Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer well knows, the Secretary of State is one of the most important positions in the President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's chief diplomat, and he champions American values. He is the symbol in a sense, the chief voice and advocate around the world of America. The Secretary of State is in a sense our representative to the world, embodying and promoting, hopefully, the best in America to billions of people around the globe, proving to the world yet again that America is exceptional, that we are the greatest country in the history of the world, and that we have a respect for the rule of law, for human dignity and rights for all, including the right to live in a safe and free environment. Past Secretaries of State have changed history, averted and navigated war, brokered peace, championed human rights, and fought to make the world a better place. In this time of immense uncertainty, we must demand nothing less of our next Secretary of State than that he be a great reflection and representative of the United States to the world. The likes of Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Marshall, and Charles Evan Hughes have all held this position. To join these titans or even to aspire to their position is no small challenge. We need a candidate who will continue to embody what is right even in the face of resistance from adversaries and foes who do not admire and, in fact, seek to do harm to our way of life. As ExxonMobil's CEO, the President's nominee, Rex Tillerson, has worked hard and successfully for his corporation. In fact, he has put that corporation's interests ahead of America's interests. That may have been his job, and I understand that was his job description, but doing that job well does not qualify him to be our Nation's chief diplomat and to assume the mantle of defending our national interests. Having worked for four decades for this oil giant, without any government experience, I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson has shown he is able to reverse this oil interest mindset and put America's needs before his former employer. I do not have faith that he can rise to the paramount challenge of representing us on the world stage. I share my colleagues' concerns. We have heard numerous of our colleagues express the same view--that his oil interests will harm the progress we have made to protect the environment and slow the impact of climate change. I say that reluctantly because I hope I am wrong. He is likely to be confirmed, but I hope my colleagues think hard and long and join me in opposing Rex Tillerson. I am also hopeful that a number of his other stances, such as enforcing sanctions that hold our adversaries accountable--notably, Russia and Iran--will change as well. These stances have been troubling. I have little confidence that Mr. Tillerson will vigorously enforce these sanctions and even less confidence that he will guide President Trump to provide the crucial advice our demonstrably rash and ill-advised President needs. I want to point particularly to some of the tactics ExxonMobil used in its litigation against legal challenges that were brought based on climate change information that allegedly was concealed by ExxonMobil. These tactics are deeply troubling, and I hope that maybe the toughness of ExxonMobil in those tactics will be replicated in the toughness that is brought to bear in enforcing the sanctions against Iran and Russia because he has shown a troublesome trend of opposing sanctions that have held Iran accountable--sanctions that pushed Iran to the table in negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement, which has made our world a safer place. Across decades and administrations, the Senate reached an overwhelmingly bipartisan consensus that the Iran regime should be aggressively sanctioned for its global missile program, state sponsorship of terrorism, and gross human rights violations. ExxonMobil directly and together with other global oil companies and through the financing of third-party advocacy organizations has persistently tried to stop Congress from passing sanctions legislation. ExxonMobil has been a board member of USA Engage since its founding in 1997 and from 2003 to 2007 held the chairmanship of that organization. For two decades it has actively lobbied Congress to oppose Iran-related sanctions bills, including last year for at least four such pieces of legislation. ExxonMobil has worked to prevent the authorization and extension of the Iran sanctions act, which I am proud to say was renewed for another 10 years by Congress, becoming law just a few weeks ago, and I was proud to support it. Yet, during Mr. Tillerson's hearing, he denied that ExxonMobil ever lobbied against Iran's sanctions, in the face of facts to the contrary. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Foreign policy experts and military leadership have explicitly identified Russia as a growing threat and a violator of international law. Many of us in this body--in fact, I would say the majority--have recognized that fact. Yet Mr. Tillerson does not seem to treat Russia with the same gravity. We need a Secretary of State who is going to work with our NATO allies and stand up for us and not give Putin a pass. We are all aware of Mr. Tillerson's inappropriate stance toward relations with a country responsible for assaults on world order through cyber attacks, illegal land grabs, and war crimes. We are the victims of a cyber attack by Russia, an act of cyber war. The Secretary of State must be somebody who regards that kind of attack as intolerable and unacceptable. Mr. Tillerson's affinity for Russia is alarming because he adds to the growing list of Putin admirers in this administration, and that list unfortunately includes the President himself and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Mr. Tillerson's opposition to sanctions imposed on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 was not the result of national security concerns but, rather, because ExxonMobil stood to make millions, even billions of dollars from the business deal that corporation had recently made with Russia to develop its oil and gas interests. What is good for ExxonMobil is not necessarily good for the United States of America. These sanctions were put in place because Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unacceptable and now has led to at least 10,000 deaths, 20,000 wounded, and 2 million people displaced. These are hard numbers and hard facts--the result of Russian aggression that must be countered. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have fought to include and pass the NDAA's robust funding for Ukrainian assistance. I am proud to say that this initiative was successful. I also successfully urged a provision that terminated U.S. contracts with the Russian arms export agency. Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his nomination hearing that his stance was unchanged. He could not admit that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, despite these deaths and the torture involved in this aggression and other similar acts, or to say that the sanctions against Putin's Russia are necessary and appropriate. His views are inconsistent with the interests of the United States of America. Given his troubling trend of dodging questions during his testimony, I cannot confidently say that he will follow the clear direction of Congress concerning sanctions policy. I will say bluntly and frankly to my colleagues that my particular concern is that sanctions laws contain waivers. Those waivers are provided to the President for the rare requirement that such sanctions may be waived when it is in the national interest or for national security. This exception must be used exceedingly sparingly and judiciously. Sanctions without enforcement are worse than no sanctions at all. They are meaningless, and they raise false expectations. My fear is that under Mr. Tillerson, if he is advising President Trump, those exemptions and exceptions will swallow the rule. Talking about rules, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will be responsible for executing President Trump's extremely misguided policy expanding the global gag rule, which prevents foreign aid from being provided to global health programs that discuss or provide abortion services. The result will be to obstruct programs that cover everything from HIV prevention to maternal and child care and epidemic disease responses, putting lives at risk. This is just the opposite of what we ought to be doing. It makes the world less safe, as does this weekend's Executive order that bans refugees and Muslims. We need someone willing and able to voice resistance and opposition to policies that flagrantly fly in the face of everything we value--our American values. We need a Secretary of State ready to stand up for the most vulnerable people and speak truth to power, even when that power is the President of the United States. The fact is, sadly, that Mr. Tillerson has never taken strong stances on these issues, leaving us guessing as to what he will do when and if he is in office. I cannot support anyone to be Secretary of State who fails to condemn the suspension of our Refugee Resettlement Program directly under his purview. When we target refugees, we target people who are victims of the same oppressors and tyrants and murderers that we call enemies. Refugees are not our enemies. Many are fleeing the murderous Syrian regime and ISIL, which are our enemies. We are at war with ISIL, and we must win that war. We are disadvantaged by a policy that excludes refugees on the basis of religion, because we alienate our allies with the sources of intelligence and troops on the ground, and we lead to the misimpression--and it is a misimpression--that we are at war against Islam or our Muslim neighbors when, in fact, our enemy is violent extremists. These refugees and immigrants see America as a beacon of hope, but they are now receiving the message that, whoever they are and however strong their claim to come here is, their religion will bar them, their religion denies them the right to come to this country, their religion will ban them. Mr. Tillerson has never denounced this strategy when it does so much to damage our international credibility, our values at home, and our Constitution. Four judges have stayed the President's Executive orders. My respectful opinion is that the President's orders are, in fact, illegal. The question is this: Will he defend career diplomats who have spoken out against these policies? Will he take a stand himself against them? Will he stand up for American values? One story in particular struck me because it involves my own State of Connecticut. Last Saturday, a Syrian refugee who settled in Milford, CT, 2 years ago, Fadi Kassar, anxiously awaited the arrival of his wife and two daughters, ages 5 and 8. He has not seen them since resettling in this country. His family was turned away before they could board a flight to the United States. They were told they were not going to be allowed to enter this country following the President's refugee ban. Despite having been granted refugee status--asylum--three days before the refugee ban, they would no longer be united with Mr. Kassar in the United States. I am working--and I hope the Secretary of Homeland Security may be listening, if not at this moment then at some point in the future, to my entreaty that he do the right thing, that he make their entry possible. They have gone through all of the necessary screenings, submitted all of the necessary forms. Yet, under the President's Executive action, they are denied refuge in the United States based only on their nationality and their religion. Mr. Kassar's family is now back in Jordan without luggage, without clothes, and without the new home they were so close to having. My office has offered assistance to Mr. Kassar's lawyers, and we are working to help in any way we can. The United States--Connecticut in particular--has a proud moral tradition and heritage of aiding refugees who need our help when their own homelands are in turmoil. President Trump's egregious acts contravene our values, contradict our Constitution, and should be rescinded immediately. Mr. Tillerson, join me in urging President Trump to rip up this order. It is the only solution. I am not confident, until I hear him say so, that he is ready to be the leader we need in the Department of State to ensure that America's values of acceptance and assistance hold strong in an administration that directly challenges these most cherished traditions and values. Our Secretary of State must be clear-eyed about threats facing our Nation, both from adversaries abroad and others who would do us harm inside our borders. I regretfully conclude that Mr. Tillerson has failed to demonstrate that ability to do so, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination. 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.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow that very eloquent speech by my colleague from Colorado and to be followed on the floor by our colleague from Massachusetts. We are here today with stories. Every one of us has a story going back one generation, maybe two or three, maybe five or ten, but we all have an immigrant story. Most of those immigrant stories are about people coming here to seek hope, opportunity, and, yes, safety; to escape violence and persecution; to come here for refuge. I met one of those refugees over this weekend in West Hartford at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony. Abby Weiner is a Romanian Jew who survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald but lost his parents there. He was honored by Voices of Hope at this Holocaust remembrance ceremony at a synagogue in West Hartford, attended by 500, 700 people. There was a massive outpouring of support for him and for the values that are represented by people who come here as immigrants fleeing persecution and violence, as he did in Nazi Germany. He said: The words came before the bullets and gas chambers. The words of Nazi Germany came before the bullets and gas chambers. Words have consequences. Edicts and orders have consequences. When I spoke, I told my own story--a proud story of my father, who also came here from Nazi Germany in 1935. He was 17 years old. He spoke virtually no English, he had not much more than the shirt on his back, and he knew almost no one. This great country, the greatest in the history of the world, gave him a chance to succeed. He was a proud American. How sad and ashamed he would be today to see actions by the President of the United States that ban a group coming to this country based on their religion--a ban that is antithetical to our history, our values, our Constitution, and the rule of law. I salute Sally Yates, who has taken a stand based on moral and legal principle in the highest tradition of the Department of Justice, saying that these orders cannot be defended and that the rule of law and morality is more important than the politics of the moment and the impulsive edicts of a ruler who apparently fails to understand that law--or, at least his administration does. It raises the question of whether the next Attorney General--she is only acting--will have the strength and courage to uphold the rule of law. Tomorrow, I will vote against our respected and admired colleague, Jeff Sessions, because I believe that the next Attorney General must be a champion--a steadfast advocate and protector of the rule of law and rights and liberties that are overridden and abridged by this order banning people from Muslim-majority nations, in effect a ban on a religious group. We are better than this kind of discriminatory edict. We know it harms mainly children and families fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees like those children have helped to shape and build this Nation. We are stronger because of our diversity. We are a nation of immigrants. Our strength comes from the talents, energies, strengths, and vibrancy they bring to this country. Often, when I am feeling down about our public life, I go to immigration and naturalization ceremonies. They occur every Friday in courts around the State of Connecticut. I welcome people who are becoming citizens, and I say to them: Thank you for becoming a citizen of the greatest country in the world. You are a source of strength for us, and you have taken a test that most Americans could not pass. They laugh because they know it is true. They will never take for granted what it means to be a citizen of this country. I look at them in their diversity, and I know that is America. That is our future. We will be less safe because of this order, which will alienate allies and deny us sources of intelligence to troops on the ground that we need to win the war against ISIS, and we must win that war. It will provide a recruiting tool to ISIS, convincing young people who may be tempted to join their ranks that, in fact, this country is engaged in a war against Islam, which is utterly and totally untrue. It will discourage people from within the United States who are part of the Muslim community from coming forth when they see threats and could provide information that would forestall an attack by violent extremists within our country. This order makes us less safe, but it weakens us mainly in a deeper moral sense: It is wrong. It is wrong for this great country, devoted and founded on the ideals of welcoming people seeking that beacon of hope and protection and opportunity. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol, but the ideals and the values are living. The damage that has been done to them can be repaired. We must repair it and reverse this order. That is why I have sponsored legislation that will rescind it, and why I am proud to join my colleagues today on the floor of the Senate to say: Rip up this order, Mr. President. With all respect, do the right thing. Be on the right side of history and the right side of our Constitution. Rip up this illegal order. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this past Sunday we celebrated the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that assured every woman of her constitutional right to make her own decision about whether and when to have a child. That fundamental constitutional right is the right to privacy, which all women should cherish and protect. This weekend, in fact, many of us in Washington, DC, and around the country marched in the streets of our home States--or here, as I did-- in support of these ideals and values, including the right to privacy, other civil rights and liberties, economic opportunity, and women's access to health care, which truly make America great. Fundamental to the principle of women's access to health care is the Roe v. Wade decision that reaffirms the constitutional right to reproductive decisions made by women individually on their own in consultation with their health care providers, their families, their clergy. I was a clerk for Justice Blackmun in the term after Roe v. Wade was decided, and I can tell you that we all believed then very strongly that that Supreme Court decision would put to rest the question of legal access to abortion in this great country. In fact, it did not. Despite 7 in 10 Americans opposing the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade according to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, the outliers and extremists still seek to eliminate the right to legal abortion. That broad public support was embodied in the spirit and dedication shown over this past weekend by protesters across the world, and I was reminded yet again that we must continue to fight for what we believe, particularly in light of the ongoing threats to and attacks on women's health care. Efforts to undermine these rights have redoubled in recent years, and throughout the past decade we have seen unprecedented attacks through State efforts to chip away at that vitally protected constitutional right. From 2011 to 2016, there were 334 restrictions enacted by States that would cut back on Roe v. Wade rights, accounting for 30 percent of all abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that case. The force dedicated to enacting these restrictions, which are designed to undermine the right to reproductive health care, can be particularly disheartening as they disregard the health needs of the most vulnerable population of the women who are most often impacted, by also seeking, or at least claiming to seek, to advance women's health care. In fact, many of those restrictions are a ruse. They are enacted in the name of health care but are a disguise for restrictions on health care. They have left many women, particularly in rural and underserved locations, with little access to health care, including basic care such as cancer screening, STD testing, and preventive health care. Clearly, improving women's health care has failed to be the focus of State legislatures in these instances, as they have actively worked to restrict access to care and chip away at the constitutional protections provided in Roe v. Wade. I joined with Senator Murray in leading a total of 163 Members of the House and Senate in filing an amicus brief in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Last summer, the Supreme Court overturned the restriction at issue in that case, reiterating and clarifying the ``undue burden'' standard in Roe and debunking the lie that anti-choice extremists have been pushing for years--that medically unnecessary, onerous restrictions on clinics and clinicians that provide women abortions do not make women safer. In fact, they simply constrain access. I am hopeful that this decision will help stem and stop the assault on women's health care taking place in so many States and communities around the country. So I am joining with my colleague, Senator Murray, who was here just minutes ago--a wonderful champion of this cause--as well as Senator Shaheen, whom I believe will be speaking later today on Roe v. Wade's anniversary, in pushing back on this policy by introducing legislation to permanently repeal the global gag rule that the Trump administration, as one of its first acts, has announced, which will reverse much of the progress that President Obama made in relation to international family planning. This legislation will seek to move that progress forward again and forestall the effort to roll back that process and turn back the clock. I will oppose any and all efforts by the Trump administration to move our country backwards, including yesterday's reversion to the global gag rule. This 44th anniversary of Roe v. Wade should be a reminder about the importance of fighting for the right of privacy, the right to live life free of governmental interference, and, as one of our Supreme Court Justices said, the right to be let alone--in effect, let alone from government interference. It is a right that I have fought for and that so many others have fought for throughout my career and throughout my time as a Senator and the attorney general of Connecticut. It is a right we should all continue to keep at the forefront of our work here in the Senate and for all of us in this country. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate is holding hearings on each of President-Elect Trump's nominees to his Cabinet. Traditionally, Presidents are accorded a very high level of deference on assembling their own team, in part because these nominees are directly accountable to the President. But they are accountable to the American people too. No Cabinet member is more powerful or has more impact on the day-to- day lives of Americans than the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is, indeed, a general, in command of an army of thousands of lawyers whose words carry enormous weight and power. It is the weight and power of the people of the United States. He speaks for us. He charges defendants in our name. He has sweeping authority to bring criminal charges in all Federal offenses, enormous unreviewable discretion in cases ranging from minor misdemeanors to the most serious felonies. In every sense, as capital penalties can be sought for some of these crimes, he wields the power of life and death. The Attorney General's authority is not only sweeping, it is uniquely independent of the President's Cabinet. His decisions must supersede partisan politics. In most cases, there is no recourse to overrule his decisions unless there is political interference. He is not just another government lawyer or even just another member of the President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's lawyer, and he must be the Nation's legal counsel and conscience. The job of U.S. Attorney General at stake here is one that I know pretty well. Like some of my colleagues in this body, I served as U.S. attorney, the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut. I reported to the U.S. Attorney General. For years afterward as a private litigator and then as attorney general of the State of Connecticut for 20 years, I fought alongside and sometimes against the U.S. Attorney General and the legal forces at his disposal. I have seen his power, or hers, firsthand. The power of this Attorney General is awesome, as is that of any Attorney General. In the best of cases, they are inspiring too. Even as he protects the public from vicious and violent criminal offenders, his role is also to protect the innocent from unfounded charges that could shatter their lives even if they are acquitted. As Justice Robert Jackson, a former Attorney General himself, once said: His job is not to convict, but to assure justice is done. So this job requires a singular level of intellect and integrity and nonpartisan but passionate devotion to the rule of law and an extraordinary sense of conscience. That is because he is responsible for so much more than prosecuting and preventing crime and ensuring public safety. He is responsible for aggressively upholding our Nation's sacred constitutional commitment to protecting individual rights and liberties and preventing infringement on them, even by the government itself, maybe especially by the government. This responsibility for safeguarding equal justice under the law is particularly important today, at a time when those civil rights and freedoms are so much in peril. This historic moment demands a person whose life work, professional career, and record shows that he will make the guarantee under our Constitution of equal justice under law a core mandate of his tenure. Having reviewed the full record and recent testimony, regrettably and respectfully, I cannot support the President-elect's nominee, our colleague and friend Jeff Sessions, for this job. At his confirmation hearing, Senator Sessions simply said he would follow the law and he would obey it, but the Attorney General of the United States must be more than a follower. He must be a leader in protecting the essential constitutional rights and liberties. He must be a champion, a zealous advocate. He must actively pursue justice, not just passively follow or obey the law. Senator Sessions' record reflects a hostility and antipathy--in fact, downright opposition--to civil rights and voting rights, women's health care and privacy rights, antidiscrimination measures, and religious freedom safeguards. He has prided himself on his vociferous opposition to immigration reform legislation, a measure that passed this body with 68 bipartisan votes, and a criminal justice reform bill that has attracted a group of 25 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. He even split with the majority of his own party to vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He opposed hate crime prohibitions. Senator Sessions' views and positions on these issues and others, which are critical to protecting and championing rights and liberties under our Constitution, are simply out of the mainstream. There is nothing in Senator Sessions' record, including his testimony before the Judiciary Committee this week, that indicates he will be the constitutional champion the Nation needs at this point in its history. Equally important, the Attorney General must speak truth to power. He must be ready, willing, and able to say no to the President of the United States and ensure that the President is never above the law. Senator Sessions' record and testimony give me no confidence that he will fulfill this core task. When I asked him about enforcement of cases against illegal conflicts of interest involving the President and his family, such as violations of the emoluments clause or the STOCK Act, he equivocated. When I asked him about appointing a special counsel to investigate criminal wrongdoing at Deutsche Bank, owed more than $300 million by Donald Trump, he equivocated. When I asked him about abstaining from voting on other Presidential nominees while he is in the Senate, he equivocated. Those answers give me no confidence that he will be the independent, nonpolitical law enforcer against conflicts of interest and official self-enrichment that the Nation needs now more than ever--at a moment when the incoming administration faces ethical and legal controversies that are unprecedented in scope and scale. Senator Sessions' record over many years and his recent testimony fail to demonstrate the core commitments and convictions necessary in our next Attorney General. Back in 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Senator Sessions' nomination to a Federal judgeship due to remarks he made and actions he took in a position of public trust as U.S. attorney in Alabama. However, my position on his nomination is primarily based on his record since those hearings and less on what was considered at that time. On voting rights, Senator Sessions has often condoned barriers to Americans exercising their franchise. He has been a leading opponent of provisions in the Voting Rights Act designed to ensure that African Americans can vote in places, such as his home State of Alabama, which have a unique history of racial segregation. He has advocated for needlessly restrictive and draconian voter ID laws, citing utterly debunked threats of rampant voter fraud as an excuse for curtailing the real and legitimate rights of entire groups of voters. On privacy--very important--Senator Sessions has passionately opposed this longstanding American right, which is enshrined in five decades of Supreme Court precedent. It protects women's health care and personal decisions involving reproductive rights. At a time when these rights are facing an unprecedented assault, he has continued to condemn Roe v. Wade and the many court decisions upholding that case. He is also supported by extremist groups like Operation Rescue that defend the murder of doctors and the vilification and criminalization of women. With him as Attorney General, American women would understandably feel less secure about those rights. On religious freedom, Senator Sessions has advocated for using a religious test to determine which immigrants can enter this country. When this issue arose in committee, Senator Sessions was the only Senator--the only Senator--to argue forcefully for religious tests and against principles of religious liberty that have animated our Republic since its founding. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, a Trump administration would enjoy a permanent green light for any racially or religiously discriminatory immigration policy that might appeal to him. On citizenship, Senator Sessions has called for abolishing a time- honored tradition that dates back to reconstruction. Birthright citizenship is the distinctly American concept that anyone born on our soil is a citizen of our country. We do not exclude people from citizenship based on the nationality of their parents or grandparents. Senator Sessions disagrees, a position that most other Republicans think is extreme. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, the Trump administration would be encouraged in attempting to deport American citizens--who have raised families and spent their entire lives here--from the only country they have ever known. Senator Sessions declined my invitation at his nomination hearing to exercise moral and legal leadership and demonstrate his resolve to serve as the Nation's legal conscience. He refused to reject the possibility of using information voluntarily provided by DACA applicants to deport them and their families. As a matter of fundamental fairness and due process, when a DREAMer has provided information to our government after being invited to come out of the shadows, this information should never be used to deport that person. With Senator Sessions as Attorney General, that sense of legal conscience would be lacking. On issues of discrimination and equal protection, Senator Sessions has publicly opposed marriage equality, claiming it ``weakens marriage'' and even tried to eliminate protections for LGBT Americans contained in the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. He has repeatedly voted against steps to enhance enforcement against hate crimes--violent assaults involving bigotry or bias based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. He even defended President- Elect Trump's shocking admission on video of his pattern of engaging in sexual assault. Senator Sessions himself has said that public officials can be fairly judged by assessing who their supporters are. Senator Sessions is backed by groups with ties to White supremacists. He has even accepted an award and repeated campaign donations from groups whose founder openly promotes the goal of maintaining a ``European American majority'' in our society. Neither award, nor many other important parts of Senator Sessions' record, was reported on the questionnaire he prepared for the Judiciary Committee. I gave Senator Sessions an opportunity at the hearing earlier this week to repudiate these hate groups and racist individuals who have endorsed his nomination and supported him in the past. In fact, instead he doubled down, saying that a man who has accused African Americans of excessive criminality and American Muslims of extensive ties to terrorism was ``a most brilliant individual.'' So I reach my decision to oppose this nomination with regret because Jeff Sessions is a colleague and a friend to all of us. Indeed, he and I have a rapport. I have come to like and respect him through a number of shared experiences in this building, traveling abroad, and outside. We have common causes. He and I both support law enforcement professionals who serve our communities and the Nation with dedication and courage. They are never given sufficient thanks and appreciation. He and I both believe that individual corporate criminal culpability should be pursued more vigorously. Individual corporate executives should be held accountable for the wrongdoing of corporations when they are criminally involved. This job, this decision, this responsibility is different. Here, my disagreements stem from bedrock constitutional principles. While I could envision deferring to Presidential authority and supporting him for other positions, my objections to his nomination here relate specifically to this particular, essential, all-powerful job. At this historic moment, there must be no doubt about the ironclad commitment of the Attorney General of the United States to the bedrock principle of equal justice under law, his resolve to be an independent voice, assuring that the President is never above the law, his determination to be a champion for all people of America and our constitutional principles that protect all people, and to be a legal conscience for the Nation. Reviewing his record, I cannot assure the people of Connecticut or the country that Jeff Sessions would be a vigorous champion of these rights and liberties. Therefore, I stand in opposition to his nomination. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL.--and all who will be mentioned, and on behalf of the people of Connecticut, I vote no.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam Clerk, on behalf of all the people mentioned here tonight--

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senators Hirono and Donnelly. I thank them for their very impressive and steadfast efforts on behalf of Medicare and Medicaid, during a time of tremendous uncertainty in our health care system, as, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle work toward repeal of the Affordable Care Act without any replacement and any clear plan on what the alternative will be. Not only would repeal of the Affordable Care Act impact children and families but most particularly our seniors who have worked hard and have earned the benefits of Medicare. Any additional changes to the program that have been previously suggested by Republicans, whether changing the eligibility age or privatization, have no place in a reconciliation that has not been fully debated by the House and Senate and without a hearing from constituents and stakeholders about what those changes would mean. That is why we are here in support of the very important amendment offered by my colleagues. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that full repeal of the ACA would increase Medicare spending by $802 billion from 2016 to 2025. This increase in potential spending could lead to higher Medicare premiums, deductibles, and cost sharing for beneficiaries. Medicare, as it stands, as we all know, benefits our Nation's seniors who have worked hard and earned this program, but they would rather privatize or gut the program. So this action really should be decided not under reconciliation but by a 60-vote margin after hearings and an opportunity to be heard for our constituents. Similarly, any replacement plan must not include fundamental or restrictive changes to the Medicaid Program. The bottom line is, Medicaid continues to work to provide potential health care to our most vulnerable citizens. I come from a State that is truly making a commitment to make sure our Medicaid Program works. In fact, Connecticut was the first State to take advantage of the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act, allowing the State to cover 72,000 more of our people in the State of Connecticut. In Connecticut, the State has also utilized existing flexibility in the Medicaid Program to improve outcomes through the patient-centered medical home. As a result, in 2016, Medicaid hospital admissions decreased by 5.4 percent, emergency department visits fell 4.3 percent, and people requiring intensive case management saw a reduction of hospital inpatient admissions of nearly 40 percent. These statistics are of staggering scope and scale and profoundly significant. We cannot make mean-spirited changes to the Medicaid Program, such as block granting, that would weaken the safety net, and we cannot allow gutting Medicare, endangering millions of seniors. We will not allow it without a fight. I am determined to join my colleagues in working and fighting for this amendment and keeping the pressure on our colleagues who disagree. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to be here tonight with my very eloquent colleague Senator Franken from Minnesota and also with two colleagues who will follow me shortly, Senator Schatz and Senator Markey, all of them great champions of better, more affordable health care for all the people who live in this great country. This is the greatest country in the history of the world because we care about each other and we care about the common good. That is what the Affordable Care Act represents. It is not perfect. No great social reform ever is the first time around, including Social Security, but it can be repaired and improved without completely repealing it. So repeal without a replacement is the height of irresponsibility. The first order of business for the Republican leadership during this session of Congress is to tear down and rip apart the Affordable Care Act, not to deal with job creation or economic growth. In fact, the Affordable Care Act provides 3 million jobs in our country, and repealing it would eliminate those jobs. No, it is to destroy and decimate a program that has literally saved lives, opened new futures, transformed the existences of millions and millions of Americans who would lose health care coverage if this measure is just repealed. In fact, 22 million people across the country and more than 100,000 in Connecticut would lose that critical insurance. Preexisting conditions would become, again, an excuse for the health care industry and insurance companies to deny coverage. Women would be charged more simply because they are women. And young people would be denied access to their parents' health care coverage up to the age of 26. Those kinds of losses just begin the list, but among the most egregious of the profound defects to this approach is the effect on the Prevention and Public Health Fund. I know it isn't a household term: Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is not exactly on everyone's tongue, but it is a measure that is profoundly important to the future of this Nation if you care about lives and dollars. And if you care about dollars, the $931 million from the Prevention and Public Health Fund is allocated to provide funding for things like diabetes prevention, preventing healthcare-associated infections, chronic disease management, smoking prevention, lead poisoning, suicide prevention, and Alzheimer's disease prevention. You may not consider these kinds of challenges--smoking prevention, lead poisoning, Alzheimer's disease, hospital-acquired infections--as the most glamorous, but treating them costs millions and millions and millions of dollars--in fact, billions of dollars. Just to give you one example, the Tips From Former Smokers campaign, which the Prevention and Public Health Fund supports, has led to an estimated 1.6 million smokers attempting to quit smoking and has helped 100,000 Americans quit smoking. Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the United States. The country spent $133 million on tobacco-related healthcare costs between 2000 and 2012. I just made I think an error. I said $133 million. In fact, it is $133 billion. How easy it seems to confuse billions with millions--$133 billion by investing this kind of money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. We can literally save tens of billions of dollars on smoking-related diseases and premature deaths. Improving public health outcomes and preventing the public from getting sick and dying are important goals in and of themselves because the human suffering and the premature deaths they cause are important, humane causes to our Nation, a nation that cares about people. But the $1.3 trillion in treatment costs and lost productivity every year--let me repeat that--$1.3 trillion in treatment costs and lost productivity every year on chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke can be reduced and, dare I say at some point, reduced by so much that we may look back, and we will say: That Prevention and Public Health Fund was one good investment, but not if it is decimated and destroyed by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which costs us money as well as lives. In Connecticut, the fund has invested over $27 million in our communities since 2010, improving the lives and well-being of the people of Connecticut literally every day. This strong investment has provided more Connecticut women with screenings for cancer, mammograms, other critical, preventive care, and it has given our State health department the ability to prevent diabetes, heart disease, and stroke and to fight obesity through improved physical activity. It has allowed our State to address school health much more effectively, and we are talking about the Nation's children--preventing obesity, smoking, diabetes, which, as we know, more and more affects our children. It has staved off disease outbreaks by providing Connecticut with millions of dollars to provide vaccinations for young people who otherwise would go without, children who would be denied this essential means of preventing emotionally crippling, if not physically debilitating, diseases that can transform their lives forever. Perhaps most importantly, the Prevention Fund has relied on the communities impacted by the money for solutions. That means stronger collaboration between community organizations and the health system to prevent suicides, for example, in the Community Transformation Grants Program that encourages healthier lifestyles across our State. The ACA, in short, has reflected a historic shift. We are trying to prevent, not just treat the disease, and that kind of investment from the Prevention and Public Health Fund in my State and many others has already produced a return on that investment which is of invaluable importance. I have authored an amendment, which currently has 12 cosponsors, to create a budget point of order against any piece of legislation that would take away funding for preventive care. It is very simple. If we are going to work toward reducing the cost of health care in this great country, we should not be talking about getting rid of effective and efficient ways of preventing disease. We ought to be talking about reducing drug prices, stopping costly addictions, preventing disease, and improving the quality and efficiency of care. I want to stress, again, the importance of reducing pharmaceutical drug prices, which has been a concern to me for years in this job and for many more years when I served as our State's attorney general. But reducing health care costs and improving quality is not what our Republican colleagues are trying to do. They are trying to make good on campaign rhetoric and political promises to completely repeal the Affordable Care Act without any replacement, without following through on their commitment to provide health insurance to our Nation's people. We are expected to just wait and see what they have in the plan. Meanwhile, millions of people will be left without health care, and the health care industry will be in confusion and chaos as insurance companies wonder what comes next. The simple fact is that our Republican colleagues have no idea, no clue, no plan. In their view, the Earth is flat. They can abolish something and promise to replace it because they know something will come. That is unacceptable, and I will fight to ensure that the Affordable Care Act continues to mean access to affordable health care for millions of Americans. Most importantly, fairness and effectiveness in health care means prevention. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is critical to that effort. I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of prevention, safeguarding our health, and heed the voices and faces that have been so dramatic and powerful to me, so inspiring in their courage and strength, as they were just this morning when I met with and presented to the people of Connecticut at an event we did there. Three brave women came forward to talk about what the Affordable Care Act had meant to them and what its loss would mean as well. These perhaps not immediately visible voices and faces should be a stirring reminder to our colleagues that we need to do better, improve the Affordable Care Act, make it better--but not simply trash it, decimate it, destroy it, and abandon the great hope and ideal of assuring affordable care for all. I yield now to my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, who has been a champion of affordable care in this Nation and is a great credit to his State of Hawaii.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to an incredible leader, public servant, mentor, and friend. It seems impossible to place a period on the public service career of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. So perhaps this is just an ellipsis. For 36 years, Joe Biden was a towering presence in this body. As a member, ranking member, and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he dove headfirst into the most challenging issues in a volatile world, shaping a generation of U.S. foreign policy. He tackled arms control issues, stood up directly to Slobodan Milosevic, fought against apartheid in South Africa, and strongly advocated for NATO bombing of Serbia in the 1990s. He once called his contribution to ending the Yugoslav wars one of the ``proudest moments'' of his political career. For years, he worked to shape our policy in Iraq and the Middle East. He did so not just from his Washington office, but through regular visits to warzones, where he met face to face with military leaders and enlisted men and women, alike. This is Joe Biden's legacy. As a member and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden spearheaded the Federal assault weapons ban, presided over Supreme Court confirmations, and--in perhaps his most significant legislative triumph--authored the Violence Against Women Act. For generations, violence against women was a private matter--a tragedy suffered over and over by women with no recourse against abusive partners. VAWA brought this scourge out of the shadows and into the open, affirming that domestic violence survivors would NOT also be victimized by the system that was supposed to protect them. Because of VAWA, which Senator Biden helped reauthorize three times, 3.4 million women and men have called the National Domestic Violence Hotline and gotten the support they need. From 1994, when VAWA became law, until 2010, the rate of domestic violence in the United States has fallen by 64 percent. These are real accomplishments and real people--not just statistics. This is Joe Biden's legacy. And, as everyone knows, he did it all commuting daily from and to his beloved Delaware. Then he got a job that included accommodation in Washington, DC. Joe Biden has transformed the job of Vice President. A key liaison to Congress because of his years of relationships on the Hill, Joe Biden stood shoulder to shoulder with President Obama and brought our economy back from the brink. Vice President Biden was tasked with implementing and overseeing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for a sustainable economic future we are experiencing today. He also tackled longer term economic challenges, traveling the country in support of American manufacturing jobs and working tirelessly to rein in the exorbitant cost of college and spiraling student loan debt. Joe Biden believes in his bones that all Americans deserve a fair shot. That is why he was an early advocate for marriage equality. He accelerated change, forcing a conversation that, at its heart, was about love and the simple premise of all men and women being equal. His belief in a fair shot for all is why Vice President Biden devoted incredible energy after the Sandy Hook shooting to sparing other families the heartbreak felt by too many in Newtown. Some of the most challenging days of the Obama administration were days of mass shootings. Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Hood, Charleston, Tucson, and of course Newtown--to anyone who has been active in the push for commonsense gun safety measures--as I have--the Vice President's steady hand, commitment, and leadership in this space have been obvious. Along with the President, he has comforted families, devoted countless hours to healing, and contributed energy and ideas to a years-long push that will eventually affect real change and keep the most lethal weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. And that will be Joe Biden's legacy. Vice President Joe Biden was taught early on by his parents that hard work mattered, that how you treat others matters, and above all else that family matters most. Throughout his career, he had a rule in his office: if one of his children, his wife Jill, or a sibling called, staff was to pull him out of a meeting so he could take the call. The same rule extended to staff. He never wanted to hear that someone had stayed at work instead of making it to a graduation, Little League game, or school play. That, laid bare, is Joe Biden. He came to Washington on the shoulders of his family, which fanned out across Delaware and knocked on doors until there were no more doors to knock. When tragedy struck--between his improbable election victory and his swearing in--and he suffered the unimaginable loss of his wife and infant daughter, his family pulled him closer. He stayed by the hospital beds of his two sons, Beau and Hunter, and nursed them back to health, questioning all along whether he would ever serve in the Senate. But this body--this Senate--pulled him closer, too. Senators Inouye, Mansfield, Humphrey, Hollings, and Kennedy all pleaded with him to give the Senate a chance: ``Just six months, Joe. Just stay six months.'' He stayed 36 years. And he learned lessons about character and motives--lessons we are all still learning today. He learned from Mike Mansfield never to question another man's motive--question his judgment but never his motive. It was a lesson that bridged divides that too often keep us apart. The lesson made for lasting friendships with Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond--whose eulogy he delivered. Joe Biden arrived in the Senate after a 1972 campaign heavy on civil rights. Years later, the centerpiece in his Senate office was a large table that had belonged to Senator John Stennis, around which Senator Richard Russell and Southern segregationists had planned the demise of the civil rights movement. In 2009, Joe Biden became Vice President to our first African-American President. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it does indeed bend toward justice. We have not seen the end of Joe Biden. Just this week, he presided over this body as we took an important step toward realizing the dream of the Cancer Moonshot--an ambitious project to end cancer as we know it. It is another effort that has profound personal meaning to the Vice President, who lost his son Beau to this horrible disease. It is also a place where Joe Biden's work will have lasting, indelible effect on Americans--indeed all of humanity--if he is successful. And that is Joe Biden's legacy. He brought people together. He tackled the impossible. He overcame obstacles. He bridged divides. Tireless and fierce, Joe Biden put family and country first. We cannot ask for more than that.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I never had the privilege of serving with you in this Chamber, but, like many of my colleagues, I have come to know you as a friend and public servant and a model and a mentor. I have barely enough time to say a few words of tribute here, but I will add more to my remarks on the Record. What I want to say very simply is that you have inspired so many of us, beyond this Chamber, beyond the people whom you have known directly, and beyond the people with whom you have worked. Countless young people are involved in this noble profession because of your example. At a time when public officials and politics are often held in little repute and often challenged in their integrity, you have given us a good name, you have given politics a good name, and you have enabled so many of us to serve with pride in a profession that is so vital to the continuance of our democracy. Beyond pieces of legislation, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or the assault weapon ban or criminal justice--the list goes on--is that model of public service. I want to close by saying that as long as I have known Joe Biden, I really came to know him through the eyes of his son. I had the honor of working and serving with Beau Biden when he was attorney general of the State of Delaware and I was attorney general of my State of Connecticut. My ambition in life is to have my four children talk about me with the sense of admiration and love and pride that Beau Biden talked about his dad. I am very proud and grateful that we had the opportunity to vote today on a law that bears his name. As proud as his dad is of him, his pride in his dad is an example that all of us as parents hope our children have for us. I am proud to be in this Chamber and to have been sworn in to this Chamber by you, Mr. Vice President. I hope our paths will continue to cross, as I know they will, with so many of us in this Chamber and in this country. Thank you for your service. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues who are very gracious for yielding to me, and I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Legislation Mr. President, there is welcome news today, which is that the Senate has received from the House H.R. 6416, a bipartisan comprehensive measure that keeps faith with our veterans and makes sure that we continue our progress toward leaving no veteran behind. I want to emphasize at the very start that this measure is a down payment. It is far from a final or even fully acceptable solution to many of the problems that it addresses. It has more than 70 provisions. It is broad and comprehensive in scope and scale. More vets, many at risk and homeless, will receive the care and benefits they need and deserve. VA hospitals will have better management and more mental health caregivers and emergency room doctors. Families of veterans will be helped by extending critical education benefits to surviving members of those families. Work will finally begin to help descendants of veterans exposed to toxic substances. But again, on those issues and so many more, we are only taking another step in what must be a journey toward helping our veterans with services that they need, deserve, and have earned. One example that is long awaited is a landmark move that will commence research on descendants of veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances and address the painful residual wounds. It is all the more important today because we know the modern field of combat is ridden with nerve gas and other toxic and poisonous substances that all too often may endanger not only the brave men and women engaged on the battlefield but also their descendants. This measure expands the definition of homeless veterans to include individuals--perhaps women fleeing domestic violence--and it broadens the eligibility for critical homeless prevention programs. Many of those women fleeing brutality and violence deserve this kind of help. Under this legislation, the Veterans Health Administration will be given the flexibility it needs in scheduling physician workloads to bring them in line with the common practice that prevails in most medical centers. It is past time that we adjust the 1950s schedules, practices, and policies to work regulations within the VA hospitals and the need of today's veterans. One extraordinarily important provision relates to mental health, long a priority for me. We will make it easier to hire mental health counselors and access mental health treatment, significantly overhauling VA construction practices and authorize major medical construction projects in Reno, NV, and Long Beach, CA. On the issue of accountability that is so critically important and needs so much work, a provision in this measure would limit the ability of the VA to place an employee who is under investigation for misconduct on paid administrative leave for more than 14 days. This limitation would end the current practice of placing problematic employees on long periods of paid administrative leave and the provision would force the VA leaders to address issues when they arise to impose accountability. I want to thank my colleague Senator Isakson for his leadership, his dedication, his attention to detail, and his flexibility in the best traditions of this body. He clearly has put veterans first by sharing their ideas. They have come to us from many of the veterans service organizations, and I want to acknowledge all of them as well because they have been such a positive force. I want to thank my staff on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their work on this bill and others that we passed, such as the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, which I did in partnership with Senator Kaine and Senator Isakson. We need to do more to help veterans cope with opioid addiction, combat homelessness, protect veterans against identity theft, and make sure that our health care system for veterans continues to improve. It is still clearly a work in progress and still fails to meet the demands of access for thousands and tens of thousands of our veterans, even as it provides quality health care to many others. Many of the current challenges faced by veterans are directly attributable to management failures, and that is why accountability needs to improve. I want to thank Senators Burr and Tester for their bipartisan agreement to move forward on these challenges, and, hopefully, we will continue their work in the next session. Likewise, I have worked with Senator Moran and Chairman Isakson on numerous accountability reforms in the Veterans First Act, which was before this Chamber, again, providing goals and measures that we must achieve in the next Congress. Our bipartisan efforts to pass, hopefully within the next few days, H.R. 6416 is a crucial test of whether there is the necessary will and determination in this body to move ahead on the enormous challenges yet unmet and the enormous obligations that we have. Just as critical as the health care challenges, so too are the chronic problems in providing veterans the benefits they have earned-- benefits that are denied them in decisions they appeal. Today, over 450,000 veterans' appeals await a decision. That is why I introduced the Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals Modernization Act of 2016. The present veterans' appeals process is a travesty. It is a mockery of justice. It must be reformed. It must be given the resources to make it effective. Even when veterans earn benefits, there are too many examples of unequal application. I joined Senator Murray in her efforts to ensure that all caregivers for severely wounded and disabled veterans, regardless of when the veterans have served, have access to caregiver support services. These caregivers are moms and dads, spouses, and children who provide care day after day after day at great expense and burden to them with very little support from the Nation that should be as grateful to them as to the veterans themselves. Simply put, veterans deserve better, and they deserve more. Even when they have grievances, often they are denied a day in court. They are forced into arbitration agreements concerning their reemployment rights and workplace protections. That is why I introduced the Justice for Servicemembers Act in June--to clarify that servicemembers cannot be denied access to the courthouse and forced into arbitration and that servicemembers cannot be forced to sacrifice those rights as a condition of future or continued employment. It is about basic American justice. Who deserves that justice more than our veterans who fought for it and died for it and should never be denied it? I want to thank again all of my colleagues who have worked with me over these past 2 years. We owe every veteran--regardless of the war or the conflict, regardless of the era--the basic guarantee that they will never be left behind, that this Nation will keep faith with them. This body owes them the obligation to summon the political will to cross partisan lines to make sure that we keep faith with them. As I yield the floor today, I want to express my gratitude again to Chairman Isakson and say that I yield the floor today but none of us should ever yield in the fight to help our veterans. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, the Senate will soon act on a measure, the Iran Sanctions Extension Act, that I have long advocated, and I am proud to be a main cosponsor of this measure. It is a critical step toward deterring and impeding support of Iran's development of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. I am here to encourage my colleagues to support this 10-year reauthorization of the ISA, as it is known. We must act before it expires, before the end of the year. We really have no practical choice. The practical effect of the Iran nuclear agreement depends on our resolve and on our commitment to reliably and durably stop a nuclear-armed Iran by using sanctions and other means, if necessary. This measure should remove all doubt and dispel all question that we have that resolve and commitment to make sure the Iran nuclear commitment is enforced effectively. It must be enforced effectively not only for our own security but really the entire world's security. That is the reason I have championed efforts to stop a nuclear-armed Iran and make sure this agreement is both verifiable and enforceable. I have long advocated for this renewal and most recently urged Leader McConnell to prioritize passage of this measure in the waning days of this Congress. I was joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Merkley, Wyden, Klobuchar, Heinrich, and Schatz. I thank Senator McConnell for following through on this request and bringing this bill to the floor for a vote today. This important bipartisan bill has already been approved by the House--in fact, overwhelmingly passed in November--and now the Senate must do the same. It must leave no question or doubt that we have the resolve and commitment to continue bipartisan support for efforts to block a nuclear-armed Iran. The ISA is essential to ensuring that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action continues to prevent Iran from realizing its nuclear ambitions. For the United States to maintain its unambiguous ability to immediately snap back sanctions in coming years, the ISA must be renewed--and I hope it will be by a strong and overwhelming bipartisan majority--or we will surrender this critical capability. Reauthorization is a significant step that will send a strong signal to Iran that our Nation is fully and irrevocably committed to vigorously enforcing the nuclear agreement regardless of the administration and irrespective of the Congress. Future administrations need this ability to snap back existing sanctions--a step necessary for its enforcement, consistent with the agreement and anticipated by it. There is nothing inconsistent in what we do today with the agreement. This strong message to Iran is that we are ready, willing, and able to hold Iran accountable. We can ill-afford to allow sanctions that deter and impede Iran's development of conventional weapons of mass destruction to expire, as they would expire at the end of the year. My hope is that as many as possible of my Senate colleagues will join in this effort today. But holding Iran accountable will scarcely end here. We must confront Iran's maligned activities beyond its nuclear program, its continued pursuit of intercontinental missile development, its suppression of free speech and other vital civil liberties in its own country, and, of course, its sponsorship of terrorism around the world. We must fortify the security of our allies in the Middle East, most especially Israel, and our Nation. Our major strategic partner in that region is Israel. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the NDAA, which will provide additional missile defense capabilities to that great ally. And we must see what we do today in renewing the Iran sanctions agreement as part of an overall effort to secure the freedom and democracies that exist in that region insofar as they are always threatened and make sure we protect our Nation from a nuclear-armed Iran. The Iran sanctions renewal sends a signal and a message, unmistakable to Iran and the world, that we are committed not just to the words of this agreement on paper but to the real enforcement of them and to making sure Iran is held accountable if it violates this agreement in the slightest way. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, our Nation's immigration system is broken. There would be scant, if any, disagreement with that proposition in this Chamber. There would be no disagreement among anyone who is familiar with this broken immigration system. Far too often, that system is not only broken but violates the essential fundamental values and core convictions of the American people, values that are embodied in our Constitution, in the daily ethics we preach and live about fairness and welcoming people who are different from ourselves, people who have come here to escape persecution in their native lands, much as my father did in 1935 at the age of 17. He came alone, he spoke virtually no English, had not much more than the shirt on his back, and knew virtually no one. That is the way people still come to this great country, the greatest country in the history of the world. The immigration system that enabled him to come here is now fraught with strictures and failings and irrational barriers that work against not only the interests of people seeking freedom and opportunity but our national interests. That interest is best served when we make possible the talent, gifts, and energy of immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants, and we should be working to reform the immigration system for our national interest. No one exemplifies more poignantly and eloquently the flaws in our present system than young people known as the DREAMers. For a while, not that long ago, I resolved that I would come to the floor every week with a photograph of a different DREAMer from Connecticut who would demonstrate with a face, if not a voice, why some relief for our DREAMers is essential to our national interests. DREAMers are members of our society, brought to this country as children, some before they even learned to speak, but now, for almost all of them, English is their native language. This Nation is the only home they have ever known. They pledge allegiance to the flag in school and at events with their hand over their hearts, just as we all do and just as we begin every day the proceedings of this Chamber. Many of them know and never take for granted the gifts of living in the greatest, freest, strongest nation ever to exist on the planet. They know it. They never take it for granted because they hear stories from their aunts and uncles, maybe even their parents about what life was like in the place they left when they were brought here as infants and small children. So they go to our schools. They learn skills. They go to colleges, and many go on to higher education. They have skills and training and gifts and talents that would be extraordinarily useful and important. There is one problem: They are not citizens. They are not citizens. They are in constant danger of deportation. They are stuck in a potentially illegal and devastating situation because they have no path to citizenship in a country that should welcome them and make it possible for them to come out of the shadows. In recognition of those overwhelming merits, President Obama used his well-established Executive authority to institute the DACA Program. Understand that the DACA Program does not grant citizenship, it just defers and delays deportation proceedings. Countless young men and women came out of the shadows and made known their presence to the U.S. Government to become part of the DACA Program, disclosing their illegal status. They are now fearful. In fact, fearful is a clear understatement. They are terrified. I have met with many of them. I have known many of them over the years. I have come to admire and respect their patriotism, their aspirations, and their dreams. As DREAMers, their dream is American citizenship, which all too often many of us take for granted. Their dream is American citizenship in the best sense of it--giving back to the country that they regard as their home, giving back by using those talents as nurses and doctors to help the sick, as engineers and scientists to build inventions and advance our knowledge, as entrepreneurs to build businesses and employ people and create jobs and drive the economy forward. In fact, immigration reform and these programs are thought to be job creators and sources of economic profit. The DACA Program was a temporary effort, a respite for them in their striving to gain some permanency and some reliable status so they could be secure and feel safe in this country. Their terror now is well- founded, in fact, because the threat to them from the incoming administration is that they will be, in fact, deported en masse or perhaps their parents will be with them, and the American dream will become a fantasy--in fact, a nightmare. We are talking about young men, one of them well known to me in Bridgeport, who was brought to Connecticut from Brazil at the age of 5. He studied in the Bridgeport public schools from kindergarten to high school, and then he went on to attend Fairfield University. He majored in chemistry, minored in mathematics. He excelled, so that during his senior year at Fairfield, he was accepted at the University of California, Berkeley's Physical Chemistry Program. But he had to live under the threat of deportation because he had no way to apply for lawful permanent status while he was continuing his studies here in America, potentially contributing greatly to the American quality of life. There is the New Britain woman who was born in Mexico and brought to America when she was 6 years old. The journey for her was terrifying. She could not understand what was happening. She certainly had no idea that she was entering America in a way that would affect her the rest of her life at 6 years old. The idea that she was here in an illegal status was incomprehensible. Her family settled in Connecticut. She began school immediately in New Britain, and she went through the public schools there and graduated from New Britain High School in 2008. She decided to attend college out of State at Bay Path College, earning a great many leadership positions there. She became the first in her family to graduate from college and then received a master's degree in occupational therapy. She has dreamed about helping people-- maybe at nonprofit--to make sure that families with low incomes have access to occupational therapy. I think, too, of the young woman I know who was born in Venezuela. She was brought here when she was 11 years old. She remembers her mother telling her that she was going to America to learn English. Her mother also told her that she could be successful if she was bilingual and if she worked hard and studied. That is exactly what she did with her family when they settled in Norwalk, CT. She began to go to school right away. Life at the beginning was difficult. There was a lot to learn. By the time she was a junior in high school, she stopped trying to get perfect grades because she feared colleges would not accept her simply because she was undocumented, and even after she was accepted, she could not afford it, but she persevered. She attended community college, which was a huge financial burden. After Norwalk Community College, she went on to Western Connecticut State University. She persevered and she climbed those obstacles that many young American young people don't face, but she pursued a double major in accounting and finance. She hopes to become an accountant and pursue a career in business. But she has no pathway to citizenship or even lawful status. She fears that her dream will be unreachable. That is why DACA is so important, why it should be extended, why we need to reform a broken immigration system that keeps the DREAMers and all of those 11 million people in the shadows without a path to earned citizenship, why we need to go back to the bipartisan reform proposal that passed overwhelmingly in this body with strong support on both sides of the aisle and then was denied a vote in the House of Representatives. That bipartisan effort needs to be resolved. In the meantime, the DREAMers should be given lawful status so they can pursue their studies and their careers and give back to the greatest country in the history of the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, as leaves begin to turn and temperatures begin to drop, millions of Americans will head outdoors this fall to hike. In Connecticut, hikers will flock to trails in the State's 107 parks and 32 State forests, which together account for more than 200,000 acres. While ticks are often thought of as spring and summer pests, ticks that carry the disease are still active in the fall. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vector-borne illness in the country, with more than 300,000 people becoming infected each year. The CDC also reports that the species of ticks that spread Lyme disease now live in 46 percent of the Nation's counties. The spread of Lyme disease, paired with a lack of action at the Federal level, has led tens of thousands of Americans to become infected, disrupting patients' lives and placing major emotional and financial burden on families. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bipartisan Lyme and Tick Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, S. 1503. The legislation is designed to better coordinate the Federal Government's response to tick-borne diseases by creating an advisory committee within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that would be tasked with identifying best practices to combat tick-borne diseases. The group would be comprised of patients, advocates, researchers, medical professionals, and government officials. The bill would also require the HHS Secretary to coordinate efforts to strengthen disease surveillance and reporting, develop better diagnostic tools and tests, create a physician-education program, establish epidemiological research objectives for Lyme and other tick-borne illnesses, and prepare regular reports to Congress on the progress of efforts to combat these devastating diseases. The rapid rise in active Lyme and other tick-borne disease cases over the past decade demands a strong and coordinated effort at the Federal level to address the public health threat to our Nation. This critical legislation has been endorsed by hundreds of Lyme and tick-borne disease patient groups, along with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, ATC. According to a 2014 Appalachian Trail hiker survey, 9 percent of respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with Lyme disease. Our colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives have already passed this critical legislation, and now it is our turn. I urge our Senate colleagues to join as cosponsors, and help pass this critical measure expeditiously. Thank you.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to open the debate today on the effort by this body and by the U.S. Congress to give the loved ones of the victims of terrorism on 9/11 their day in court--simple justice. Fifteen years ago we stood in horror as our country suffered the worst terrorist attack on the United States in the history of our Nation. Nearly 3,000 innocent lives were lost, including heroic first responders, firemen, police, and beloved honorable men and women--148 of them from my home State of Connecticut. Over these years, I have watched and listened to them in their strength and courage as they have tirelessly sought to make this system of justice work in the memory of their loved ones. The terrorists who struck on 9/11 tried and failed to destroy that system of justice and the ideals of this Nation. Our hearts were broken, but our country and our ideals were not. Over the past 15 years, I have been honored to work with those families. Today gives us the opportunity to move forward with legislation, despite the President's veto. I deeply respect the President and the reasons that he has given for vetoing the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, but I urge my colleagues to move swiftly and soundly to reverse this veto so these families can have their day in court. That is what the legal system of this country is designed to do. It is the system where I spent my career before the Senate working to ensure accountability for wrongdoers and the restoration of victims' rights--promises to citizens that are made by our Constitution that there will be a neutral and fair forum to determine their claims. These families will never get their loved ones back, but they deserve justice and a day in court. That is why today we will, I hope, override the President's veto. Fifteen years after that tragedy we are still learning facts, but there is mounting evidence that the Saudi Government--or at least organizations and operatives within the Saudi Government--aided and abetted one of the most massive crimes in the United States. In our system, the truth behind those facts deserves to be presented in a court--a court of law where fairness and justice will be assured. This measure does not prejudge a verdict or issue a judgment. It gives both sides a fair day in court. If the Saudi Government had no involvement in 9/11, it has nothing to fear. But if it was culpable, it should be held accountable. That is the basic principle of this measure. When all is said and done, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act simply closes a loophole that was created by the courts, contrary to the intent of this body. That loophole, in effect, permits foreign governments to aid and abet crimes against the citizens of this country as long as its aiding and abetting occurred outside of our borders. Think of it as a missile launched from another country by terrorists with the support and assistance of that foreign government. That foreign government can evade any and all responsibility simply because the missile was launched outside our borders. Similarly, the missile of terrorism can be launched outside our borders and the foreign government, including Saudi Arabia, is able to evade all responsibility under the decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which created that loophole. So that foreign government can give terrorists bags of money and tons of explosives to carry out murder within our borders, as long as it does so outside our borders. That is wrong. The principle here is broader and bigger than Saudi Arabia or even the 9/11 victims. It is about simple justice. Our law should recognize the reality that global crimes can be sponsored and supported outside our borders and inflict grave harm, including murder, on the citizens of our country within our borders. This loophole will be closed by this measure for the benefit of not only the 9/11 victims but also potential victims in the future. It will send a message and deter violent crime in this country aided and abetted by foreign governments in the future. It will deter that kind of violence through an ideal and a tradition that is uniquely American. It is a system of justice that imposes accountability and makes sure that everybody has a fair day in court. I know questions have been raised about potential retaliation or reprisal against members of our military or citizens in other countries. This Nation should stand firm and strong against terrorist violence. We have nothing to fear as long as we do not engage in supporting or sponsoring the kind of violence that occurred on 9/11 here. We must trust that our government would never be responsible for that kind of aiding and abetting of deliberate killing of innocent civilians, the purposeful massacre of people who are innocent. I am honored to begin this debate. I hope it will be closed in a way that vindicates the rights as well as the interests of our country. I am proud to join colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This measure has been bipartisan from the start. I particularly thank my colleagues Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn for their leadership. I believe a bill unanimously passed by both houses of Congress, strongly supported by both sides of the aisle, deserves to become law. I trust and believe it will today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Yes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues who have come to the floor, including the distinguished Senator from Delaware and my friend and colleague from the great State of Vermont, and with other colleagues who will follow us in saying, very simply, we should do our job and avoid the damage to our democracy that will result from our dereliction of duty if we leave town without a hearing and a vote to fill the vacancy created by the tragic death of Justice Scalia. I know something about the Supreme Court, having clerked there for 1 year with Justice Harry Blackmun, having argued cases there as attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I walk by or ride by the U.S. Supreme Court every day as I come to work at the Capitol, and I have tremendous respect, in fact, reverence, for the U.S. Supreme Court. Its power derives from its credibility and trust. It is being above politics. It has no armies, no police force. Its decisions are enforceable and enforced simply because the American people have confidence in its credibility. The reason for that credibility was well stated by Chief Justice John Roberts, who said: ``We don't work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process.'' That confirmation process is stymied and stopped, stalled now by bipartisan paralysis that reinforces the misimpression among the public that the Supreme Court may simply be another part of the political process. The Supreme Court should be above politics. This dysfunction and dereliction of duty does damage to our democracy because it drags the Supreme Court into the muck and morass of partisan politics and deprives it of the credibility and trust that are the underpinning of its force as a democratic institution. Think of it for a moment. There are two elected branches, the President and Congress, and then an unelected one, appointed for life, totally dependent on its being above politics. We have a constitutional duty to advise and consent, not when it is politically convenient, not when it fits into our schedules but when the President makes a nomination. We have fulfilled that duty consistently during the last 100 years, taking action on every pending nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The current impasse has real, practical consequences in depriving individuals in this Nation of justice they need and deserve. It has real consequences for real people. As we saw last term and as we are about to see on Monday with the beginning of a new term, issues of law essential to a functioning democracy and basic fairness will be left unresolved because of a deadlocked Court. The resulting uncertainty causes harm across the land and across our economy, creating confusion among businesses that need to know what the rules of the road are going to be. If money is borrowed, when does it have to be repaid? If regulation is to be challenged, will it be upheld? These kinds of decisions are, in fact, real cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The uncertainty and confusion resulting from deadlocked Court decisions and the lack of law--because indecision means a lack of resolution of legal issues--have consequences that impede job creation and economic growth in this country. By refusing to do its job, the Senate of the United States is precluding others from doing their jobs, from creating jobs, and from growing our economy, as all of us would like to see done. I am not arguing that any individual Senator has an obligation to vote for Merrick Garland. I believe he is preeminently qualified. I have known him for years. I have tremendous respect for his intelligence and integrity. I believe he will convince other of my colleagues that he is extraordinarily well qualified to serve as the next Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. That job of convincing our colleagues is his to do. He should be given an opportunity to do it in a hearing, as he has done for many of us in his individual conversations with us. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have denied him even a hearing, not to mention a vote. It adds insult to injury when this body not only stonewalls Judge Garland's nomination but departs for lengthy breaks, as we did in August and as we will now do again, without giving him consideration. This year, the Senate has worked fewer days and taken a longer recess than in the past 50 years, despite leaving our constitutional duty unfulfilled. That is why I am proud to submit today, along with 42 of my Democratic colleagues, including Senator Leahy of Vermont, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, along with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, a resolution that says to the Senate of the United States: Do not leave town for a recess until we have provided a hearing and a vote on the pending Supreme Court nomination. Do not leave town without doing your job. Do not leave town without fulfilling your constitutional duty to advise and consent. That is what we should be doing. I am not going to read the resolution, but it essentially says the President has the obligation to nominate. We have the obligation to advise and consent. We have done so in past years. We should do so now. I will quote this one sentence: ``Whereas forcing the Supreme Court to function with only 8 sitting justices has created several instances, and risks creating more instances, in which the justices are evenly divided as to the outcome of a case, preventing the Supreme Court from resolving conflicting interpretations of the law from different regions of the United States and thereby undermining the constitutional function of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law.'' Paraphrasing: Be it resolved that the Senate should not adjourn, recess, or convene solely in pro forma session until we have taken action on the pending nomination through holding a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, holding a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and holding a vote in the full Senate. Some of the threats to our democracy come from outside this country, from violent extremists or military aggressors who mean to do us harm, but the threats to our democracy can also include self-inflicted wounds--unintentional, perhaps. I know my colleagues--and I say this with the greatest respect-- believe they are justified in what they are doing. We have legitimate disagreements. We may disagree whether Merrick Garland is qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe, without question or reservation, he would be a great Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he will be, but let's at least give him a vote. Let's do our job and avoid the self-inflicted damage to our democracy that will result from our leaving without upholding our constitutional duty. Madam President, I yield the floor.