Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, the chairman of the VA Committee, here. I will happily yield to him to speak first, or I can proceed and then yield to him afterwards.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to be here today to speak in support of H.R. 5985, the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act. We will vote on it shortly. I thank my colleagues for what I expect to be an overwhelmingly positive vote to affirm our commitment to the veterans of America and that neither dysfunction nor distraction of what is happening during this season of elections will prevent us from keeping the lights on in the Veterans Affairs Department. As its name implies, this measure would maintain 27 vital ongoing programs and services that the VA provides through the next year. I commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Takano in the House for drafting this bipartisan measure that is so important and necessary. We have worked collaboratively with them. Chairman Isakson and I have met with them numerous times, and it has truly been a cooperative and collaborative effort. This legislation authorizes an increase in the existing VA caregivers program of $10 million, going from $724 million to $734 million, as well as a grants program that assists homeless veterans and provides them with support services. The bill we will vote on this evening will also give the Secretary of the VA the exact same power as the Secretary of Education has with respect to title IV in the event of a university's sudden loss of accreditation. It is critically important. As we have seen with ITT and Corinthian, for-profit colleges have abruptly closed, leaving veterans stranded. This bill will empower the VA Secretary to provisionally approve programs for use with the GI bill so that veterans may transition to another course of study. Without this provision becoming law now, veterans who attended those schools like ITT may find themselves in a similar untenable, unacceptable, unfair situation. They lose education benefits and, equally troubling, benefits for their housing and food allowance, which they so critically need. I am pleased we can vote on this measure tonight and send it to the President's desk for his signature. But the simple, stark fact is that this bill is simply a small down payment--a small step in the direction that we must move and that the Senate must accomplish in the days that remain in this session to honor all who have served. It is just one of a series of congressional actions that are needed before we recess to ensure that for-profit schools that put their profits before veterans' rights to an education do not hurt our veterans as their business model collapses. The Senate should also pass the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act that Senator Tillis of North Carolina and I have introduced. This bill is bipartisan, as is this bill, and would grant an emergency housing stipend to those students who are adversely affected by destabilizing permanent school closures. Corinthian College and, more recently, ITT give a voice and face to this staggeringly real problem for so many veterans who are the victims of the exploitation by these for-profit schools. Our mission of ensuring that no veteran is left behind will not be completed by the vote we take this evening. It is just a down payment. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 5985 and beginning and concluding the hard work of passing other bills that have been reported out of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, with the strong bipartisan work, collaboration, and partnership among the chairman, Senator Isakson, and myself. I thank Senator Isakson for being here this evening, and I will be honored to yield to him now.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. And is section 2004 simply a restatement of current law under the Clean Water Act?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would like to thank Senators Inhofe and Boxer for their work on the Water Resources Development Act. I would also like to thank them for helping to explain section 2004. As Senator Inhofe noted, this section has caused concern in some quarters that I think is useful to discuss. It is critical for the record to reflect the intent and context of this provision and to spell out what it does and does not do. Dredging is incredibly important to my State of Connecticut, which has a robust maritime economy. Long Island Sound in particular is a treasured and integral resource, one that generates $9 billion annually through tourism, recreation, and economic activity and is home to some of our most significant national security assets in terms of submarines and submarine manufacturing. But in order to enjoy the benefits of the sound, our coves, harbors, and navigation channels have to be dredged. My State has over 50 Federal dredging projects pending with the Army Corps of Engineers. It also has everything from small mom-and-pop marinas to Electric Boat that have significant equities in the sound and in the dredging of navigable channels. For nearly 35 years, clean, nontoxic material dredged from Federal projects in Connecticut has been safely disposed of in Long Island Sound, meeting stringent water quality standards that have been approved by the EPA. Connecticut goes to great lengths to ensure that the material disposed of in the sound is protective of water quality and the environment.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Does this provision or WRDA 2016 affect the process for approving new dredged material disposal sites?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would also like to thank Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Boxer for this edifying and clear discussion about the dredging provisions contained in WRDA 2016 and the legislative intent behind those provisions.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as we leave Washington for our summer recess, we are also marking the 1-year anniversary of the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, by the P5+1. A number of my colleagues have come to the floor to mark this occasion, led by our friend and colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. This nuclear agreement provides profoundly important time to hold Iran accountable--time that is supremely valuable but only if we use it wisely. That lesson should animate the conversation around the country, as well as in this Chamber, that time must be used wisely, energetically, and aggressively to make sure that we prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and also stop its funding and support for terrorist extremism. We must use the time provided for us by this agreement to confront Iran's maligned activities beyond its nuclear program, to fortify the security of the United States and Israel, our major strategic partner in the region, and to ensure that we are working in close coordination with this all-important ally. We must make sure that our positions are aligned when they need to be, that there is no space, no daylight between Israel and the United States where we must and should be working together. We need to enhance strong enforcement of the JCPOA, our nuclear agreement, with the P5+1 to ensure that Iran is never able to break across the enrichment threshold to obtain a nuclear weapon. The simple, stark fact is that we are at war with ISIS--whatever it is called; ISIL or by any other name--and we are in that war to win. We must win it. The fact is that we are succeeding, but ISIS is also enhancing its activity as it metastasizes with extremist violence sponsored, supported, and inspired around the world--in Europe, as well as in this country in San Bernardino and Orlando--where massacres are stated to be in alignment with and supported and inspired by ISIS, and where ISIS itself is claiming credit for those activities. In the Middle East, Iran continues to be a leading state sponsor of terrorism. Irrespective of the nuclear agreement, we must work together to find new ways to push back on Iran's financing of terrorism. Just recently, the international financial action task force made the alarming decision to suspend countermeasures against Iran for 12 months concerning its money-laundering and terrorist-finding activities. This action is truly appalling, as I have made clear in a letter that I wrote and led to our Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, with seven of my Senate colleagues urging him to address this dangerous decision to prevent any further attempts to reintegrate Iran into the international banking system as Iran has not eliminated its entrenched practice of financing terrorism. Again, time is only as valuable as we make it. We must use the time we have under this agreement to separate Iran from its terror proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime. That is why I also support the Senate moving to extend the Iran Sanctions Act. Now is the time to call Iran to account for and identify and target the specific individuals and entities engaged in terrorist financing, human rights violations, and fueling the tragic Syrian conflict that has killed so many innocent people and separated so many from their homes, particularly children whom I have seen in one of the refugee camps in Jordan. Each year, as part of the current tenure or memorandum of understanding on the U.S. military assistance with Israel, we provide Israel with more than $3 billion in aid. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been fighting to ensure that this year's Defense bill will fund Israel's missile defense programs and will continue to do so as we enter the conference with the House on the NDAA, which we will do shortly. Our goal has to be to reach the $601 million that has been authorized. I am hopeful we will do so. I will fight to make sure that the conference committee report includes that number. While I know these annual increases for missile programs are vital to our defense cooperation, we really need a long-term agreement to defend Israel against threats in an uncertain regional environment and to ensure its qualitative military edge over Iran or any other adversary. We need to use this time to renew a robust, decade-long memorandum of understanding on U.S. military assistance, or MOU, with Israel as soon as possible. I am hopeful that the MOU will be concluded as quickly as possible. Indeed, last November Senator Bennet and I co-led a letter to the President concerning the need to renew this MOU, and I followed up in April with another letter by Senators Coons and Graham, a bipartisan effort on the same issue. The MOU needs a historic increase in military aid. And one other point. I know that much of that assistance is used in the United States to make equipment, like the Joint Strike Fighter, whose engines are manufactured in Connecticut, but Israel should also retain some flexibility to use these funds to develop its own unique capabilities. The current MOU allows Israel to harness 26.3 percent of our security assistance to purchase domestic Israeli equipment, and I urge the administration to work to maintain this goal in the next MOU. We must rely on American manufacturing and American jobs where there is value added and whenever possible, but Israel has the same interest in its production capacity and its defense industrial base, and both must be strong and aligned. As I look forward to the year coming and to the enforcement of the nuclear agreement, I believe we must, very frankly, do a better job of enforcement, as I am positive that Iran will test us and seek any advantage it can find. That is the stark, simple truth about that agreement. This administration and any President who follows must harness the tools provided in the nuclear agreement to know what Iran is doing and bring transparency that will push back Iran's breakout time and deter any failure of compliance. The IAEA must be fully funded, and we must have more inspectors on the ground to keep an eye on Iran's facilities. The best agreement in the world is meaningless if it is unenforced. I know that from my own background as a law enforcer for most of my professional career. The law is dead letter if it is not enforced effectively and aggressively, with the credibility that deters violation. As we move past the 1-year mark, the United States must strengthen enforcement actions against Iran. We must do everything possible to hold Iran accountable, and that action must include passing the Iran Policy Oversight Act--legislation led by my distinguished colleague Senator Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I am an original cosponsor of it and helped to draft and lead it. It will strengthen and improve the nuclear agreement--in no way contradicting or undermining it--by providing vital oversight and vigorous enforcement to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. It addresses three preeminent priorities--steps that are well within Congress's power, its proper authority, and its control. First, it enshrines in our law that our policy on deterrence remains in effect and that all options, including military options, remain on the table. Second, this bill reaffirms our dedication to countering Iranian terrorism, as well as Iranian human rights violations and its regional influence that may perniciously undermine the stability of the area by providing a regional strategy and strong sanctions. Third, the bill empowers our allies--especially Israel, our key strategic partner in the Middle East--to counter Iran and its terror proxies by authorizing the President to provide Israel with additional military aid, intelligence cooperation, and missile defense codevelopment. This nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, provides us time. It is valuable time if we use it to stop a nuclear Iran, but it is only as valuable as we make it. That fact bears repeating, as I have repeated it again and again. The time must be used to support Israel with a historic increase of military aid and push for strong enforcement of this agreement to set back the clock on Iran's apparently ceaseless nuclear ambition. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and the administration on these issues in the time to come. My hope is that this effort will continue to be, as it has been very earnestly, a bipartisan effort. We can never allow partisan differences to come between us on this issue. There should be no space between us across the aisle, and there should be none between Israel and the United States in seeking to stop a nuclear-armed Iran, seeking to halt its sponsorship of terrorism that endangers us both as nations seeking to advance common interests where we have them and where our vital national strategic goals align. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleagues for the vote we will take in a very short time on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act known as CARA. This legislation holds great promise to help families and communities combat the opioid epidemic that has truly been ravaging our Nation. The epidemic is a public health crisis, causing death and destruction to families and communities, and this legislation is barely a symbolic step. The rhetoric on the floor today and throughout our consideration of this bill, unfortunately, is unmatched by real dollars. Until we commit resources, our words will be a glass half empty, and we must fill that glass with the resources necessary to truly make a difference, as I have seen from the roundtables I have held around the State of Connecticut where law enforcement, community activists, families whose loved ones have suffered from addiction, and addicts themselves recovering from this disease--it is a disease, and we must recognize it as a disease that can be treated if we commit the resources. I thank Senator Coats for joining me in authoring the Expanding Access to Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs Act, which is among the measures included in this bill. This provision would allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access State prescription drug monitoring programs and view the patient's prescription opioid history to determine if a patient has a history of addiction. Although nurse practitioners and physician assistants write over 30 million opioid prescriptions every year, including in 2013, few States allow them to consult and submit prescribing data to these important State databases. Allowing them to access more information about a patient's history enables them to help address potential addiction before it becomes a serious problem. Critically, we must recognize the key role nurse practitioners and physician assistants can play in curbing prescription drug abuse and diversion. That is why this provision allowing those nurse practitioners and physician assistants to access State prescription drug monitoring programs is so important. I thank my colleague Senator Baldwin for her tireless effort in advancing the Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act to address overprescribing and accountability at the VA. Her leadership on behalf of Jason's family and their courage and strength, particularly his mother Linda, widow Heather, and daughter Anaya, were impressive and instrumental in incorporating this measure. The provisions from Senator Baldwin's legislation that have been included in CARA will require the VA to expand the use of opioid safety initiatives within all VA facilities--a profoundly important step because it will enable the VA to better facilitate use of State prescription drug monitoring programs and ensure that all VA facilities provide naloxone to at-risk veterans without a copay. That is a profoundly significant step. I hope monitoring and tracking programs will be further improved so that State boundaries can be more easily overcome in terms of information flow, and the effectiveness can include not only the VA but our civilian programs. Additionally, improvements to the VA Patient Advocacy Program will truly help the VA better serve our veterans. These provisions are also included in the Veterans First Act. I am hopeful that this body will move forward on the Veterans First Act. I appreciate the bipartisan work of my colleagues in addressing the opioid crisis. I am pleased to support this bill but again emphasize that it is a short-term solution. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak, along with a number of my colleagues, about groups that have spun a web of denial and to fight back against the regressive, fallacious, and dangerous rhetoric of climate change deniers. They would disavow the overwhelming evidence of one of our most significant environmental crises. It is not only a quality-of-life challenge, it is a national security crisis in our world today. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I know from our military leaders how seriously they take this crisis, which is causing droughts as well as unrest, and the challenges it creates when our military needs to access certain parts of the world. Those consequences are among the national security threats that climate change raises, and deniers do no great service to our national defense. Connecticut knows firsthand the visible impacts of climate change because we see the mammoth storms that threaten to become the new normal in our world, causing rising tides, destroying homes, literally changing the nature of our shoreline and impacting our quality of life. No one State can address climate change effectively, and that is why we need the Nation to act together and why climate change denial is so dangerous to our national security, not only in military terms but also in the very real terms of how we conduct our lives in this country. We need a coordinated, comprehensive approach, and yet some groups would have you believe that no action is necessary--none at all. They say that any measures are a waste of time and resources. They say that any measures to stop food supplies from disappearing, forest fires from spreading, and storms from raging are simply unnecessary. They have no evidence to support their claims, but, indeed, they have to distort the evidence that exists even to make those claims. Just last year, we discovered that Exxon projects into its planning a model that it described for itself as ``too murky to warrant action.'' They planned for themselves but not for the people, including their own customers. They would be ready for climate change but would make sure that no one else could be by adopting a model and making it their business model--or part of it--that implicitly, internally, they felt they could not reveal publicly. Some groups have adopted more covert efforts to sabotage science. The American Legislative Exchange Council, better known by its acronym ALEC, denies that its policy denied climate change. ALEC commits to fighting science in the shadows because it has no facts to bring into the sun. Indeed, its proposed bill, the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act--a very innocuous bill--actually seeks to serve as a stamp of approval on teaching climate change denial in science classrooms. These tactics exist because when groups like ALEC or Americans for Prosperity stand ready to deny the truth, some part of our people will believe it. One leader of the Americans for Prosperity group, when asked about the science of climate change, responded: ``I don't even want to argue the point. To me, it's not that important.'' This web of denial has consequences. It delays and distorts common awareness and consciousness about the truth and the need to act. One of my colleagues compared this web of denial to actions of tobacco companies decades ago denying that smoking and tobacco could cause cancer or heart disease or any of the other serious illnesses that tobacco use causes, in addition to the lifetime addiction to nicotine that inevitably was a consequence to so many people who believed those tobacco companies. That web of denial was similar to this one. The tobacco companies knew the truth. They denied it. These deniers also know the truth. Our purpose in being here today is to make sure the American people know it as well. Groups like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity may receive support from the economic interests that have a stake in hiding the truth, but ultimately the American people need to know it, they need to act on it, and they need to appreciate the motives and interests of the web of denial that is spun so artfully and relentlessly by these groups and the special interests that underlie them and support them. I wish to thank my colleagues who have come to the floor today, particularly Senator Whitehouse, who has been so instrumental in organizing this group. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Merkley, for his very powerful arguments for improving this law. I wish to speak about the GMO labeling act. But before I do so, I wish to speak separately about concerns that are on the hearts and minds of every American today after the shootings that we have seen in Louisiana and Minnesota. These are incidents that weigh on our hearts and our minds as we watched--literally watched--the videos that have been played again and again and again on TV around the Nation. I echo President Obama's eloquently expressed concerns shared by many Americans after the recent tragic shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. My heart breaks for the families and communities. I agree with President Obama that acknowledging we must do better in no way contradicts our respect for law enforcement. As a former prosecutor, a U.S. attorney, and attorney general of my State for 20 years, I worked with law enforcement officials closely for more than two decades. I worked with them with great admiration for their courage and professionalism. I understand and appreciate the challenges they face every day, their selflessness in the line of duty, and their commitment to keeping our communities safe, often at great sacrifice to themselves. Tragedies like the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling threaten to undermine trust and understanding between law enforcement and the communities they serve. That is why I fought to pass the Death in Custody Reporting Act--bipartisan legislation which requires States to report to the U.S. Department of Justice information regarding individuals who die every year while in police custody or during the course of an arrest. I have also supported funding to help local law enforcement agencies cooperate and collaborate more closely with communities and build trust by purchasing and using body-worn cameras, which have been shown to reduce citizen complaints by as much as 88 percent. We have much more to do in effectively assuring justice for communities of color. We must have an honest conversation about the role of race in society, not just in the disparities in the criminal justice system but in our economy, our media, and our communities. Words alone are insufficient. We must act. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Washington, across the country, and Connecticut to bring Americans together and make our society more just for all. As a separate part of the record, if there is no objection, Mr. President, I would like to continue our discussion about the GMO labeling bill. I regret very sincerely the absence of an opportunity to offer these amendments that might improve this bill and enable us to provide the American people with what they need and deserve--the best possible legislative product this body can provide, a legislative product that matches the desires of 90 percent of Americans to know more about what they are eating, the 15,000 Connecticut people who have corresponded with me, and the many individuals, activists, and advocates who tell me they believe they have a right to know what is in their food when it comes to GMOs. The science is beyond my advocacy, but the consumer protection issue is one all of us are experts on. We all know we need better and more information, and so to make access to that information more difficult and cumbersome and even costly for Americans flies in the face of what we regard as free and open and fair markets and free enterprise. It is more than just about the doctrines of deceptive and misleading marketing which the good guys in the world of business certainly want to avoid. It is about providing more information, as much accurate information as possible, because consumers have a right and a need to know. Throwing roadblocks in the way of that right doesn't do justice for them. They deserve better. So I will continue this fight. We are near an hour now where we will vote. I greatly respect the dedication of my colleagues who have worked hard on this measure. My very distinguished and able friend from Michigan Senator Stabenow is now with us. She and I are in agreement, my guess is, 99 percent of the time, and I respect as well our colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, but the issue here is supremely important to the health and well-being of Americans--not just today, not just children and families at this moment but for years and decades to come. While the science may be debated, the consumer protection issue is beyond doubt. Let's open information to the American consumers, make it more available, not less so; remove the obstacles, not create more hurdles; reduce the costs, not raise the expense; and provide the access that Americans need to full and fair information about GMOs that may be in their food. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate is presently on the verge of approving a measure that is supposedly a compromise to provide for GMO labeling. I want to express my thanks and respect for the principal authors of this legislation, my colleagues Senators Roberts and Stabenow. They have worked hard to forge this compromise. Unfortunately, this falls far short of what is necessary to really inform consumers, provide the essential facts they need to make informed and educated choices about what they want to eat and to have their families eat, what they want to put on their dinner table. Nothing is more fundamental or important than what we eat. It is essential to energy and the ability of our children to learn. It is important to our productivity as adults. People of all ages care about what they eat, and they care more than ever now because they know how important it is. They also know about the unwanted features of food that could impair their health. Not long ago, we as a body rejected a measure called the DARK Act, which stood for Deny Americans the Right to Know. Unfortunately, this legislation will continue to leave consumers in the dark about what they are eating. This new compromise is as misguided and anti-consumer as that bill was, even though it may seem better. The bill also betrays the desires of 90 percent of the American people who want clear, comprehensive, truthful, accurate information-- labeling they can understand and readily see when they shop in their supermarkets or grocery stores, labels that tell them whether there has been genetic engineering. Not only do 90 percent of the American people want it, but the people of Connecticut have spoken. My State adopted a law that requires it. That law will go into effect if 4 other States comprising 20 million people move ahead with the same legislation. It is not arbitrary. It is not dictatorial or draconian. It is simple, commonsense, effective legislation adopted by the legislature and signed by the Governor of my State. What probably offends me most about this legislation is that it overrides the will of the people of Connecticut, their determination that they want clear, comprehensive labeling on GMO products. When the Connecticut Legislature adopted its statute--and now as we are considering ours--the debate has never been about whether GMOs are safe or unsafe to consume. I will leave to the scientists--readily delegate to them those judgments about the science of GMOs. Nor is this a debate about whether we should have warning labels. The labeling on these packages would not be in any way a warning to consumers; it would be informational only. The debate here and the objective of this measure is simply to provide information as dispassionately and clearly and objectively as possible. That is the goal, and that is what the legislation I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Merkley would achieve. That is what we have sought to do through the amendments we have offered to correct the deficiencies in this measure. Among those deficiencies is the lack of an adequate definition of ``bioengineering.'' Right now, that definition fails to include many of the forms of GMOs that could be adopted. The deficiencies include the reliance on QR codes, which discriminate against people who don't have smartphones or are in areas not served by the Internet or go to shop in stores that don't have that service. It is also defective in a number of specific provisions, and I will cite just one more. In the provision that applies to additional disclosure options, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed by this legislation that when there is insufficient access to bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods, he ``shall provide additional and comparable options to access the bioengineering disclosure.'' The Secretary of Agriculture will become responsible and accountable for the cost, the mechanical process, and all of the aspects of providing this disclosure when, in fact, electronic or digital disclosure methods available to manufacturers or retailers are insufficient. What will be the cost? What will be the obstacles? There has been no hearing that would indicate those facts. So what we have here is a failure of drafting and of process. In this sweeping so-called compromise, the laws of Connecticut will be decimated. My State will be stripped of robust, grassroots GMO labeling measures--including in Maine and Vermont--not only applying to food but also to seeds planted in the ground and information about whether they have been bioengineered. These deficiencies are fundamental to this legislation. I repeat, the issue here is not about warning and not about safety, although those topics are reasonable to debate. It is simply about the public's right to know. I have a basic faith in our markets in the United States and in our free enterprises that consumers will make smart judgments and wise choices if they have the information that enables them to do it. But only if they have that information. My question to the proponents of this bill is this: What do we have to fear by providing that kind of information that consumers need and want, and that 15,000 Connecticut citizens have written to me asking to defend, and that constituents of mine, such as Tara Cook-Littman, have shown is desperately and dramatically needed? Tara has said: Anything short of on package, clear labeling shows total disregard for what it is like to be a mom shopping in a store with her children. When I'm shopping, I need to get in and out as fast as I possibly can. And, whether a product contains GMOs is only one of the many things I am looking for before making my purchasing decision. My son is allergic to nuts so I always look at packages to make sure the item is nut free. I like to know the calories, fat and sugar of an item before I purchase it. I look at how many ingredients a product has. All of that information I can get in seconds. I pick up the item, I scan the box for the information I need and keep moving. I should be able to do the same for GMOs. I would never have the time to pull out my phone and scan the packages or go to a website in order to get the simple information I am looking for. Assuming I would have the time or ability shows a total lack of understanding about shopping in the real world. When shopping for a family of 5, my shopping cart could end up having over 50 items. Having to scan or look up items on a website is not feasible. I agree with Tara, and I agree with anyone who has shopped and has the same views. In a crowded grocery store at the end of the day or with a child, especially a young child, navigating these aisles is challenging enough. The last thing a parent has is spare time to take out their phone and scan every product before placing it in their cart, even assuming the store has the Internet service that would enable someone to do so, and even assuming that person has a smartphone. This proposal is simply not practical, logical, or fair to consumers. It is in fact anti-consumer. It is unacceptable as a consumer protection measure. Let's give States the freedom to protect their own people, as Connecticut has done. That is the reason I proposed an amendment that would restore the right of States to adopt such legislation, and make this legislation a floor rather than a ceiling that enables States to do more. I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Sanders, as well as Senator Tester and others, who have championed this cause, and, most importantly, Senator Merkley, who has helped to lead this effort. I believe the concerns we have expressed are urgent and immediate. Even at this late hour, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure as it has been drafted now, and adopt these commonsense amendments that will improve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I strongly agree with colleagues who have supported effective, real measures to confront the spreading toll that Zika is taking around the world and, I assume, will take an even greater number and magnitude in this country. But we need effective solutions that will provide funding for research, eradication of mosquitoes, and education of the public without harmful restrictions that prevent women from seeking family planning services that, in fact, help to prevent the spread of Zika. Nowhere is the threat of Zika greater than in Puerto Rico. That island has been particularly hard-hit. In fact, the spreading financial crisis is combining with the spreading epidemic of Zika to create a true humanitarian crisis. That crisis will only be aggravated and deepened by a failure to deal effectively with the financial default that faces the island in just a few days from now. On July 1, $2 billion of loans will come due, and Puerto Rico simply lacks the resources to pay those debts. It is insolvent, so far as those debts are concerned. If the Bankruptcy Code applied, it could seek relief from its creditors and prevent the race to the courthouse and the enormous litigation costs and other expenses that will ensue. We have an opportunity to act on behalf of the people of the United States who have a powerfully important stake in the people of Puerto Rico and the welfare of that island. It is Americans who live there-- 3.5 million American citizens, who have fought in our wars, given of their culture and heritage to all of us, and have helped make America the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. They are American citizens who are part of the fabric of this Nation, and the people of Puerto Rico will be the ones who pay the price of a failure on our part to act effectively. The simple fact is that Puerto Rico cannot afford to pay all of its creditors and continue to provide a basic level of services for its people. That fact is undisputed. The question is simply whether this situation is addressed in an orderly and productive way or permitted to enter the sea of chaos--financially and in humanitarian terms--that will ensue without action on our part. Already we have seen the beginnings of this crisis. The island's only 24/7 stroke center has closed because too many Puerto Rican neurologists have left for the mainland. The Puerto Rican Department of Education has not paid hundreds of firms that provide education and transportation services. Hospitals are barely keeping the lights on. Schools cannot pay bus drivers. My colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, told the story yesterday of the neonatal dialysis center that is providing services only to customers who can pay cash up front. Imagine, in the United States-- Puerto Rico is part of the United States--children in need of lifesaving services are being turned away and denied basic health care. There is no need to guess as to what will happen on July 1. Creditors have told us--in fact, they have told us very explicitly in court papers already filed last week. They wrote: ``It has long been settled law that Constitutional Debt is constitutionally required to be paid first in times of scarcity, ahead of even what government deems `essential services.' '' They will claim to be paid in advance and in priority over essential services. That is the stark, harsh truth of litigation, and a judgment in their favor will have lasting and irreparable effects on the people of Puerto Rico. If the creditors win, the people of Puerto Rico lose, and they lose tremendously and irreparably. The Senate has a choice. Instead of allowing a chaotic process that costs tremendously in scarce resources and benefits financially the lawyers and some of the creditors more than anyone, we can pass legislation before us today. It is not the legislation I would have preferred. In fact, this deal is not one that I find attractive. There are defects and weaknesses in its provisions relating to minimum wage and overtime and pensions and the structure of the board, among others. But the question is, What is the alternative? With PROMESA, the parties will have a workable judicial mechanism with a stay on litigation, ensuring that chaos is avoided and the current mess is resolved. If we devise a system that only the creditors like and works only for them, it will benefit a small group of wealthy investors that could threaten to block Puerto Rico's economic recovery. In fact, the longest lasting and most alarming effect will be the uncertainty that results from our failure to act, which almost clearly and unavoidably will cause a deep recession in that island. It will, in effect, impede investment in the island and quash economic recovery. Representative Nydia Velazquez put it best. She has never stopped fighting for her homeland of Puerto Rico. Before PROMESA passed the House she said: Some would have you believe that if we only yell louder, there will be a third option. But let me tell you, I have screamed so loud that I no longer have a voice. Like the vast majority of her House colleagues, she voted for PROMESA because it is the best option available now that both sides can support. No amount of wishing or yelling will change that fact. PROMESA has the support of experts across the political spectrum and editorial boards across the country. It has won support from Puerto Rico's Governor and its sole representative in the U.S. House. It has won support from business leaders in Puerto Rico and in the United States. And, crucially, the Treasury Department says it is an essential step--a first step--to avoid humanitarian catastrophe. We can come back next month, next year, or sooner to try to make it better. But there is no better bill available this week, before July 1, and the impending humanitarian crisis will most affect and most enduringly hurt the people of Puerto Rico. The choice is hope or disaster for the Americans who live in Puerto Rico. PROMESA could be better, but at the end of the day, we cannot permit the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I will continue to work for a better bill, seeking to offer amendments that improve it, and fighting afterward for still more improvements in this measure. Today I urge my colleagues to join in supporting PROMESA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Georgia, as long as I be permitted to follow him for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. That would be fine.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. First, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson of Georgia. To say that he has been a leader is certainly an understatement. He has devoted countless hours to forging a coalition in the best tradition of the U.S. Senate, a bipartisan coalition that enabled us to unanimously bring together Republicans and Democrats on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in approving the Veterans First Act for consideration by this body. My reason for being here today is to say to our colleagues that we must move forward. We must seize this opportunity--no matter which side of the aisle we sit on--to move this bill forward, keep faith with our veterans, leave no veteran behind, and make sure we honor their service by fulfilling our obligations to our job. Our job now is to make sure we pass the Veterans First Act. I have listened with interest to some of my colleagues' comments on a decision by the Attorney General of the United States, and then the Secretary of the Veterans Administration, to decline to defend a part of the Choice statute. Quite frankly, I share their questions and a number of their concerns. I want to know from the Attorney General of the United States why the decision was made to decline enforcement of this statute on constitutional grounds, saying that it violated the appointments clause of the Constitution. After 40 years of practicing law, I can say I have done very little litigation involving the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. It is seemingly an arcane and abstruse section of law. I say that with great humility in light of the experience of the Presiding Officer. He and I may have a discussion away from the floor about the merits of this decision. The point is that we must look forward. We need to demand those answers--and I expect the Attorney General of the United States will be forthcoming--but let's look forward to the central task right now and avoid being distracted by what happened in the past and move forward on the Veterans First bill. This measure imposes accountability lacking for too long, laggard in too many instances. We saw it dramatically and tragically in Phoenix and many other areas around the country where still there has been inadequate or completely absent discipline and accountability imposed. This measure makes it easier for the VA to both hire and remove senior executives, giving the Secretary much needed flexibility in hiring and firing, improving the training of managers, and implementing an outside review. Yesterday we heard from an outstanding nominee, a veteran of years of leadership in the Marine Corps. That kind of quality person ought to be in the VA more commonly. This legislation also protects whistleblowers. In my view, that is critically important. They are the brave employees who see something wrong and say something, at risk to themselves. That risk should be eliminated. In this new proposal, the Veterans First Act, we create an office of accountability and whistleblower protection and require that the VA take the necessity of listening and protecting whistleblowers into account in its training and evaluation of supervisors. This measure goes well beyond accountability, although accountability is central to this bill. It also helps veterans of all eras who may have been exposed to toxic substances in their service. There are so many more unknowns on the battlefield now that can do harm to our soldiers--chemicals, radiation, and other toxic substances--so we can better understand and address the long-term effects of that toxic exposure. That is why the Vietnam Veterans of America fully supports this measure. Thanks to the work of Senator Baldwin, the Veterans First Act also addresses the opioid overprescription crisis among veterans. All too often and for far too long, the VA doctors have relied on powerful opioid painkillers when other kinds of medical care are more appropriate. This legislation will reduce the overuse and, thereby, the addiction of our veterans to these powerful painkiller. As I know from having spoken to Sarah Greene, a constituent of mine who lives in Branford, CT, whose husband perished in the post-9/11 wars while in combat, and her State Representative Lonnie Reed, this bill expands the GI benefits to surviving spouses and their dependents who lost a servicemember after 9/11. It also reinstates those benefits to veterans who attended a school that permanently closed, such as Corinthian Colleges. These predatory schools should not be permitted to deprive our veterans of those benefits that they need and deserve. This measure also provides support for caregivers, the moms, dads, brothers, sisters, and children who give of themselves and give up livelihoods and careers to care for their veteran family members. They should receive the kind of support they need and deserve. Their service is no less worthy and worthwhile than that of their family veteran members. The measure also includes important provisions to address the scourge of homelessness among veterans. I was pleased to work with Lisa Tepper Bates of the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness; and Margaret Middleton, leader of the veterans programs in Connecticut, principally the Connecticut Veterans Legal Center, to create more permanent housing opportunities and provide legal services to homeless veterans. Finally, most important, this bill enhances programs to prepare veterans for careers through licensure, certification programs, and other programs to make sure that veterans have jobs. They need and deserve jobs. As a Member of the Senate, my priority has been jobs and economic progress for our veterans--for all the people of Connecticut. That is why I am pleased that this measure will help veterans find employment as they transition home with employers such as Frontier Communications--very proudly doing business in Connecticut--which is looking to make veterans 15 percent of its new hires. This measure includes many other provisions that are worthy of passage. The point is that we must pass it. I challenge my colleagues to do this bill before July 4, to move forward before we recess for the summer, to address the challenge of providing veterans what they have earned. We are not talking about handouts; we are talking about something veterans have earned--that we keep faith with them. This measure is bipartisan. Nothing stands in its way. There is no reason that merits its being stopped or blocked. I challenge my colleagues to move forward with this measure. I again thank my colleague from Georgia, who is not only a fellow member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee but also a friend of mine and truly a friend of all veterans, the senior Senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson. I yield the floor to Senator Isakson.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, who served as attorney general of her State during part of the time that I served as attorney general in the State of Connecticut. We have in this body common ground in seeking more effective law enforcement solutions to all of the harm and unspeakable violence that has so plagued our Nation in recent years. But I cannot help but remark that we would not be having this debate but for an effort last week--in fact, a filibuster--that took the floor under the leadership of my great colleague and friend Senator Murphy, supported by Senator Booker and myself and then by tens of other Senators, to make sure that we debate and that we vote. Our feeling was that there should be no business as usual on this appropriations bill-- as important as it might be--in the wake of the terrorist extremist harm in Orlando. We demanded action because America is demanding action. We have been deluged before today, and I am sure that we will be deluged after, by Americans saying that the time has come for commonsense measures to stop gun violence inspired by ISIS or other terrorist extremists abroad and supported by them, as well as the homegrown terrorists and the lone wolf. During the 15 hours that we were on the floor, our offices were deluged by encouragement and support from Connecticut and from all around the country, joining us in saying: Enough is enough; the time for action is now. These were letters, tweets, Facebook posts, demonstrations, rallies, and other insistent cries for Congress to do its job and respond to this public health crisis, much as we would to any other epidemic. It is an epidemic that we face--an epidemic of gun violence. In Connecticut, we have a special understanding with the people of Orlando about what it is like to have a community go through such a horrible tragedy. We sought action in the wake of Newtown some years ago, and I am often asked: What now has changed since Newtown? What will make the difference? The reason I think we have reached a tipping point and why I think there has been a sea change and a critically important change in the dynamic here in the Senate is that we now know that these endless progressions of massacres, gang violence, domestic violence, and other gun crimes at every level will continue and, indeed, will rise in number and severity unless we act and, equally, if not more importantly, that the link to terrorist extremists abroad has become irretrievable. We know violent terrorists at home, inspired and supported by ISIS abroad, will continue to wreak havoc and take lives. They will continue to use AR-15s and semi-automatic assault weapons, which have been designed to kill and maim as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. We have become much better at stopping terrorists from carrying bombs onto planes because we adopted a no-fly list, and we have a terrorist watch list. Those AR-15s and other military-style assault weapons have now become the weapon of choice, rather than explosives. The form no longer preferred by terrorists is a plane. Now it is a nightclub, an office, a school, a church, or wherever people gather. There is no question that we need to take the fight to ISIS, as my colleague from New Hampshire has said, and it needs to be taken to ISIS more aggressively and effectively. But the Nation also needs to harden its defenses at home and to use information and intelligence that comes to us about people who are preparing, undertaking, or engaging actively in terrorist activity--as evidenced by fact, not mere speculation--and make sure that we are protected from them by stopping them from buying guns. With weapons that can be easily and legally purchased, one or two gunmen can wreak unimaginable havoc, killing and injuring hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. They need to be barred from buying guns. That is why I am supporting, strongly and enthusiastically, the proposal made by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, that embodies the basic principle: no fly, no gun. If you are too dangerous to be permitted on a plane, you should be deemed too dangerous to buy a gun. That is in no way to interfere with anybody's Second Amendment rights. I believe in the Second Amendment. It is the law of the land. There should be due process, as well, for anybody who is erroneously on any list. The Feinstein proposal, which I am pleased to cosponsor, would give the Attorney General of the United States the flexible authority to stop people who are on a compilation of lists--no fly, terrorist watch lists--or under investigation by the FBI 5 years previously from buying a gun. That is the basic principle that is at stake. It offers a strong hope. Indeed, it might well have prevented the shooter in Orlando from buying a gun, because he had been under investigation by the FBI in the previous 5 years. These measures are necessary to protect America. The alternative, the proposal made by Senator Cornyn, I believe is unworkable and ineffective. The government has to meet a probable cause standard and prove in a public proceeding, a trial, that standard is met. If an individual can be proved by probable cause to be sufficiently dangerous to be barred from a gun purchase, that person can be arrested. The Cornyn proposal, in effect, makes it more difficult to stop someone from buying a gun than to arrest them. So it seems to be that in most circumstances it would be ineffective--indeed, meaningless. To put it simply, the Cornyn amendment essentially adds nothing to the tools law enforcement already have. I have heard it described as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In my view, it is actually a sheep in wolf's clothing, with the pretense of being strong and effective in the fight of terrorism but in fact much less than meets the eye. Folks in law enforcement will know that investigations and analyses concerning highly complex and sensitive information that has to do with terrorism sometimes take time, and the 72-hour requirement placed an unrealistic and unworkable limit on the United States. I want to emphasize again that none of this is to say that due process is to be deemed unimportant. In fact, anyone erroneously on this list ought to be provided with effective and speedy due process, which is what the Feinstein amendment does. We are also going to be voting on another pair of amendments addressed at the broader background check issue. I urge my colleagues to support the measure that I have led with my colleagues, Senator Murphy, Senator Schumer, and Senator Booker, which ensures that our background system works in the only rational way it should--by requiring everyone purchasing a firearm to undergo a background check. That background check process is necessary for any terrorist list to be effectively implemented, because otherwise there would be no way of knowing whether someone is on such a list. ``No fly, no gun'' is effective only if there is a list that can be enforced by review of background. These measures are supported by 90 percent of the American people or more. Everywhere I went over the weekend in Connecticut--Boys State convention sponsored by the American Legion in Winstead, the Branford Road Race for Father's Day, yesterday, the blessing of the fleet in Southport--Americans and the people of Connecticut have shown us that we must act. This Chamber is the place where there are speeches. It is often filled with words. Now is the time for action. An alternative to the Murphy-Schumer-Blumenthal-Booker amendment has been offered by Senator Grassley. Unfortunately, it would not only fail to fix the problem, but, in fact, it would worsen the status quo. It makes broad sweeping changes to portions of our gun laws that now prevent people with dangerous mental illnesses from obtaining weapons. This proposal would make an abrupt sweeping change to the definition that could result in many individuals currently prohibited from purchasing firearms suddenly being able to do so, even if they do in fact have conditions that make them dangerous to themselves or others. There is no single solution to the problem of extremist terrorism inspired or supported by ISIS or enemies abroad. We need to be mindful and aggressive and effective in countering. The link to terrorism abroad is undeniably seen at home. I want to commit that today is in a sense the beginning of a new chapter, when perhaps we can seek common ground in light of the sea change and the tipping point we have reached in this Nation. We can seek common ground on measures that are realistic. My quarrel with the Collins amendment is that it would, in fact, fail to cover 90 percent of the suspected terrorists who pose danger, and it would not have stopped the shooter in Orlando, as the Feinstein proposal might well have done. There is a basis for common ground. I am committed to seek it. We have not only the opportunity but the obligation to do more and to do it better. This effort will not be a sprint, as I said literally within days of the Newtown tragedy. It is an effort that requires continued work to stop assault weapons and AR-15s, which are weapons of war and mass destruction, to prevent illegal trafficking and straw purchases, to enact a mental health initiative and school safety measures, to prevent domestic violence from careening into gun violence, and to prevent the continued broad immunity unique to the gun industry under PLCAA. These steps will come in time because the American people are saying, as we said last week on the floor of the Senate: Enough is enough. The time is now for action. I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort and for their continuing support and, most importantly, the people of Connecticut who have been so generous and caring and most important for the survivors and victims who have shared their stories again and again. The face and voice of Newtown has been here through groups such as Sandy Hook Promise and Newtown Action Alliance. In the end, citizen activism will enable us to do more and do better to counter extremist violence and gun violence throughout America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I need to follow up with an additional question, and then my colleague from New Jersey is on the floor to ask a question. On the issue of Second Amendment rights, which Senator Murphy has just pointed out so well, that is the law of the land. There is a Second Amendment right for law-abiding people to buy and possess firearms. But is it not true that in these measures, we are talking about people who are dangerous and who are recognized to be dangerous? That is why they are on the list. And there is also a right on their part to remove their names from that list if there is an error or a mistake of fact that has caused them to be on that list without good reason. So these measures that bring us to the floor today acknowledge and recognize the importance of that Second Amendment right, and the potential impact of our opponents in their arguments against it--saying that there is a lack of due process and that the people will be denied that Second Amendment right--is really mistaken. Is that not correct?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I have a question which I will preface with the context of that question. First, I thank him for his leadership. We have worked together as a team on this issue of gun violence prevention and the fight against terrorism abroad and at home, and I thank our other colleagues who will be part of this effort. It is very much a team effort that we bring to the floor today, involving our friend and distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker; Senator Feinstein, who has worked so hard on this legislation before we arrived here; our colleague Senator Durbin, who is with us now; and Senator Schumer. So many of us feel so deeply. I think for Senator Murphy and myself, the deeply emotional experience of Orlando evokes the images and sounds and sights of Newtown on that tragic day when both of us were there and witnessed the aftermath of 20 beautiful children and sixth grade educators gunned down senselessly and needlessly in an act of unimaginable and unspeakable horror. This effort is more than about just words. This Chamber is filled with words. Rhetoric is the business of the floor of the Chamber. We are here today to seek action, and action has been too long delayed on banning gun violence, the kinds of acts of hatred and terror that happened in Orlando. Actions speak louder than words, and the Nation deserves action. Ninety percent of the American people want sensible, commonsense measures like background checks to be adopted by the Senate. There is no question that we are learning more in shock and horror about the details of Orlando. It seems to have involved potentially insidious bigotry and hatred, a pernicious, extremist ideology, perhaps inspired by ISIS and others abroad, as well as very likely mental illness of some kind. But we know it was an act of terror and hatred that can be prevented by the kinds of measures we are seeking today, specific measures preventing anybody who is too dangerous to fly in a commercial plane from buying a gun--no flying, no gun. Someone who is deemed to be a terrorist or deserving to be on the terrorist watch list should also be deemed too dangerous to purchase the kinds of weapons this individual was able to purchase. We need to strengthen the FBI because its investigative authority, in effect--perhaps not legally but in effect--would have been strengthened by this kind of measure, enabling anybody too dangerous to fly to also be stopped from buying a gun. This individual could have been stopped-- not with any certainty, but at least the possibility is realistically there--and its investigations might have been continued and pursued had that law been in effect. Background checks are a means to enforce existing law and prevent categories of people already deemed too dangerous to buy guns--convicted felons or drug addicts or others in those categories adopted literally decades ago with the full support of the opponents of background checks who may be in opposition now. These measures complement each other. We know we must fight terrorism abroad. We are at war against ISIS. We must pursue that war effectively, aggressively, and relentlessly. We must fight the homegrown terrorists who are either inspired or supported by ISIS, the lookalikes and soundalikes who claim allegiance to ISIS, whether they are supported or inspired, and for whom ISIS may claim responsibility. The defenses must be hardened at home. That is part of what we are seeking to do here, just as we fight abroad against terrorism that would reach our shores and threaten our security. Those measures must involve some military action, and that military action includes intercepting intelligence and finances, air superiority, and air aid for our allies on the ground, without committing massive numbers of U.S. troops to that effort. That war must be pursued even as we pursue the war against terror and hatred here at home. But hardening our defenses requires that kind of action. So as a body we must commit to stop the terrorist gap from continuing to threaten our security at home, as well as implementing universal background checks that will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We owe it not only to the memory of the children and educators at Sandy Hook and to the countless innocent people who have perished since in the mass shootings that so preoccupy our attention but also the daily shootings--30,000 of them every year. In downtown Hartford and around Connecticut, no place is immune. No one is safe so long as there is this threat. These measures are modest, and they should be followed by others, such as a repeal of PLCAA, the protection against domestic violence for victims, and the kind of measure I have offered, the Lori Jackson Act. The repeal of PLCAA, which my colleague from Connecticut and I have championed, would repeal immunity that is unique to the gun industry. A ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases, mental health issues, and school safety steps are measures that must be pursued as part of a strategy to combat gun violence and terrorism, whether it is inspired by ISIS or an organization abroad or homegrown here. These measures are complementary, and they must be pursued together. We have lived too long, and I have worked literally for decades since I first supported a ban on assault weapons in Connecticut in the early 1980s and then defended it in court after it was adopted. These measures of protection will require steps against those kinds of assault weapons that are truly weapons of destruction, designed to kill and maim human beings as quickly as possible and as many people as possible. Those assault weapons, whether they were involved in Orlando or not or in any of those other examples, such as Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, clearly presented threats and were implements of destruction there. We must take action. We must come together. We must unify as a nation to recognize the common threat rather than divide ourselves with the kind of demagogy that has been all too common in the wake of these tragedies. So I ask my colleague a question, and I look forward to continuing to ask questions and working with him as part of this team today to continue the pressure that we feel must be brought to bear at this moment of national crisis, when the conscience of the nation can be evoked, when we all owe it to ourselves to search our consciences and convictions, look at ourselves in the mirror, and look the Nation in the eye and say: We must act. We cannot allow this moment in our history to pass without action. I ask my good friend and colleague, Senator Murphy, if he can understand why this body has so long refused to recognize the will of the Nation and why for so long the Senate has been, in effect, complicit by its inaction in these kinds of killings--30,000 a year. What about the influence of the gun lobby has made it so powerful in exerting this hold over the Congress and many of our State legislators, and what can we do to address this public health crisis? It is more than just an epidemic; it is a public health crisis, a scourge of gun violence that we must counter. If 30,000 people died as a result of Ebola or Zika or some other disease, the Nation would be rightly outraged. There would be drastic and immediate action. Why is there not for this public health crisis and this health epidemic that is not only threatening but is deadly to our Nation?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will offer it at another time. Thank you. The point is that we can do something about these numbers. We can reduce them, and we can save lives if we adopt commonsense central measures such as are going to be debated specifically and given a vote in the U.S. Senate. A result of our staying--our colleagues and the three of us staying-- is no more business as usual. Enough is enough. Let's listen to the American people. There is a consensus. The poll numbers show that 90 percent of the American people think we should have background checks. The majority of gun owners and the majority of people also think that someone suspected of terrorist activities based on evidence should be barred from buying a gun. That is a national consensus, as well, and makes good common sense. If we are at war with ISIS--and we are--we should stop ISIS inspired or supported terrorists in this country from buying guns. If we think ISIS is trying to create extremist violence here that leads to the kind of attack that we saw in Orlando, those individuals who are motivated by the twisted, pernicious, insidious ideology of hate should be barred from buying a gun. These determinations are not based on speculation; they are based on evidence and facts under the measure that we have proposed, and they provide due process for someone to have his name removed if that determination is made in error that he is on the list or that he is barred from buying guns. The details are important, as they are in every law, because they are a guarantee of due process and individual rights. The same is true of background checks. Somebody who is mistakenly on the NICS list should have that name removed. But facts are important; evidence is critical. That is what is involved in these measures, which are a start. Laws work when they are enforced. We know they work in Connecticut because there was a 40-percent reduction in some crimes in the wake of the permit to purchase laws passed in 1994. That study was recently done by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, Berkeley, saying to those doubters or skeptics that the permit-to-purchase laws passed in Connecticut in 1994 actually were a huge success for public safety. My colleague from Connecticut has cited other efforts that show that laws work when they are enforced, and national laws are important because Connecticut cannot itself create the kind of protections that our citizens deserve. Borders are porous to the trafficking of guns. Guns have no respect for State boundaries, nor do the traffickers, so we need national laws to protect the citizens of every State. We are here because there is a national consensus in favor of those laws, and we know that we have an obligation and a historic opportunity to be changemakers in this body. The American people want change on both sides of the political aisle. We know that voters want Washington to change, they want the political system to change, they want our laws to change, and they want the system of public financing to change, so that the public interest, not special interests, will prevail. Other measures surely should be sought--the repeal of the unique immunity and shield from accountability that gunmakers have, the inability of a protective order to protect against domestic abusers that have guns, the absence of laws to protect against straw purchasers and illegal trafficking. There ought to be national laws, again, that provide those protections. Of course, even for licensed firearms dealers, a person whose background check is not completed in 72 hours can still buy a gun, even though if the background check had been completed, he would have been barred. That is the reason that in Charleston, SC, nine people were murdered by Dylann Roof, who obtained that gun even though he was in effect legally barred from buying a gun because the background check was not completed within 72 hours. There are many more steps that need to be taken, and even with the passage of measures that we are advocating today, there is no single solution. We are only at the beginning of the efforts to pass these measures, but we have at least changed this debate. We have changed the context of this consideration, and the reason is that Senator Murphy has shown the leadership that he has shown. We are grateful to him for it, and we will continue this fight together. So my question, generally, to my colleague from Connecticut is, How should we close tonight, and isn't he glad there will be no more questions?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank Senator Murphy. And I join in thanking all of the staff who have worked over this day and into the night and into the next day at great personal sacrifice and at great benefit to the U.S. Senate. I want to thank my colleague Senator Booker for his eloquence, his perseverance, and his dedication to this cause, and Senator Murphy for his courage and strength in this cause that brings us here today, tonight, tomorrow, and in the days ahead because this experience is, as he has said, only the next step, and this legislation is only a next step. We have talked a lot in great--and some of it very powerful and compelling--terms about what is at stake here. Certainly the reason we are here has to do with the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States. But the numbers are important. Numbers are cold, hard, and stark. Forty-nine people were killed in that single attack in Orlando, but in an ordinary day in America, dozens of people are shot without any notice. It is not a headline, barely a mentioning. Certainly there are no speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The fact is that gun homicides are a common cause of death in our Nation-- the greatest, strongest Nation in the history of the world--killing about as many people as car crashes, and in direct contrast to the experience of other countries where, for example, in Poland and England, only about one out of every million people dies in a gun homicide--about as often as when an American dies from an agricultural accident or falling off a ladder. These numbers come from the New York Times of just a few days ago, June 13, which I ask to be printed in the Record if there is no objection.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. And I will ask a question of my colleague and friend from Connecticut, but first I want to thank all my colleagues who have been here over these 12 hours off and on, speaking so powerfully, as our friend from Virginia just did about his experience. Every one of us has this kind of experience that brings us here and binds us together in this cause because we have seen the flesh and blood and emotional impacts. And I want to read a letter also from a Newtown survivor--another. I read one earlier. This is from someone who lived through Newtown and wrote me after Orlando, and she said: As a Newtown teacher who was in lockdown at the Middle School on 12/14, this work is particularly important to me. That could just have easily been my classroom, and I find it abhorrent that we have chosen as a nation to be complacent in the face of mass shootings. It is incumbent upon us, our elected officials to enact meaningful change in order to save lives. I urge and implore citizens around the country, people who are watching this proceeding, who are listening to the powerful words of my colleagues--most especially Senator Murphy--to let us know that you hear us, and equally important to let the other side of the aisle know, which right now is vacant--completely empty. This side is full, the other side is empty. Let them hear how you feel, the same way this teacher who lives in Trumbull, CT, let me know how she feels. There is a lot of talk these days in our politics about the need for change--on the Presidential campaign, in the Senate campaigns, at every level of our elected process. Politicians are telling people they will change things in Washington. Well, we can give people change in our laws, in our enforcement practices, in our culture. It all has to change for lives to be saved. It isn't only new laws, there has to be more resources for the enforcement of that law. The background check is actually an enforcement tool. Expanding that check gives law enforcement the ability to stop people already prohibited by law from buying guns. The terrorist watch list and the Attorney General's discretion based on evidence to stop people engaged or preparing for terrorism to be barred from buying guns is an enforcement tool. It protects people. So people should demand changes not just in the abstract and in general terms but in the way we deal with guns. This day has been enormously meaningful because of the reaction it has provoked across the country in our offices, the phones that have rung, the tweets that have emanated, and the messages we have received in every form, but it must be followed by action. In this Chamber we hear words. This place is filled with words. It is what we do in this place--we talk. But actions speak louder than words. Now is the time for action. Enough is enough. Give us the votes. Give us the votes on these amendments. Let us vote. That is the reason we are here. Let us act to fulfill the expectations and the wishes of the American people who are begging for us to take meaningful action. We need to do our job. That is our job-- to act and to protect the American people. I would ask my colleague from Connecticut whether he believes we can reach a resolution here that will permit us to act, whether reasonable minds can come together, whether we can forge consensus involving the other side of the aisle, whether we can bridge the partisan gaps and come together in a meaningful way--as we have done on veterans issues, on immigration reform, and on other issues, where we may not have crossed the finish line in the House of Representatives but, in the past, we have succeeded in bridging our differences. Is that possible? I want to hear from the American people that they think it is not only possible but necessary, and it is our job.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Senator Murphy's very eloquent reference to a family we met just a day or so after the loss of their child brings back a memory that always evokes an almost indescribable emotion from me. My heart goes to my throat whenever I think of that couple saying to me: We are ready now, ready to help, ready to take action. And that has been the story of the Newtown and Sandy Hook families who lived through that loss. They came here and told their stories to our colleagues, nearly achieved--or helped us achieve--a victory. We came within four or five votes of that outcome. And from the Gallery of the Chamber, when we failed came the cry ``shame,'' and it was indeed shameful that the Senate failed to move forward. My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Booker, has described the real- world impact in such graphic and powerful terms that I hesitate to follow him, but I want to make two points and ask my colleague from Connecticut whether he agrees with them. The first is that those families from Connecticut in a sense represented the community as a whole--the Newtown community, the Connecticut community--through organizations like Sandy Hook Promise and the Newtown Action Alliance and others around the country--Everytown, Americans for Responsible Solutions. They are doing what proponents of sensible, commonsense measures have done for much longer, which is to organize and to galvanize and educate and raise awareness. And that, in the end, will be the way we win. I pay tribute to them tonight. I thank them and the families for their courage and strength again. I want to bring this issue home to Connecticut, where my friend and colleague Senator Murphy and I live and where we went through the searing experience of the Newtown tragedy. I had been involved for two decades in gun violence prevention, helping to advocate and then to defend in court our ban on assault weapons--one of the first State laws in the country. But that experience transformed many of us in our State, and it impacted people of all ages to be more vigorous advocates and more articulate advocates. I want to read a letter from a young man who lives in Danbury, CT. I am a constituent of yours and I became a victim of gun violence when my 7-year-old cousin, Daniel Barden, was murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. I am no longer ``saddened'' by recent mass shootings; I am instead angry and frustrated by the inaction of this Nation's leaders to implement obvious and basic safeguards to gun ownership such as universal background checks, CDC research into gun violence, limiting magazine capacity, restriction of gun ownership to domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists, to name a few. One of the most infuriating aspects of the continued mass shootings in this country is that they are so eminently preventable. We can't do much about earthquakes or hurricanes, but it is pretty simple to just NOT SELL military grade weapons to civilians or just NOT SELL AR-15s to domestic abusers who have been investigated by the FBI for terrorist connections and threats. I am furious and feel powerless. I beg you to stand up for me, my family, everyone who has ever lost family or friends to senseless gun violence, and for our society as a whole, which we are currently failing to protect. Enough is enough. That is from a young person who lives in Danbury, CT. It summarizes the feeling of powerlessness and helplessness and fury that Americans all across the country feel. Just to give one example, I understand that in the last 96 hours, 500,000 people have signed a petition in favor of banning assault weapons--half a million people in just 96 hours, a petition circulated by MoveOn.org. Assault weapons are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They are combat hardened and tested and used. They are military-style assault weapons--AR-15s. As some of our colleagues have said, most hunters would not use them to shoot deer or other animals. Yet they are sold freely. Our request is a much more limited one than even assault weapons, as much as they need to be banned in terms of new sales. We are simply saying don't sell those weapons to somebody who is on the terrorist watch list, somebody who is under investigation for potentially being supported and funded and maybe educated and trained by one of our adversaries, our enemies abroad, like ISIS. And don't sell those kinds of weapons or any others to anyone without a background check because they may fit that category or the other prohibited categories that are already in the law. It is simply a means of enforcing the law. These proposals are really relatively modest, and so are the others that this young person has advocated that we adopt--``obvious and basic safeguards,'' to quote him or her, ``to gun ownership such as universal background checks, CDC research into gun violence, limiting magazine capacity, restricting gun ownership to domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists, to name a few.'' All of them should be adopted. We are asking for two. We are asking for votes. We are asking for action. And we are saying: No more business as usual. Connecticut also had a connection to Orlando--a 37-year-old young woman named Kimberly Morris, educated in Torrington, CT, at the Torrington High School and then at Post University in Waterbury, CT. Kimberly Morris was known as a ``scrappy player,'' according to Charlie McSpiritt, the Torrington High School's former athletic director. He can still remember Morris because she ``played the game to her fullest.'' She was ``a tenacious'' small forward on the basketball team as well at Post University in Waterbury. Her teammate Narvell Benning, who played for the men's team, said: ``She didn't let nobody push her around.'' She was 37 years old. She is among the older victims who were killed in Orlando. What is so striking about the biographies of these men and women is how young they are and how much life they had ahead. They were not as young as the 6-year-olds gunned down in Sandy Hook, those 20 beautiful children, but Kimberly, like those children, had her whole life ahead. So my question to my colleague is whether Connecticut still feels the impact, and whether Connecticut wants us to act at a national level as well, as the Nation?