck down on constitutional grounds President Trump's illegal travel ban--really a Muslim ban. His demeaning and disparaging comments have attempted to shake the foundation of respect for judicial rulings that have held him accountable and potentially every President accountable to the American people, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives. He has attempted to convince his audience that judges who rule against him are not only wrong but illegitimate--in one case, because of a judge's ethnic heritage. I would have thought that there would have been bipartisan shock and outrage at such suggestions, but the silence across the aisle has been deafening. Such a campaign by the Executive against the judicial branch would be extraordinarily disturbing regardless of the circumstances but particularly so now in the midst of this constitutional challenge. President Trump's disrespect for the judiciary was emphasized, as well, by how he selected his nominee for the Court and how he established a litmus test for that nominee. He proudly proclaimed that litmus test, declaring on multiple occasions that his nominee would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade and strike down gun violence prevention measures. He outsourced that selection process to extreme rightwing groups, like the Heritage Foundation, choosing from their list, from their preapproved selectees. Against this backdrop, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. I want to make clear that despite my outrage about what happened to Merrick Garland, which was far worse than a filibuster--one of my colleagues has termed it the ``filibuster of all filibusters''--and despite my deep concern over a nomination from a President who so disrespects the judicial branch, I was prepared to give Judge Gorsuch a fair hearing. I believe my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and I provided that hearing, and we will provide a vote. I strongly believe that during this process, Judge Gorsuch had a special obligation to be forthcoming. I want to be clear that that is not opining on cases or controversies that may come before him or issues that may be before his Court if he is confirmed. Unlike prior nominees, he absolutely refused to say whether he agreed with core principles and precedents, well-established and long-accepted decisions of the Supreme Court that embody and enshrine principles that the American people have accepted and that they expect the Supreme Court to implement. There is no tradition of a Supreme Court nominee's refusing to answer every question posed to him as Neil Gorsuch did, even questions about iconic cases. Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts answered unambiguously that they believed that Brown v. Board of Education was rightly decided. Justice Roberts also said of the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut: ``I agree with the Griswold Court's conclusion.'' On the related case of Eisenstadt v. Baird, Justice Alito said: ``I do agree with the result in Eisenstadt.'' Such statements do not prejudice any litigants or prejudge any cases; instead, they provided Senators and, more importantly, the American people with the confidence that these Justices adhere to long-settled legal principles that have formed the basis of critically important cases that came afterward. How far these principles may extend is a live issue, but their underlying legitimacy is not and should not be. Unfortunately, at his hearing, Judge Gorsuch would tell us only that Griswold and Eisenstadt were precedents--or decisions--of the Court, and he doubled down on his evasiveness in response to written questions that were submitted just last week. There was no reason for him to diverge from the kinds of answers that were provided by Justice Roberts and Justice Alito unless he, unlike them, disagreed with the reasoning that was used in these cases. These cases go to the core of the right to privacy and equal treatment under the rule of law. The constitutional right to privacy underlies not just the rights of couples to use contraception, which was the issue in Griswold and Eisenstadt, but the right of women to control their own bodies, as established in Roe v. Wade, and couples of different races to marry, as established in Loving v. Virginia, or the right of same- sex couples to equal treatment, as established in Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Brandeis, in one of the original privacy decisions, called this right to privacy ``the right to be left alone,'' and it is a core constitutional principle that Chief Justice Roberts endorsed as well. If Judge Gorsuch does not believe in this fundamental right or equal protection under the rule of law, the American people deserve to know it. Unfortunately, his continued evasion of my questions and those of others tells a different story. I am left with the inescapable conclusion that Judge Gorsuch passed the Trump litmus test--an automatically anti-choice, pro-gun conservative and an acolyte of hard- right special interests who screened and selected his name. Yet I am equally and maybe more concerned by Judge Gorsuch's approach to cases dealing with worker safety and consumer rights, issues relating to clean air and water and the fundamental role of the public sector in protecting individuals and putting their rights above corporate interests. The important concerns my colleagues and I have raised have been caricatured by some Senate Republicans to a belief that judges should always rule for sympathetic plaintiffs, and that is simply not so. The TransAm Trucking case, which has been discussed at length on the floor and in committee, is of concern not because of the individual but because of the reasoning he used. He relied on a handpicked dictionary definition to rule against a worker who left his truck as he was under threat of grave physical peril and perhaps death, and he distorted the meaning of the statute, leaving aside basic common sense and feeling. He called Congress's declared statutory purpose--protecting health and safety--too ``ephemeral and generic'' to provide an interpretive guide. That is how he characterized our purpose here in protecting the safety of workers. This approach shows that Judge Gorsuch looks for guidance not in the words that Congress has chosen but in his own dictionary. And it may not even be Webster's; it may be the dictionary that is in his head or is in the heads of the rightwing groups who screened and proposed his name. Then there is Judge Gorsuch's open hostility to the Chevron doctrine, which is a term that was likely meaningless and incomprehensible to most Americans before these proceedings and may be again after we are done. Yet it is a profoundly important principle of law that essentially stands against judicial activism--the very defect that many of our Republican colleagues believe is too characteristic of the courts today. The structure of our government depends on the flexibility of these agencies that protect the purity of our drinking water, the safety of workers on construction sites, the integrity of our financial markets, and much, much more, so that it may do its job and enforce rules and laws that provide not only protection for ordinary people, everyday Americans, but also a level playing field for the good guys who want to do the right thing, and they are the majority of businesses in this country. The proposed abandoning of the Chevron doctrine that Judge Gorsuch supports would eviscerate the enforcement of these basic rules that protect workers and consumers--people who drink water in their homes and breathe the air and go to work every day and expect to come home safely, as well as people who invest their money in a way that is protected against fraud. As Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner wrote this Sunday in the New York Times: Judge Gorsuch is skeptical that Congress can use broadly written laws to delegate authority to agencies in the first place. That can only mean that at least portions of such statutes--the source of so many regulations that safeguard Americans' welfare--must be sent back to Congress, to redo or not. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as we finished the vote just hours ago, I could not help but notice a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle high-fiving each other. That image stays with me as I stand here now. It saddens me. There is no cause for celebration in what happened in the Senate just hours ago. No one should sleep well tonight. No one should underestimate the magnitude of what happened here. Damage was done to our democracy, in fact, to the institutions that are the pillars of our democracy--the United States Supreme Court and the Senate itself. Today is, indeed, one of my saddest days in the Senate. Sadder than anything is the damage that has been caused to the Supreme Court by eroding and undermining trust and respect for an institution that has power only because of its credibility with the American people. It has no armies or police force; all it really has is the confidence and respect of the American people. Today, raw political power has been exercised to break the rules and norms of this body so that a nominee could be confirmed. The only way that he could be confirmed was, in fact, to wreck the rules, a nuclear option that will have enduring fallout and rippling repercussions, perhaps for years come. For myself, I would state unequivocally that I hope we will work together on issues where we have common ground, where we can reach common solutions on infrastructure, on tax reform, on immigration issues. No one should make light of the potential fallout, as there is in any nuclear explosion, from this action today. The Senate has broken with decades of bipartisan practice when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The practice and the tradition was that Presidents of either party would consult with Members of both parties in this body before making a nomination so as to ensure a mainstream nominee, and that nominee would be in the mainstream even before his or her selection so that there was some modicum of comity and so that respect for this body, as well as the courts, would be preserved. My concern is that the contagion of partisanship will infect the court system as a whole. All of the nominations to lower courts, as well as the appellate courts, will be affected. My hope is that we can avoid that truly cataclysmic outcome, a nuclear explosion, in some ways even more deafening and damaging than the one used today would be because our courts are the bulwark of our democracy. An attack on our courts is an attack on the only check we have against tyranny and autocratic erosion of those rights. That is why the nonpartisanship of our courts is so important. The Supreme Court, of all our courts, should be above politics. In fact, that is why the 60-vote rule for the Supreme Court was so important. The Supreme Court is different: nine Justices appointed for life to the highest Court in the land. In some ways, it is an anachronism in our democracy-- unaccountable, unelected, sitting for life with the power to strike down actions of elected representatives and an elected Executive by issuing words on paper without the direct means to enforce them, depending only on respect and credibility from the American people. To approve nominees by a razor-thin majority is a disservice to the Court and to our democracy. Supreme Court Justices do more than just follow the law; they have to resolve conflicts in the law and differences among the lower courts where they disagreed and, in fact, ambiguities in the statute, where there is lack of clarity, where this body is unable to reach consensus and, in effect, decides to agree, to the extent it can, and leave some question to administrative agencies, which rightly are entitled to respect, as they implement the law. Confidence and trust are essential, and we have undermined it today. Our Republican colleagues have gravely damaged it by the actions taken today. I have urged my colleagues to reject Neil Gorsuch because I believe he is out of the mainstream, because he failed to answer questions about whether he agreed with established core precedents essential to rights of privacy and equality under the law, because he has a judicial philosophy that would involve substituting judgments of courts for administrative agencies and banning the Chevron doctrine, and because he favored in many of his actions, opinions, writings the interests of corporations over individual rights. We have debated the merits of this nominee. I believe that his repeated evasion of the questions that were put to him leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that he passed the Trump test; that he is not a neutral caller of balls and strikes; that he is, in fact, an acolyte of the of the rightwing groups that screened and suggested his name; and that he would carry out not only the Trump litmus test to overrule Roe v. Wade, strike down gun violence provisions, but also other unknown decisions that would implement that far-right conservative agenda. We can debate whether that view is right or wrong. Today is one of my saddest days in the Senate. It goes more to the institutions that have been demeaned and degraded: the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court. My hope is that maybe it will be a turning point. Maybe we can reconstruct the sense of bipartisanship and comity that existed for so many years. Many of my colleagues on the other side have expressed to me their misgivings about what was done today. The obstruction of Merrick Garland's nomination was, as one of my colleagues put it, ``the filibuster of all filibusters.'' It was another step in a continuing progression, culminating in today's outcome that very much betrays the spirit and values of a bipartisan selection of Supreme Court nominees because the highest Court in the land is different. I had the extraordinary honor to clerk for a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Harry Blackmun, who was appointed by a Republican, President Richard Nixon. He grew as a Justice and surprised a lot of people. He, no doubt, surprised the President who appointed him. And that is what happens to really extraordinary men and women who serve on our courts as well as in the U.S. Senate; they grow in the job. Choosing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is one of the most solemn and important duties that a President has, and confirming her or him is one of the most important tasks we have in this body. Even at the most difficult and contentious times, as I served then as a law clerk and as I have litigated since then for several decades, I have never doubted that judges were working in good faith to uphold the rule of law. Whether they ruled my way or not, I believed that we were working to try to be above partisan politics and uphold the rule of law and do the right thing to follow the law. The Supreme Court does more than follow; it leads. Today's vote is a significant challenge to that principle and perhaps the most difficult that we have seen in recent history. It threatens to exact profound damage on the confidence and trust the American people have in the Supreme Court and perhaps in the courts overall, and that is a danger for all of us. In my view, when the history of this time is written, there will be two heroes: the free press that has uncovered abuses and wrongdoing despite opposition from many powerful forces, and our independent judiciary that has upheld their right to do it and, also, the rights of countless Americans in many areas of law. Today's action threatens those two institutions in our society. It undermines our rules. It would not have happened without a choice made by the Republican leadership that they were willing to break the rules to achieve this result. I am determined to try to move forward in a positive way, in legislation as well as in protecting and enhancing our courts, giving them the resources they need to do their job--and law enforcement, the resources needed to uphold the rule of law. We cannot hold the Supreme Court hostage to any ideology, and that is a lesson from today and from the past year that we should all heed. Mr. President, I will continue to talk about this topic because I believe it is so profoundly important to our Nation, but for now, 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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today in a near empty Chamber. Indeed, there is no Republican colleague here today. Our Republican colleagues have yielded back all their time on this resolution, and the reason they have yielded back all their time is that they apparently have no interest in appearing here and talking about a resolution of disapproval of a rule that is vital to ensuring that women have access to the family planning provider of their choice. It is really that simple. Defending Planned Parenthood is what we have done on this side. Defunding Planned Parenthood has been the interest on the other side of the aisle. They have also taken an inordinate interest in reinstating gender ratings in health insurance and are now damaging title X networks through this resolution. They have demonstrated an unmitigated desire to cut women's access to healthcare in order, apparently, to win political points. But their actions today show that the politics of this issue and, most importantly, the people of America are not on their side. Title X is a critical program delivering important family planning and preventive health services in underserved areas of our great Nation. In 2015 alone, title X programs provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services. We are talking about Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, and HIV testing for more than 4 million low- income women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers across the country. For 40 percent of women, their visit to a family planning health center is the only healthcare they receive annually. Think of that number for a moment. Forty percent of those women have no access elsewhere except at these healthcare centers. By overriding this regulation, Republicans will allow States and title X grantees to pick and choose who provides these services based on arbitrary criteria that have nothing to do with the quality of services patients will receive. It is no wonder that none of them is here to talk about it. Now, if they were here--and they have said so in public--they might argue that they support this resolution because they oppose abortion. So let me be clear. This regulation is about access to family planning services, not about access to abortion. I know many of my colleagues disagree with me that abortion should be safe and legal. They have shown that disagreement by their repeated attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade and make it harder for women to access constitutionally protected healthcare. While they may disagree, it is still the law of the land. In any event, this regulation is not about access to abortion. This regulation is about ensuring that States cannot discriminate against qualified providers that are an essential part of a safety net that serves women who have no place else to go. Those providers are willing to provide necessary, culturally sensitive care to individuals who otherwise would simply be without access to that care. Title X funding does not go to abortion services. It goes to provide much needed family planning services. There is so much that the title X program does that I believe my colleagues would agree is absolutely vital to the health of women. I know we agree on wanting to reduce teen and unintended pregnancies. Without the contraceptive care provided by title X sites, the teen pregnancy rate would be 30 percent higher and the unintended pregnancy rate would have been 33 percent higher. We should agree on that point. We should also agree on wanting to find ways to save money in the healthcare system. In 2010, health services provided at title X centers resulted in net savings of $7 billion in Federal and State funds. Those savings are indicative of the fact that every dollar invested in publicly funded family planning saves taxpayers $7. That is a great deal for the taxpayers of our Nation. That is a humane and profoundly significant deal for the women whose lives are bettered. We should all agree that preventing disease and saving health and lives is not only about dollars and cents. It is about the future of our Nation. Title X began as a bipartisan program to support family planning services over 40 years ago, an era that was less divisive and when this Chamber was less divided. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of ensuring these services. States cannot restrict an already overburdened network of safety net providers. Family planning services are provided through State, county, and local health departments, as well as hospitals, family planning councils, Planned Parenthood, and federally qualified health centers. Providers that focus on reproductive health comprise 72 percent of all title X-supported sites, and they are critical to delivering high- quality family planning services. They are particularly able to offer the full range of contraceptive methods and to help women start and effectively use the methods that will work best for them individually. There is simply no excess capacity in that safety net system now. For Republicans to allow States to remove providers from the networks based on arbitrary criteria is simply unwise and, in fact, unconscionable. The foundation of the program's success is the longstanding intent that its provider network be designed by the communities it serves to help patients have access to trusted, highly qualified, family planning providers. Just a few weeks ago, I met with some providers and volunteers from Planned Parenthood of North Hartford. I was deeply impressed with their dedication, their skill, and their humanity. In a high-need, low-income community like North Hartford, access to primary care is limited. Young men and women who come to this clinic have chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, depression, high blood pressure, and headaches. Left untreated, they have to be addressed at emergency rooms at much higher costs. The clinicians recognized that there was an additional need for health services and for other providers in the community to meet them, but they were currently unable to do so. So they decided to initiate full-scope primary care services in Hartford, in addition to the comprehensive women's health services, so as to fully serve the men and women who choose to come to Planned Parenthood of North Hartford for their reproductive health and family planning care needs. Patients there are seen for acute conditions and chronic problems, physicals, preventive vaccinations, as well as services to quit smoking. If there were ever a cost-effective program anywhere in the United States, then the North Hartford project is a sterling example. Just to give one example, recently, a young woman came to this Planned Parenthood for birth control. She was found to have high blood pressure. So her provider started her on blood pressure medication and counseled her on dietary and lifestyle changes. She started exercising regularly and improved her diet, lost 30 pounds, and no longer needed the medication to control her blood pressure. Is that kind of treatment cost effective? The facts speak for themselves--the real facts--giving patients a choice, giving them a chance, giving them the counseling and care they need to save dollars and save lives. Community healthcare centers like that in North Hartford simply cannot accommodate all the family planning patients who would lose coverage or funding if title X funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates, like Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, are eliminated. That is a lesson of this Planned Parenthood that is undeniable. That may well be why our Republican colleagues have yielded back all of their time. The real facts are undeniable. The real need is irrefutable. My colleagues and I are here today not because we are asking for more money or a change in how the funding program is used. We are standing up and speaking out against shortsighted efforts that would restrict access to family planning services for some of the most vulnerable patients--many of them voiceless in these halls; faceless, otherwise-- in areas that are least able to absorb this cruel and inhumane change in the rules. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution and to stand strong for women's and men's healthcare across the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here on behalf of 55 million working Americans who lack access to retirement savings plans through their employers. These numbers underscore a very, very uncomfortable truth for many Americans--that there is a looming retirement crisis in our Nation. Congress must do more to preserve, protect, and strengthen retirement savings for all Americans. I come to the floor to express my strong opposition to the legislation before us, which would do precisely the opposite. H.J. Res. 67 would tear down ongoing efforts at the State and municipal levels to assist, not obstruct, hard-working Americans in preparing for financially stable and rewarding retirements. I also want to express my very deep concern about efforts by my Republican colleagues to force a vote on H.J. Res. 66 in the very near future. I would advise my colleagues to reconsider their taking action on both of these misguided proposals right away. While many private sector employers have the option to set up and their employees have the choice to contribute to their own retirement savings accounts, fewer than 10 percent of workers who are without access to a workplace plan contribute to retirement savings accounts outside of their employers. To address this growing issue, in August of 2016, under the guidance of the Obama administration, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides critical guidance for States on how to administer programs that are designed to improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. These State-facilitated retirement programs would allow State governments to provide automatic enrollment in State- sponsored IRA programs, with there being the opportunity to opt out at any time. There are misguided and progressive proposals that seek to overturn the critical rulemaking that protects Americans in this process. If passed, these resolutions, very simply, will cripple ongoing efforts on the State level to ensure that retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all workers. In my home State of Connecticut, we have led efforts to find secure and innovative ways to address the growing retirement savings gap for nearly 600,000 working people in Connecticut who lack access to employer-based retirement savings. The Connecticut Retirement Security Authority has led this effort. It was created in 2016, and it is based on almost 2 years of market research, public hearings, meetings, and broad input from employers, potential participants, and representatives of the financial sector. We are moving in the right direction in Connecticut. Programs that represent a strong step in the right direction have been fostered and built by encouraging State facilitation with private providers. These plans allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings accounts in Connecticut. That effort would be set back by these proposals to undercut and reverse progress made at the Federal level. Incomprehensibly, these bills would severely undercut efforts to promote State and city auto-IRA programs. It is a blatant attack on these programs and on working families in Connecticut and elsewhere. I urge my colleagues who believe that Congress should spend time in expanding, not limiting, access to innovative solutions to the American savings crisis to join me in opposing these resolutions. They have broad economic implications. They set back job creation as well as economic progress. There are 55 million individuals--many of them in Connecticut--who lack the ability to save for retirement directly from their paychecks. This gap is exacerbated by the fact that nearly 20 percent of people between the ages of 55 and 64 have, virtually, zero in retirement savings. That is true of Connecticut and every State in our country. A lack of retirement savings leads to disastrous results and jeopardizes access to adequate meals, healthcare, and other necessities. Simply put, no American family and, certainly, no Connecticut family should be deterred or discouraged from planning for the future by saving responsibly. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67 because States and municipalities should have the flexibility to implement proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare themselves for retirement. Russia and Trump Campaign Investigation Mr. President, I find in Connecticut--and, I am sure, my colleagues find around the country--that Americans are outraged and appalled by Russia's disinformation campaign that has been waged against our free and fair electoral process. There is no question now--the intelligence agencies have confirmed it--that Russia interfered in the campaign of this latest election. Our electoral process is the bedrock of our democracy. Russian interference in our election is an attack on our democracy. Indeed, it is an attack on America. Some believe--and I join them in this concern--that it is an act of war. As appalling as the Russians' actions have been, I am equally--if not more--concerned about the ``see no evil, hear no evil'' attitude of this administration. It was aided in its election by Russia's campaign of disinformation, malign theft, its dissemination of private data, propaganda, and cyber attack. That cyber attack was unconscionable and unprecedented in its scope and scale. Our Nation's intelligence community has provided chilling and absolutely horrifying confirmation of this Russian interference in our democracy. Yet the White House continually dismisses these reports. This week, we are learning that they actually may be actively interfering with and trying to redirect efforts by Congress to discover the full extent of Russia's cyber intrusion. The bottom line here is that only a special prosecutor at the Department of Justice can apply sunlight and conduct a vigorous, independent investigation. Only a special prosecutor can remove this stain on our democracy. Only a special prosecutor can provide our Nation with assurance that wrongdoing will be effectively investigated and then charged and prosecuted. Only a special prosecutor can give us the closure we need and deserve. Every day, evidence mounts pointing to the need to investigate these Russian ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. The more we learn, the more troubled and outraged the American people become. Just this week, revelations have surfaced that Representative Nunes, chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House, met on White House grounds with a source who showed him secret American intelligence reports that he then used to defend President Trump's claims that his closest associates were under surveillance by the Obama administration. That this information actually came from a meeting at the White House has intensified questions about where the information actually originated and whether the President's team is actually meddling in the congressional investigation. Chairman Nunes's actions have fatally tainted the House Intelligence Committee investigation and infected it with the virus of partisan bias. Just yesterday, we also learned, based on letters obtained by the Washington Post, that the Trump administration sought to block former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates from testifying to Congress in the House investigation, adding additional taint. We all recall she is the one who blew the whistle on the real risk of General Flynn being blackmailed by the Kremlin. Instead of thanking her, the President fired her. After firing her for doing her job, the administration is now intent on stopping her as a witness from revealing exactly what the President knew about his adviser's ties to foreign interests. The House investigation is incontrovertibly compromised by having a Trump surrogate running and organizing it and the administration--at least in appearance and likely in reality--controlling its access to the facts. There is a growing body of evidence that clearly and unmistakably indicates that the Trump campaign and his associates were in contact with Russia during the election, and these deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an American election deserve exacting and aggressive investigation. The declassified report from the intelligence community clearly identifies Russia Today as a state-sponsored propaganda source that was integral to Putin's campaign to interfere in that election, and it makes it equally clear, and deplorably so, that former National Security Advisor Flynn accepted $45,000 to praise Russia Today in Moscow and dine with Putin at the network's request. We know as well that Attorney General Sessions and Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and now senior adviser, had unreported meetings with Russian officials, including the head of a Russian bank under U.S. sanctions. The President's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, funneled millions of dollars into offshore accounts from a Russian oligarch through the Bank of Cyprus, which was owned at the time by Wilbur Ross, now serving as the President's Commerce Secretary. These contacts form a network of facts and suspicion, but more than suspicion, there are real sources of information and facts. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' These disclosures are all the more reason--indeed, compelling evidence--that a special prosecutor is necessary to investigate Russia's ties and contacts with the Trump campaign. Immediate, aggressive measures to hold Russia accountable and deter further aggression must be taken. Those actions must be based on facts as well, but we must acknowledge publicly that the need for deterrence requires effective responses, appropriate and necessary measures to send a message and inflict the kind of cost that is necessary to show Russia that we will never accept these kinds of attacks. At stake is not only Russia's view of this country and deterrence to further attacks but also the credibility and trust of the American people in the Department of Justice, and that is where a special prosecutor is absolutely vital. I support the work of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, and I trust the members of that committee to do their work responsibly. I believe as well that we should have a select committee--or, even better, an independent commission--that will make findings of fact, produce recommendations, have public proceedings, and then, in the interest of full transparency and disclosure, produce a report with recommendations that will help provide a path to avoid these kinds of attacks on our democracy in the future and potential collusion between Americans and those attacks. I believe that an independent commission would serve a worthwhile purpose, but neither the Intelligence Committee, nor a select committee, nor an independent commission can do what is equally important, which is prosecute wrongdoers. None of these bodies, whether congressional or independent commission, can investigate criminal wrongdoing so as to assure an effective and successful prosecution. That work must be done with the FBI and supervision of an independent, special prosecutor who can investigate vigorously and independently and then take action and bring charges if they are warranted. I support the investigation of the Intelligence Committee, which should do its work, the appointment of a select committee that can produce findings of fact and a report and recommendation, and an independent commission that can do the same kind of public, transparent, open disclosure. A special prosecutor does not produce a report; they and the team will produce a prosecution, if it is warranted. They are the only ones who can prosecute. We cannot stand idle while Russia interferes and threatens our political infrastructure, which now includes our electoral system. Neither can we stand idle while our Department of Justice is leaderless or, worse yet, has a prosecutor who also may be tainted by the fact that he reports to the Attorney General or to the President. The Attorney General has recused himself, with good reason, because he was implicated in allegations surrounding collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian interference. The allegations of collusion are serious. They must be investigated, and the investigation and potential prosecution must be done by someone who is independent--a special prosecutor. Revelation upon revelation day after day leaves us with no choice. In fact, we had no choice well before now, but the disclosures that have surfaced just within the last hours and days confirm that justice will not be vindicated unless we have a special prosecutor. That is why I have chosen to block the nomination and confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General. I will consider doing it with other nominees as well. I feel so strongly--and I hope my colleagues do as well--that a special prosecutor is necessary to vindicate justice, to make sure that Americans have trust and confidence in our Department of Justice and in the ability of the United States to protect its democracy and the integrity of its electoral process. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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