Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in a couple of minutes we will be voting on a bill that includes a transfer of $3.4 billion within accounts of the Veterans' Administration to make possible, literally enable VA to continue providing health care for millions of veterans across the United States. We are in this situation because of, quite frankly, gross ineptitude in planning that can be characterized only as management malpractice. This crisis emphasizes the importance of accountability, and I thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, for his leadership in addressing the shortfall and also in his cooperation in meeting the crisis and accountability of management that the VA continues to face. This crisis must stop. Congress cannot be expected to continue to bail out the VA because of mismanagement and management malpractice. In the longer term, there is a need for fundamental reform. There are some good ideas in this bill. I have supported many of them. I thank Senator Tester for his leadership as well in framing a proposal that addresses these issues. But make no mistake. This bill is only one small step toward the reform that I have been advocating and will continue to champion, and hope to continue to work on specifics to advance, as the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Again, I thank my colleagues and our chairman.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his support, and I appreciate the comments made by Senator Isakson and Senator McCain. We had bipartisan support for this initiative to make sure our veterans continue to receive health care that is necessary because funds will be terminated at the end of August if we fail to act. It is, in effect, a short-term fix that is necessary because of the present structure of funding within the VA. I think we can take this step and leave for another day the question of how long the Choice Program should be extended, if it should be extended at all. My hope is that accountability and funding will focus on making the VA even better than it is. The reason for accountability is to make sure VA hospitals and providers are giving our veterans world-class, first-class health care. I welcome the focus of the Senator from Missouri on what the VA does well. I hope it does everything well that it is doing. From primary care, to women's health care, to all of the clinics that are, to the initiatives it is taking in telemedicine, the VA ought to be providing the best health care available in the world to our veterans. They need it and deserve it. We need to make sure we keep faith with those veterans. I am proud we are taking this step on a bipartisan basis to address the short-term challenge of $3.4 billion that must be transferred from the Choice Program to other accounts in the VA and to make sure the money is available to provide this funding and keep health care going for our veterans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague from Washington State, a very distinguished and dedicated colleague, and others such as she who are championing this cause of defending Planned Parenthood. I am proud to stand with Planned Parenthood in advocating and championing the cause of women's health care in this country. Planned Parenthood needs no defense and, indeed, this body should not be spending valuable time and energy in this attack on women's health care that is epitomized by an effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Let's be very clear. Planned Parenthood provides countless women across this country with STD testing, breast cancer screening, funding research in strengthening women's health care, and contraception. None of these activities is involved in abortion. They are entirely unrelated to abortion. They are about women's health care. The effort to defund Planned Parenthood is, in fact, an attack on women's health care. Planned Parenthood should need no defense from any of us because its activities immensely benefit women who depend on it and rely on its professionals for basic screening, testing, and other activities that protect them from the ravages of cancer and other kinds of diseases that will cost more to this Nation if we deny Planned Parenthood that funding. Planned Parenthood is under attack. It is under siege from a sensationalistic and disingenuous kind of publicity that is based on undercover videos. People are offended by them, and Planned Parenthood has in fact spoken to the merits of them. I encourage Planned Parenthood to continue speaking to those videos. Another was released just yesterday. Planned Parenthood needs no defense from us because the American people support it. American women do because they know the reality, which is different from what is depicted in those videos. The reality is that Planned Parenthood provides funding for women's health care. So the funding of women's health care by defunding Planned Parenthood should not be the goal or the effect of anything we do in this body. I am proud to stand and urge my colleagues to reject this attack from the most extreme members of the anti-choice movement, which seeks to undermine critical access to health care through Planned Parenthood. My hope is that congressional opinion, like American public opinion, will continue to be, as we are, on the side of Planned Parenthood. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who has correctly and appropriately stated what our goal is in seeking the transfer of funding--a goal that will be fulfilled by the bill coming to us from the House. It is, in fact, coming to us from the House, but as Chairman Isakson has very correctly stated, it is the result of an initiative that he--and I have been very proud to join him in this effort--initiated with the VA Secretary at our meeting last week. And the leadership of the House has joined in that effort. I am proud and honored to be his partner in this effort, which is absolutely necessary to continue the VA's health care programs. This transfer of $3.4 billion is required by the fact that the community and care programs of the VA will in effect exhaust their revenue streams unless we enable the VA to use some of this Choice funding in this effort. It is necessary to permit VA programs and veterans to have access to money that is there. It is for the same purpose as the community and care programs. They are, in fact, identical programs in terms of their basic efforts and goals. The meeting we had--that Chairman Isakson had last week--was very productive and important in reaching a consensus, a bipartisan consensus, and I urge my Democratic colleagues on this side of the aisle to join this effort to enable VA programs to go forward and to make sure we continue to keep faith with our veterans. We should leave no veteran behind when it comes to health care. We must make sure that we fulfill our obligation to all of our veterans in mental health care, in physical health care, in primary health care, and all the specialties that are served by this program. I thank my very good friend from Georgia for his leadership in this effort. I am proud to be his partner in serving this goal. I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank our friend from Arizona, the distinguished cosponsor with me of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, for his great work in this area as well as on health care generally for our veterans. He has raised one of the most profoundly important as well as intelligent questions about accountability--accountability for the debacle and delays in health care and cooking the books that led to the Choice program, but also accountability for the cost overruns in the construction of the Aurora, CO, facility--$1 billion at least over budget, and months, if not years, of delays, as well as in other construction facilities. I would just say to my friend from Arizona that the chairman and I are focused on the accountability issue, and we are working together in a bipartisan way on a legislative measure that will meet the test of constitutionality as well as effectiveness in holding accountable past and future officials at the VA for these kinds of mismanagement and in other areas. So I thank him for raising this issue. I apologize to my colleague from Missouri for delaying him from taking the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, going back to my colleagues who have appeared to talk about issues of accountability for the Department of Veterans Affairs, I want to say how grateful I am for the spirit of collaboration that prevailed yesterday in our meeting. Very generously and responsibly, the chairman of that committee, Senator Isakson--my good friend and distinguished colleague from Georgia--offered and committed to continue the effort to improve the measures we approved yesterday in our committee to hold accountable the Department of Veterans Affairs and all of its employees--just as we do any other agency of government--to make sure we keep faith with our veterans and leave no veteran behind. Our Nation needs to make sure we provide the robust resources and the prompt delivery of health care services and other measures to our veterans with the honest and efficient management our veterans deserve. So many of us were repulsed and outraged by the revelation just a little more than 1 year ago about delays in health care, irresponsible and reprehensible and, indeed, criminal obstruction of justice in cooking the books that prevailed at health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs around the country, and the ramifications were sweeping. There were indeed changes in management, beginning at the very top, with a new Secretary. There were also measures approved by this Congress in the last session, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, to make sure no veteran suffering 30 days or more in delays in health care be denied a private provider if he or she chooses one or is living more than 40 miles from any facility. We are working on additional measures, constructive and positive measures, to make sure this Nation fulfills its promise of prompt, world-class, first-class health care to every veteran who needs it, regardless of what that need is, the specialty or the illness, and to make sure we also cure the other deficiencies, such as the delays in disability claims, homelessness, joblessness, the need for job training and skills among our veterans. Part of our task is accountability to make sure members of the Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable. That is one reason why I insisted and urged from the very beginning of those revelations of wrongdoing and criminality in the Department of Veterans Affairs that there be a Department of Justice investigation. I called on the Attorney General of the United States to investigate, not the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General of the United States because only the Department of Justice has the resources and expertise, direction, and leadership to successfully pursue the wide-ranging criminality and wrongdoing that I thought was revealed. For all of us who hope there is honesty and fair dealing in our government, regrettably there has now been a criminal indictment. The indications are that more should follow, that there was and is reason for a Department of Justice investigation, that there are and need to be continued reports and results of the IG investigation. I have called in hearing after hearing that we be given those reports and results of the ongoing inspector general investigation, and we still are lacking in the full work product from that office. There is clearly more work to be done on the wrongdoing that has been committed in the past, and there is clearly more work to be done to prevent it in the future. Part of what needs to be done is to protect the whistleblowers. Indeed, those revelations of wrongdoing came in part from whistleblowers who had the courage and fortitude to step forward and who were intimidated and ostracized and sometimes persecuted within the VA. They need protection. One part of what we need to do is to make sure they are protected. There ought to be accountability going forward in disciplining employees within the VA when there is malfeasance or waste or fraud. That involves eliminating some of the redtape and rigaramole that in the past have hampered the VA Secretary or other managers in making sure that there is accountability. That is why I welcome the focus of our committee on assuring accountability and transparency. Those changes in the law are necessary to enable the VA Secretary and his team to make sure that there is not only accurate and effective prompt discipline but also the appearance of it so that employees at the VA will know that there is a standard of conduct and it will be enforced and it will be upheld in the courts when it is challenged. That is true not only in the VA but of every department of the U.S. Government. There needs to be that perception and reality of the enforcement of codes of conduct and ethics. There needs to be a recognition that it is in the interest not only of the American taxpayer but the employees of the U.S. Government themselves. The majority of them are honest and hard-working. Those nurses, counselors, therapists, doctors, and administrators at the VA who are doing their job--in fact, working overtime often without additional pay--who are serving valiantly and responsibly, their clients deserve that wrongdoers be rooted out and held accountable. They are the vast majority of those honest and hard-working employees, and we owe them thanks for what they do to serve our veterans, but the wrongdoers need to be disciplined. The idea that they should receive bonuses is absolutely abhorrent. I welcome legislation that stops bonuses for employees who fail the most basic notions of effective and honest service. They deserve that those bonuses be stopped. My colleague Senator Isakson has spoken about S. 627, the bill that has been sponsored by Senator Ayotte and was approved yesterday. I want to make sure in the improvements I am going to offer to it and that my colleague Senator Brown offered yesterday--that we actually make it more effective. That is the nature of this deliberative process, that we try to improve on what we are doing to make enforcement more effective. I know as an enforcer, as a former U.S. attorney and a Federal and State official, enforcement is key to making the law work. The same is true of S. 1082, sponsored by our colleague Senator Rubio, which also was approved yesterday by our committee. I have offered a bill that will improve the measure we approved yesterday in a number of different respects. First of all, there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the provision approved yesterday. I think in fairness to all of the American taxpayers as well as this body, we should face whatever deficiencies there are constitutionally in the law before that law becomes unenforceable. The importance of making sure a law is constitutional goes to enforcement. A law that is unconstitutional, that fails to provide sufficient notice, a statement of causes, a right to be heard, an opportunity to achieve basic constitutional protection that the U.S. Security Court has repeatedly said is necessary, those deficiencies can make law unenforceable. As I said yesterday in our committee meeting, as a former attorney general, and there are others in this body, we know how difficult the task is to defend a law or defend State action that is based on a constitutional and firm statute. A law that is unenforceable is worse than no law at all because it creates a false sense of security, an expectation that never can be fulfilled because a law that is unenforceable will never be effective in preventing the wrong that it is designed to do. I want to improve S. 1082--in fact, to make it more effective--but to make sure it is done in a way that can be upheld, also to protect those whistleblowers, and to make sure that if there are firings and disciplines, it is done on the merits, that it is done on the basis of real cause and evidence, not as part of a political witch hunt. We have been through the spoils system. This Nation has lived through a time when, in effect, offices were bought and sold. That certainly is nobody's intention here, and I am sure my colleagues and I can work together to move toward a measure that fulfills our common shared objective in making sure that merit and effective action is rewarded with bonuses and through other means and that wrongdoing is punished and deterred. There can be no enforcement unless the law is framed as well as possible, and there can be no deterrence unless there is enforcement. That is what we want to do: prevent this kind of wrongdoing going forward, not just looking backward and pursuing and prosecuting the wrongdoers, which I hope will be done. There is more than ample evidence to support it but also to prevent it going forward. I am tremendously heartened by our committee chairman's commitment to work with me and others on that committee. He said to me very explicitly, and it is on the record, that he will, in fact, work with us. We will engage in collaboration. I think we are going to improve these measures. They may not be huge or sweeping changes in what we approved yesterday, but we all know that words can sometimes lead to courts concluding that there are defects in the law that were never intended by the Framers. That is a consequence, an unintended result that we should avoid if possible. It may seem like lawyer talk, but it has ramifications in the courts. That is the reason we heard from the DAV at our June 24 hearing that it is ``vitally important to VA's long-term future to create an environment in which the best and brightest professionals choose VA over other Federal or private employers.'' We need those best of the best in the VA, not working in the private sector alone. Fairness and due process in our workplace will encourage talented doctors, lawyers, nurses, and other professionals to come to the VA, which is where we need them, for the strength of that system. As the independent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board stated in its statement for the record in the committee's June 24th hearing, there is a need to follow and respect constitutional due process. The Partnership for Public Service said much of the same thing in this letter of July 21, 2015. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that my colleagues join in this collaboration because I know how deeply you and I feel, how we share that common goal, not just in our committee. I ask that we work to incorporate the measure I have introduced today, S. 1856, with the cosponsorship Senators Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono, my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs Equitable Employee Accountability Act. This measure is introduced today, and it will help us improve and enhance S. 1082 and the supremely important objectives that motivate it. I thank my colleagues for our work together, and I look forward to pursuing it. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as I watch this great deliberative body move toward a transportation bill, I sometimes feel as though I am watching an impending train wreck or a car crash because on the issue of safety this bill reflects a tragic, unfortunate, unforgivable missed opportunity. If we authorize this transportation measure, which is vitally important to the future of our Nation and will help drive economic growth and create jobs, we will miss the opportunity to make our roads and rails safer, more reliable, and more resilient for our economy and quality of life. We are missing an opportunity to, in effect, save lives. Anyone who has opened the morning newspaper and read about a derailment--whether in Bridgeport, Rikers Island, the Bronx, NY, or Philadelphia--causing injuries, deaths, loss of both life and property, can ask, understandably, why can't they do something? Anybody who discovers a used car bought by a friend or a relative or oneself rife with recalls and the need for repairs can justifiably ask, why can't they do something? Anybody who has had a near miss on the highway with an 80,000-pound truck going 75 miles an hour because there is a tired truckdriver under pressure from an owner or because there are two 33- length rigs can justifiably ask, why haven't they done something? The answer is because the Senate is missing an opportunity now, this year, on this bill. I spend a lot of time driving Connecticut's roads and seeing firsthand how all of these vital forms of transportation--railroad, bridges, ports, and airports--are in need of investment. The latest example and evidence is from a report released today--it is called the ``TRIP report''--in New Haven finding that 45 percent of roads there are in poor condition and that the cost to drivers is $707 a year in repairs. That is real money. The roads are in very bad condition--45 percent of them--in the New Haven area alone. And the ``TRIP report'' ought to be a powerful reminder of the need for robust and enduring investment. I wrote to the writers and drafters of the bill before us asking for a good bill that makes the kind of investment we need to respond to the needs that are reflected in the ``TRIP report,'' which is in the range of billions of dollars a year, but this measure provides to Connecticut only about $500 million a year--a pittance compared to what the need is in Connecticut. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration, keeping roads and rail reliable and safe means investment. Creating jobs means investment. Driving the economy forward means investment. All of those goals can be served by a robust and adequate investment. I urged that the bill cover the full 6 years. Instead, this bill really is a mirage of what is necessary. The bill before us fails to provide a long-term and robust plan to meet the priorities for our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Major construction projects, such as building the I-84/Route 8 highway interchange in Waterbury, known as the Mixmaster, and replacing the Aetna Viaduct portions of I- 84 in Hartford, will take years to complete. This bill provides only the illusion of a long-term authorization, backed only by 3 years of dedicated funding for highways and no--let me repeat--no dedicated funding for critical infrastructure investment in our Nation's commuter railroads. When the American people discover what is in this bill, they are going to again say: Why can't they do something? Why can't they do something better than this train wreck and car collision of a bill? I voted against the motion to proceed to this bill because of its failure to provide a path forward and this bill's failure to provide a reliable funding source for the commuter rail systems millions of Americans depend on every day and its failure to address our country's ongoing crisis in transportation safety. We have seen the evidence of safety failure in a variety of tragic instances--in Philadelphia, in Westchester County, where a collision at a grade crossing killed six people; a derailment in the Bronx that killed four; a train on the wrong track that struck and killed a worker in West Haven; and, of course, the derailment in Bridgeport that injured more than 70 people. Positive train control would help prevent these kinds of tragedies. It is a technology similar to GPS--not much more complicated--that monitors track conditions and speeds and helps trains slow or stop before there is a collision or derailment. It is not a new or novel or original, untested technology; it has been around for years. This bill fails to bring our railroads into the latest 20th-century technology, not to mention the 21st-century technology that positive train control offers. The Northeast Corridor is in urgent need of at least $570 million per year to enable a decent and adequate state of repair, to give railroads a realistic chance of implementing lifesaving positive train control technology, and to improve safety at rail grade crossings. That is money which can't be created by a mirage or an illusion in a bill like this one. The national infrastructure safety and investment grants program was designed to provide this level of support. If Congress were to dedicate the necessary funding from the highway trust fund, it could be done, but Congress is ignoring this fundamental need. On our roads, American bus and truck drivers perform an essential service and they work hard at it, but their industry also has well- documented safety issues. Unfortunately, this legislation creates additional hurdles for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to promulgate rules and to address safety issues. Rather than making the world safer, it actually enables more danger. The bill before us allows 18-year-olds to sit behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound truck going 75 miles an hour--with no requirement to get rest--to drive 75 miles an hour not only within the State but across State lines. The bill allows giant twin 33's--new to our roads--to be driven across State lines, putting drivers at risk and further degrading our highway system. The bill eviscerates rules on how much rest truckdrivers must take. That rest is essential to safety. I sought to strike and modify these damaging provisions in committee, and I urged my colleagues to support essential safety reforms, but unfortunately those calls went unheeded. Over the last 2 years, the commerce committee has had a tragic front- row seat--a unique insight into the tragedies that pile up when safety is ignored. Our national safety regulators all too commonly look the other way when auto companies, for example, conceal information to protect profits over human life. I appreciate the work of Senator Boxer, who has stripped the most offensive provisions out of the title governing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That title no longer limits grants for the prevention of drunk driving, for example. Unfortunately, it still contains unacceptable loopholes. Due to the GM ignition coverup and the Takata airbag crisis, there are currently an unprecedented 64 million cars on the road today that are under safety recall. Let me repeat that number. There are 64 million cars on the road today that are under safety recall. That is 25 percent of the total 250 million cars in America. To say this number is unprecedented fails to do it justice. Along with a number of my colleagues, particularly Senator Markey, I advocated numerous policy changes to ensure accountability for these problems and make them less likely in the future--not just to punish but to protect. I would like to focus on two that are particularly urgent. First, many of the cars that have been recalled are 10 or more years old and in the hands of their second or third owners. There needs to be a provision that says to these car dealers that when a car is in a recall, they have an obligation to notify a new owner and, in fact, to repair the car. Second, as we learned in the case of GM, Federal prosecutors simply lack legal tools to file criminal charges against companies for knowingly concealing information about defects that can kill. Deliberate coverup and concealment of deadly defects should be punishable criminally, as it is in other industries where the stakes are similar. We know that employees at GM were aware of dangerous safety defects but chose to remain silent or, in fact, mislead authorities, leading to hundreds of injuries and deaths. This measure and the DRIVE Act do nothing to hold manufacturers or their corporate officers criminally responsible when they knowingly fail to disclose those risks. Even after the defects are discovered, this bill lacks the teeth to ensure that wrongdoing is not repeated. Their civil penalty authority for safety violations is currently capped at $35 million. The DRIVE Act leaves these fines at just a pittance compared to the revenue of GM--less than the cost of doing business. Safety fines need to be meaningful rather than a pittance, less than the cost of doing business. Congress must remove this cap and ensure that safety penalties provide a meaningful deterrent to wrongdoing. Even at $70 million, it is a pittance compared to GM, which made $156 billion in 2014. Americans deserve better than another 6 years of crashes, bridge collapses, accidents that are preventable, and they need protection to stop it. I hope my colleagues will join me to implement reforms now and take strong steps to build and maintain a transportation system worthy of the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. For our economy, we can create jobs. For our quality of life, we can ensure quality and convenience. For our safety, we can prevent tragedy. We can do better with a transportation system that keeps people safe. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. I ask that my colleagues join in this collaboration because I know how deeply you and I feel, how we share that common goal, not just in our committee. I ask that we work to incorporate the measure I have introduced today, S. 1856, with the cosponsorship Senators Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono, my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs Equitable Employee Accountability Act. This measure is introduced today, and it will help us improve and enhance S. 1082 and the supremely important objectives that motivate it. I thank my colleagues for our work together, and I look forward to pursuing it. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, going back to my colleagues who have appeared to talk about issues of accountability for the Department of Veterans Affairs, I want to say how grateful I am for the spirit of collaboration that prevailed yesterday in our meeting. Very generously and responsibly, the chairman of that committee, Senator Isakson--my good friend and distinguished colleague from Georgia--offered and committed to continue the effort to improve the measures we approved yesterday in our committee to hold accountable the Department of Veterans Affairs and all of its employees--just as we do any other agency of government--to make sure we keep faith with our veterans and leave no veteran behind. Our Nation needs to make sure we provide the robust resources and the prompt delivery of health care services and other measures to our veterans with the honest and efficient management our veterans deserve. So many of us were repulsed and outraged by the revelation just a little more than 1 year ago about delays in health care, irresponsible and reprehensible and, indeed, criminal obstruction of justice in cooking the books that prevailed at health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs around the country, and the ramifications were sweeping. There were indeed changes in management, beginning at the very top, with a new Secretary. There were also measures approved by this Congress in the last session, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, to make sure no veteran suffering 30 days or more in delays in health care be denied a private provider if he or she chooses one or is living more than 40 miles from any facility. We are working on additional measures, constructive and positive measures, to make sure this Nation fulfills its promise of prompt, world-class, first-class health care to every veteran who needs it, regardless of what that need is, the specialty or the illness, and to make sure we also cure the other deficiencies, such as the delays in disability claims, homelessness, joblessness, the need for job training and skills among our veterans. Part of our task is accountability to make sure members of the Department of Veterans Affairs are held accountable. That is one reason why I insisted and urged from the very beginning of those revelations of wrongdoing and criminality in the Department of Veterans Affairs that there be a Department of Justice investigation. I called on the Attorney General of the United States to investigate, not the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General of the United States because only the Department of Justice has the resources and expertise, direction, and leadership to successfully pursue the wide-ranging criminality and wrongdoing that I thought was revealed. For all of us who hope there is honesty and fair dealing in our government, regrettably there has now been a criminal indictment. The indications are that more should follow, that there was and is reason for a Department of Justice investigation, that there are and need to be continued reports and results of the IG investigation. I have called in hearing after hearing that we be given those reports and results of the ongoing inspector general investigation, and we still are lacking in the full work product from that office. There is clearly more work to be done on the wrongdoing that has been committed in the past, and there is clearly more work to be done to prevent it in the future. Part of what needs to be done is to protect the whistleblowers. Indeed, those revelations of wrongdoing came in part from whistleblowers who had the courage and fortitude to step forward and who were intimidated and ostracized and sometimes persecuted within the VA. They need protection. One part of what we need to do is to make sure they are protected. There ought to be accountability going forward in disciplining employees within the VA when there is malfeasance or waste or fraud. That involves eliminating some of the redtape and rigaramole that in the past have hampered the VA Secretary or other managers in making sure that there is accountability. That is why I welcome the focus of our committee on assuring accountability and transparency. Those changes in the law are necessary to enable the VA Secretary and his team to make sure that there is not only accurate and effective prompt discipline but also the appearance of it so that employees at the VA will know that there is a standard of conduct and it will be enforced and it will be upheld in the courts when it is challenged. That is true not only in the VA but of every department of the U.S. Government. There needs to be that perception and reality of the enforcement of codes of conduct and ethics. There needs to be a recognition that it is in the interest not only of the American taxpayer but the employees of the U.S. Government themselves. The majority of them are honest and hard-working. Those nurses, counselors, therapists, doctors, and administrators at the VA who are doing their job--in fact, working overtime often without additional pay--who are serving valiantly and responsibly, their clients deserve that wrongdoers be rooted out and held accountable. They are the vast majority of those honest and hard-working employees, and we owe them thanks for what they do to serve our veterans, but the wrongdoers need to be disciplined. The idea that they should receive bonuses is absolutely abhorrent. I welcome legislation that stops bonuses for employees who fail the most basic notions of effective and honest service. They deserve that those bonuses be stopped. My colleague Senator Isakson has spoken about S. 627, the bill that has been sponsored by Senator Ayotte and was approved yesterday. I want to make sure in the improvements I am going to offer to it and that my colleague Senator Brown offered yesterday--that we actually make it more effective. That is the nature of this deliberative process, that we try to improve on what we are doing to make enforcement more effective. I know as an enforcer, as a former U.S. attorney and a Federal and State official, enforcement is key to making the law work. The same is true of S. 1082, sponsored by our colleague Senator Rubio, which also was approved yesterday by our committee. I have offered a bill that will improve the measure we approved yesterday in a number of different respects. First of all, there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the provision approved yesterday. I think in fairness to all of the American taxpayers as well as this body, we should face whatever deficiencies there are constitutionally in the law before that law becomes unenforceable. The importance of making sure a law is constitutional goes to enforcement. A law that is unconstitutional, that fails to provide sufficient notice, a statement of causes, a right to be heard, an opportunity to achieve basic constitutional protection that the U.S. Security Court has repeatedly said is necessary, those deficiencies can make law unenforceable. As I said yesterday in our committee meeting, as a former attorney general, and there are others in this body, we know how difficult the task is to defend a law or defend State action that is based on a constitutional and firm statute. A law that is unenforceable is worse than no law at all because it creates a false sense of security, an expectation that never can be fulfilled because a law that is unenforceable will never be effective in preventing the wrong that it is designed to do. I want to improve S. 1082--in fact, to make it more effective--but to make sure it is done in a way that can be upheld, also to protect those whistleblowers, and to make sure that if there are firings and disciplines, it is done on the merits, that it is done on the basis of real cause and evidence, not as part of a political witch hunt. We have been through the spoils system. This Nation has lived through a time when, in effect, offices were bought and sold. That certainly is nobody's intention here, and I am sure my colleagues and I can work together to move toward a measure that fulfills our common shared objective in making sure that merit and effective action is rewarded with bonuses and through other means and that wrongdoing is punished and deterred. There can be no enforcement unless the law is framed as well as possible, and there can be no deterrence unless there is enforcement. That is what we want to do: prevent this kind of wrongdoing going forward, not just looking backward and pursuing and prosecuting the wrongdoers, which I hope will be done. There is more than ample evidence to support it but also to prevent it going forward. I am tremendously heartened by our committee chairman's commitment to work with me and others on that committee. He said to me very explicitly, and it is on the record, that he will, in fact, work with us. We will engage in collaboration. I think we are going to improve these measures. They may not be huge or sweeping changes in what we approved yesterday, but we all know that words can sometimes lead to courts concluding that there are defects in the law that were never intended by the Framers. That is a consequence, an unintended result that we should avoid if possible. It may seem like lawyer talk, but it has ramifications in the courts. That is the reason we heard from the DAV at our June 24 hearing that it is ``vitally important to VA's long-term future to create an environment in which the best and brightest professionals choose VA over other Federal or private employers.'' We need those best of the best in the VA, not working in the private sector alone. Fairness and due process in our workplace will encourage talented doctors, lawyers, nurses, and other professionals to come to the VA, which is where we need them, for the strength of that system. As the independent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board stated in its statement for the record in the committee's June 24th hearing, there is a need to follow and respect constitutional due process. The Partnership for Public Service said much of the same thing in this letter of July 21, 2015. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate Pratt & Whitney as it celebrates the 90th anniversary of its incorporation. In 1925 Frederick Rentschler arrived at the old Pope-Hartford auto plant on Capitol Avenue in Hartford, CT with a simple, yet groundbreaking idea: build a new and better aircraft engine. In the beginning, such a lofty goal seemed out of reach. Rentschler had just 24 employees, barely any equipment and a modest amount of money. But Rentschler was able to create a name for Pratt & Whitney by placing a great value on integrity, customer service, and product quality. From its humble beginnings in that old auto plant in Hartford, Pratt & Whitney has grown to be a world leader in the design and manufacture of military and commercial aircraft engines. For over 90 years, Pratt & Whitney has stayed true to this pioneering spirit and passion for excellence, continually working to revolutionize the aviation industry and build a better engine for tomorrow. Throughout its storied history, Pratt & Whitney has always answered its country's call. During World War II, the company reduced its prices for the U.S. Navy to contribute to the war effort. Today Pratt is still operating a culture of cost reduction and producing the power for some of the most formidable aircraft in American history with versatile products like the F-135 engine. And now Pratt is answering President Obama's call to combat the threat of climate change and keep future generations safe. With its breakthrough technologies like the Geared Turbofan engine, Pratt is raising the industry standard for emissions efficiency. Pratt & Whitney has continued to stay true to its roots as a Connecticut company. For generations now, Pratt & Whitney has provided secure career opportunities to workers in my State. Pratt & Whitney's legacy of dependability and leadership in innovation have helped to make Connecticut's defense manufacturing industry second to none. I am proud and thankful for Pratt's investments in the State of Connecticut and its contributions to our country's national security, and I remain committed to supporting the jobs created by Pratt & Whitney. As I continue to serve in the Senate, I will continue to work to protect our national defense programs. While other aircraft companies have come and gone, Pratt & Whitney has proven that it can stand the test of time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I join my extraordinarily dedicated and distinguished colleague from Washington State in expressing my regret that this bill will not be on our agenda today, and I thank her for championing a cause that matters so vitally to our military men and women, which is the cause of fairness to our veterans and putting our veterans above politics. The bill she has advocated steadfastly and so eloquently provides services to wounded women warriors who want to have children and cannot do so because of those wounds of war. It makes available to them modern medicine, just as we are trying to do in other areas where the signature wounds of war inflict such damage on our wounded warriors. They deserve the right to treatment that enables them to have families, enables them to overcome those wounds of war that interfere with their ability to have children. That is important not only to them but to their families, to their husbands. Many of their husbands are themselves veterans. This issue has ramifications way beyond the individuals involved. It is a matter of putting our veterans above politics, which traditionally has been our practice on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I am very proud to serve as the ranking member of that committee, to have worked with Senator Murray in her tireless efforts on this bill going back years. She has been rightly recognized for those efforts. Today I very much regret the tradition of our committee--putting veterans above politics--has succumbed to this threat; that the bill offered by Senator Murray will become mired down in issues that have nothing to do with providing IVF services to our wounded women warriors. The amendments that have been offered are completely irrelevant and extraneous to the objectives of the bill. Make no mistake, they have nothing to do with protecting women, they have nothing to do with enabling our women veterans to have children and overcome those wounds of war. They are completely irrelevant, indeed contrary to the objectives of that bill. Yet they will now cause this bill to be removed from the agenda. I just want to say to my colleague and fellow member of that committee that I am absolutely determined to find a path forward for this bill. It will be a priority of mine personally. I know it is a priority of the Senator from Washington, and I will join her in ensuring that our colleagues know we are determined to move forward, to find a path to pass this measure, and to make sure our women veterans are recognized for the heroes they are. These amendments are a disservice to them. Very simply, they are disrespectful to the women who sacrificed so much, who have suffered the same wounds as our men, and who receive less respect by virtue of this bill being withdrawn. I am hopeful we can work with Senator Isakson, chairman of the committee, to find that path forward. He has been very bipartisan in his approach, and I thank him for his efforts in that respect. I will redouble my efforts to make sure we keep faith with our women veterans, enabling them to overcome those injuries that prevent them from having children and giving up the benefit of their being such great parents and giving our Nation great children, which is our obligation on this committee, in this body, and in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Daines for his extraordinarily valuable work on this bipartisan bill, which will help protect students, help safeguard the privacy of young people, which would be considered separately from the measure now before us, the Every Child Achieves Act, which will strengthen the Federal Government's commitment to ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality education. The bill Senator Daines and I are offering ensures that every child is protected during their education from invasive and intrusive sharing and selling of highly private information about their educational progress--all kinds of sensitive, personal data that are accumulated and collected by school authorities and the companies that contract with them in the course of that child's education. When a parent signs a take-home form permitting their children to use a learning application in math class, for example, they have no assurance right now--none--regarding what information the app company will collect or how the app company will protect that information. That kind of very personal, identifiable, confidential information is inadequately protected in many school systems around the country. If that app company fails to protect the personal information of the student and their family, it could be stolen by hackers. It could be breached. We have seen how Federal files have been breached on a scale that none of us would ever have imagined--supposedly protected information--and we are talking about companies leaving vulnerable children's information potentially on the same scale--millions of children being at risk of their data being breached and stolen by hackers. But we are also talking about that information being bought and sold, exchanged by companies. The current protections against that commercial exploitation are inadequate. Children and their parents and their families deserve better protection of their privacy. It is a big business. It is a huge and burgeoning business for those companies. They may serve a very worthwhile purpose for many of those children and for many school authorities who need someone to organize and apply software to the raw information that is collected in test scores or other kinds of educational data. But it is not data that belongs to the companies; it belongs to the student and the school authorities, and it ought to be protected not only because of who owns it but because of whom it belongs to. It belongs to students as a matter of morality, not just legality. We are introducing student digital privacy legislation, the SAFE KIDS Act. This week Senator Daines and I will introduce it to establish strong and vital protections that will give parents the peace of mind they need and deserve. Our bill would prohibit companies from reselling student data--something corporations should never profit from doing. The SAFE KIDS Act would also prohibit companies from using student data, including a personal profile of a student, for any targeted advertising. This kind of marketing goes on in our society. Our legislation also requires companies that hold student data to enact robust protections, such as proper encryption of that data, which will prevent the theft of personal information. Under our bill, parents are empowered to access their children's information, request corrections of any erroneous information, and request deletion of certain student data. Our bill charges the FTC with the responsibility to implement and enforce the SAFE KIDS Act, and it enables States to enact stronger, more demanding protections if they choose to do so. It establishes a floor, not a ceiling. It does not preempt stronger measures if States choose to move forward. This measure is in no way incompatible with the provision and amendment on which we will vote tonight that deals with another aspect of this issue in establishing a commission. I support that amendment. The commission would issue recommendations on a number of specific topics, such as preventing targeted advertising, limiting data retention, and providing parents with complete information. Those issues are complex, and they need the kinds of studies and research the commission would provide. And the results of that commission would help to inform the FTC regulations that would be issued under the SAFE KIDS Act that Senator Daines and I are introducing this week. I look forward to supporting the Hatch-Markey amendment, voting for it, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the SAFE KIDS Act because they enable a comprehensive approach to student privacy. Make no mistake--this data is in danger and so is the privacy of our students. In a world that has become enormously invasive and intrusive and where personal information is so much at risk, our students, children, and their families deserve this protection. I urge my colleagues to support it. Background Checks and Gun Violence Madam President, I wish to talk for just a moment about the disclosure last week that Dylan Roof, the alleged killer of nine innocent people in Charleston, SC, was able to buy guns without first passing a background check. The reason, very simply, was the default- to-proceed loophole in the law, which allows--but does not require-- firearms retailers to proceed with a gun sale after 3 days if an applicant's background check is still pending. Undoubtedly, more facts will come to light. Certain facts are unknown now as we speak, but the FBI acknowledges that a completed background check would have uncovered Dylan Roof's prior arrest on a drug charge and his drug addiction. Those discoveries would have barred him from purchasing the .45-caliber handgun he used to take nine lives in that unspeakable, horrific tragedy. In effect, Dylan Roof's exploitation of this loophole is not an anomaly. In the last 5 years, the default to proceed loophole has led firearms retailers to proceed with 15,729 gun sales to prohibited persons--people who were deemed ineligible to purchase a firearm once their background checks were completed. In effect, those 15,729 people were able to circumvent the law because of that loophole that enabled them to do so on a default to proceed after 3 days. After that default-to-proceed loophole is exploited, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives then has the difficult, dangerous, and often impossible job to retrieve the firearms that are sold. In fact, it is often impossible to even expect that they can once those firearms are sold without proper recordkeeping or any recordkeeping. We make that job harder every day by underfunding and hamstringing the work of the ATF in our appropriations bills. That creates that impossible task for them. Responsible gun retailers can act today. The law allows retailers to decide whether to permit gun sales to proceed after that 3-day default period has elapsed. They have a duty to ensure that their products do not get into the hands of dangerous individuals. They have that moral duty. They have that social responsibility. In 2008, Walmart, which is the Nation's largest gun store, agreed not to transfer firearms without a background check even if the 3 days have passed without it. The short-term inconvenience to retailers is minimal. In the vast majority of cases, a background check is completed within minutes and the retailer knows whether they may proceed with the sale. After the horror visited on the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, no responsible gun retailer should give the benefit of the doubt and hand over a gun without a definitive completion of that background check. Over the weekend, my colleague Senator Murphy and I urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to immediately review this failure in our background check system and potential remedies, lest this legislative body's silence on the matter be taken as a consent on the repeated failures we have witnessed. In the long run, this system must be made as effective and error proof as possible, and it should be extended to sales not covered now by the law. As Senator Murphy and I and many of our colleagues in the Senate have urged consistently and repeatedly, the failure to adopt a comprehensive, universal background check system is inexcusable, but we also have to make sure loopholes in the current law are eliminated, as the FBI and the Department of Justice have recommended, by extending that 3-day time period and otherwise increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the background check system. Senator Murphy and I will be taking additional steps to try to make it more effective. Gun retailers can step up in the meantime to stop dangerous people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons and taking lives--innocent lives--as happened in Charleston. They can, very simply, stop selling guns to people who have not passed that background check even if the 3 days have expired, even if that default period has come and gone. They can do that on their own. I look forward to working with my colleagues, including continuing the great work Senator Murphy and I have sought to do together in making America safer and better and improving our background check system and making sure commonsense, sensible gun violence prevention measures become the law of the land. 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, I want to thank all of my colleagues for their hard work that has brought us to this point on the bipartisan Every Child Achieves Act. My friend and colleague from Tennessee, Chairman Alexander, and my great colleague, Ranking Member Murray, of the HELP Committee have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor. I salute them for finding many points of agreement that unite us in a very bipartisan way in forming our approach to high-stakes testing--an issue that has bedeviled this body and our Nation for many years--and requiring increased data collection and reporting, expanding access to early childhood education, increases in authorization of funding, and finally, after 13 years, reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This bill is by no means perfect. Few measures approved by the Congress are. We work to come as close to perfection as possible. But, as the saying goes, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill is a good bill. I personally would like to see some of the accountability provisions of the bill strengthened, ensuring that schools have real incentives to make reform. I have some very serious qualms about a proposal that would change the formula for allocating title I funding in a way that would take funding away from certain districts in Connecticut and other States that serve low-income children. I am hoping that three of the amendments I have written will make this legislation stronger. First, I am pleased to say that an amendment that I had led to make sure schools and districts understand their responsibility under title IX was adopted in the underlying bill. I thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for their commitment on this important title IX provision that makes the bill better and guarantees that title IX will be enforced. A lot of people think title IX affects only athletic programs. In fact, it actually covers all forms of gender-based discrimination in schools, including sexual harassment and assault, bullying, the needs of pregnant and parenting students, female participation in the STEM field, and a lot more. All kinds of discrimination are covered by title IX. This landmark measure in our Federal law requires every school to designate an employee to serve as a title IX coordinator, helping students and staff to understand their rights and their obligations. Unfortunately, a lot of schools currently fail to designate such a coordinator. In Connecticut, my friend Bill Howe has provided vitally important statewide title IX compliance training for years, but I know he often found it very difficult to secure funding for his efforts and was sometimes forced to dip into his own pocket to keep these programs going. Bill Howe is a hero in Connecticut for maintaining and sustaining a title IX training program. My amendment will give States the resources they need to ensure their schools are protecting and promoting gender equity. No longer will Bill Howe be forced to make that funding out of his own pocket--Connecticut will have it as well. I am proud to join with Senator Ayotte in championing an amendment that will provide critical training and resources to help educators recognize and respond to the earliest signs of mental illness. This provision is really key because school personnel frequently see young people in many different situations, and therefore they are among the best positioned to see young people who are at risk of serious mental illness and identify those risk signs and provide mental health services at critical times before those illnesses become more serious. We know from our tragic and horrific experience--we in Connecticut know better than most--that violence and emergency situations can happen anywhere, including at the youngest ages in elementary and secondary schools. Resources must be made available for people to help deescalate crisis situations. These funds will help diffuse those crises before they occur or while they occur by providing critical mental health services. Training programs are important for teaching school professionals how to safely deescalate a crisis, recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, and refer people to appropriate mental health service providers at the early stages of mental illness, reducing the number of crisis situations. Some of the programs already in place provide models of what kind of training will be funded. They have proven immensely successful. They are profoundly important, and they can serve as models for other schools. Some of those models are in Connecticut--training and education in helping to diffuse and resolve crises and provide for treating mental illness. Third, I am perhaps most proud to offer the Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act. I am proud to offer the Jesse Lewis Empowering Educators Act because I think it reflects an advance in education that truly embodies the spirit and legacy of Jesse Lewis himself--a brave young boy who had emotional intelligence way beyond his years and who was a victim of the unspeakable, unimaginable, horrific tragedy that occurred in Newtown. I thank my colleagues, Senators Murphy and Cantwell, for cosponsoring it. Jesse was one of the children who lost their lives in the Sandy Hook tragedy. In those painful, aching days after Sandy Hook, I sat in the living room of Scarlet Lewis, Jesse's mom, and I saw firsthand through Jesse's own words and photos the awe-inspiring courage and caring of this boy--his empathy and resilience and the compassion he demonstrated repeatedly throughout his all-too-brief life. This amendment is directly shaped by the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission's final report, which highlights the importance of integrating social and emotional learning concepts into our schools. The commission noted that social-emotional learning is an integral part of education because students must learn coping skills, such as how to identify and name feelings and emotions such as frustration, anger, sadness, and how to use their problem-solving skills to manage those difficult emotional and potentially conflictual situations. Resolving conflict means understanding the reasons for it. Social intelligence is the means to do it, and training teachers in how to teach it is one of the great missions we need to make sure our schools serve. As much as the commission's work, this amendment really is formed by Scarlet Lewis and Jesse. His example of emotional and social learning, of intelligence in that sense, provides an example of what we should seek to emulate in our schools--demonstrating caring and concern for others, maintaining positive relationships, and making responsible decisions and resolving conflicts effectively. All of these are teachable and learnable skills. In fact, they are essential to learn for participating and contributing to society. The only question is, Where are young people going to learn them? If they do not learn them at home, they need to be taught in our schools. If students are surrounded by educators who understand these concepts and who have the right tools and training to teach them, these students can learn to demonstrate what intelligence and emotional intelligence means in practical, everyday terms--how it can make people happier and make the people around those young people happier. Demonstrating the kinds of emotional gifts and intelligence that Jesse had innately is itself a gift that can be taught, and we have an obligation to teach it. Social and emotional learning is a strategy that is strongly grounded in academic research. Numerous studies and reports, including the great work being done at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, have found that students who exhibit these skills not only perform better academically but are less likely to engage in problematic behavior, such as alcohol and drug use, violence, truancy, and bullying. It makes perfect common sense. Students who have that emotional intelligence better adjust and avoid the pitfalls of substance abuse, violence, bullying, and conflict with fellow students. We have an obligation to adopt social--emotional learning as part of the curricula of our schools and to make sure teachers are trained in how to impart and inculcate those great talents and gifts that are so important to the happiness of the young people who come through their classrooms, and I am hopeful this amendment will become part of this bill. My amendments recognize that education is not only about reading, writing, and arithmetic, but learning requires an environment and a culture that cares for each student and prepares each person as an individual and as a healthy, involved member of a larger community. I think that will be a legacy we can leave through this bill, and I hope we will. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, last night, the Senate confirmed David Shulkin to be the Under Secretary for Health and LaVerne Council to be the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Isakson for making the confirmation of Dr. Shulkin and Ms. Council a priority for this Congress. Dr. Shulkin comes to the Veterans Health Administration, VHA, with significant experience managing complex health care organizations. Prior to being confirmed as Undersecretary of Health Dr. Shulkin was the president of Morristown Medical Center where he oversaw a 658-bed facility that has received countless awards for its excellence in care. During his confirmation hearing before the committee, Dr. Shulkin stated, ``We all agree that the status quo is simply not acceptable. I want to assure you that, if confirmed, it would be my sole mission each and every day to transform the VA health system into one that provides our veterans with the highest level of quality care.'' Given the challenges that face VA, I look forward to working with Dr. Shulkin to ensure the status quo does not persist. I am committed to ensuring VA provides high-quality care options to veterans. Ms. Council has significant private sector experience in managing global information and technology programs, including service as the first global chief information officer at Johnson & Johnson and leading the consolidation of 250 operating companies across 57 countries in the world. I trust that her experience will allow her to navigate ongoing issues around health data interoperability between VA and DOD, and I look forward to collaborating with her to make this a practical reality for VA and DOD clinicians and veteran patients. At a time when data security is being tested by dramatic increases in malware and intrusion attempts, it is more critical than ever to have a permanent leader in place to remediate known security deficiencies and ensure that health and personal data remains secure in VA systems. I am committed to doing right by veterans on this critical issue. VA continues to lurch from crisis to crisis, facing health care funding shortfalls, construction cost overruns, growing patient wait times, insufficient collaboration between VA and DOD, and a backlog of disability compensation claims and appeals. In the face of these crises, these nominees will assume two of the toughest jobs in government given all of the attention VA has received of late. VA's culture has been described as corrosive and nonresponsive, and there continues to be a need for a significant change in the culture at VA. I expect both Dr. Shulkin and Ms. Council to use their expertise and experience to make these changes and improve VA services for veterans. Finally, I would like to highlight one additional area of concern. There are far too many key leadership positions at VA that remain unfilled. There are still five positions requiring Senate confirmation that are occupied by officials serving in an interim or acting capacity. A permanent, Senate-confirmed leadership team is vital to make the significant and necessary changes to the culture of an organization of the size and scope of VA. The bottom line is VA needs permanent, Senate-confirmed leadership in place in order to meet the significant challenges that continue to face the Department. The Senate needs the names of qualified nominees to fill VA's many vacancies. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I congratulate Mr. Shulkin and Ms. Council, and thank them for their willingness to serve the veterans of this great Nation.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, last night a number of us from this Chamber and many of us from across the country gathered for a remarkable evening to support and honor an organization called Sandy Hook Promise. It is an organization that was created in the wake of the horrific, unspeakable tragedy in Newtown that involved the mass murder of 20 beautiful, innocent children and 6 great educators. Sandy Hook Promise was created to make some good come of this horrific evil, to protect children against violence and prevent more gun violence around the country, to advance the cause of mental health and wellness, and to make sure that no one is alone, no one eats alone, no one suffers alone, and no one endures mental illness alone. Sandy Hook Promise is a wonderful, inspiring organization, and I was proud to serve as the cochairman of this event, along with my great colleague, Chris Murphy, who has been a partner in efforts to stop gun violence in this Chamber and in Connecticut and around the country. I was also proud that the dinner and evening honored two of our colleagues, Senator Debbie Stabenow, a wonderful friend and distinguished Member of this body from Michigan, and Pat Toomey, our friend from Pennsylvania, who added his name and the weight of his support to a measure in the last session that seeks to protect children against gun violence by imposing a universal background check. The evening was designed to honor our two colleagues, but it was also so inspiring for me to hear from Nicole Hockley, Mark Barden, and Bill Sherlach, whose lives were transformed and changed forever on that horrific day. I will never forget that day when I arrived at the firehouse in Sandy Hook and seeing the grief and pain experienced by those families who learned for the first time that their beautiful children would not be coming home that night. The searing memory of their faces and voices will be with me forever. Their courage and strength in the wake of that tragedy will inspire me forever. It inspired many of our colleagues to vote for the commonsense, sensible measures that Senator Toomey and Senator Manchin of West Virginia helped to spearhead. It was a bipartisan package of measures that was advanced and advocated so ably by them and many of us tirelessly in those days before the vote. A majority of Senators voted in favor of that package of measures. Unfortunately, that majority did not reach 60 votes. But last night was a time to renew and redouble our efforts to prevent gun violence and to take positive, constructive, commonsense, sensible steps to help prevent it around the country. At the very outset of the evening, both Senator Murphy and I requested a moment of silence to honor the loved ones and families in Charleston, SC. Our hearts and prayers go out to them, as they have since that unimaginable tragedy. It was a violation of not only human life but the sanctity of a place of worship, just as Newtown involved the violation of a place we regard as among the safest, our schoolhouse--killing our schoolchildren. When we finished that moment of silence, I am sure all of us retained the grief and pain. We in Connecticut know and understand that grief and pain and outrage because we remember that day when we felt it in the same way the people of Charleston felt it when nine people were killed. Their families were left with holes in their hearts just as we were on that day in Newtown. But the message of last night was not one of despair or desperation, it was one of hope and energy. That message came from Nicole Hockley, Mark Barden, and Bill Sherlach, the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy who came here to Washington. They have continued their work through Sandy Hook Promise and other organizations to make some good come from that evil. We can do it. We can make sure this country does more than grieve and remember. We need to redouble our commitment as a nation to make our Nation safer and better, not just for those 9 innocent people in the church in Charleston or the 26 innocent people in a schoolhouse in Sandy Hook but for the 11,000 people who are killed every year on the streets of Hartford, New Haven, Stamford, in our rural and suburban communities, and on our military bases. Every year, 11,000 people throughout our country die from gun violence. We will never eliminate all gun violence. We will never stop all of the deaths and killings, but we can save lives. That is what the families of Newtown said to me in the wake of their tragedy, and that is what I hope our Nation will say to itself in the wake of the Charleston tragedy. We will never stop all evil, but we can take a stand and stop some of it. Last night, I recalled the conversation I had with one of the moms when I was at the funeral of her child. When I approached her, I said, somewhat apprehensively: When you are ready, I would like to talk to you about what we can do together to stop gun violence in this country. And she said, with tears in her eyes: I am ready now. That was the spirit the families from Newtown brought to our Capitol. That is the spirit I hope we can honor with action and not just with words on the floor of the Senate or in the eulogies that will be given tomorrow. We need to have an answer for those victims of Charleston and Newtown and the 11,000 people who die needlessly and senselessly every year from gun violence. We need to answer the question that all of us have: What can we do to stop gun violence? And there are some answers, such as background checks, a ban on illegal trafficking, an end to straw purchases, mental health initiatives, and school safety. Those are some answers, and we should think of other solutions. We need to work together, just as Sandy Hook Promise has done, regardless of party, race or religion, where we live or what our interest is because we have a common, shared interest in making our Nation safer and better. That is why honoring both Pat Toomey and Debbie Stabenow was so meaningful, because they have given so much with their courage and leadership and have helped to make our Nation safer and better. The killer in Charleston was not just a murderer, he was a domestic terrorist. He meant to terrify, not just kill. He meant to start a race war. He was a racist and White supremacist, and, rightly, has been regarded as someone who came to that church not just to target innocent worshippers but an entire community. He targeted the town of Charleston, the State of South Carolina, and our Nation. His message was not about hate for specific individuals, it was hate for an entire race. We should recognize domestic terrorism and racism for what it is. We are not the only country with racists, but we are a country with a uniquely high number of gun violence incidents. The shooting in Charleston was a physical manifestation of ideas that go beyond this murderer. To prevent future shootings, we must understand and undercut the ideas for which he killed so he could advance. We need to call this problem for what it is and understand it and fight it. Hate-inspired domestic terrorism is an evil all its own. We can make progress against gun violence. We know we can, just as surely as 10 days ago no one thought the Confederate flag on State grounds in South Carolina would ever be removed. No one ever thought, plausibly, that the Governor of South Carolina would ever advocate it, and now that has happened, just as commonsense, sensible measures against gun violence can happen. We can prevail. Nobody thought before Ronald Reagan was almost assassinated and Jim Brady was paralyzed that the Brady bill would ever be passed. In fact, it took 10 years. So we are here in a marathon, not a sprint. We are here for the long haul. We are not going away, not giving up, not abandoning this fight, and not surrendering to the forces of domestic terrorism or racial hatred or gun violence. We are better than that as a nation. As we leave and go back home for this recess, I hope we will not only share the grief and pain of those brave and courageous families in South Carolina who were so heroic in the face of evil but resolve that we will redouble our efforts to raise awareness and organize people who are of good will and want to stop gun violence and who need to be heard because the vast majority of the American people want us to take commonsense, sensible measures to make America safer and better. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, tomorrow we will vote on a very important amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Military Justice Improvement Act, introduced by my colleague and friend, the junior Senator from the State of New York. I have worked with her and have been privileged to help craft this very important legislative measure, not because sexual assault is a uniquely military problem--in fact, just the contrary. Sexual assault afflicts our campuses and our workplaces. The battle against sexual assault is hardly limited to the military. But we have the opportunity to take a step that will set a model and send a message to other places where sexual assault is a problem and where underreporting, because of lack of trust and confidence in the prosecutorial system or the administrative apparatus, is a major reason that sexual assault continues. Without confidence, trust, effective results, and protection of privacy and physical safety, survivors will simply not come forward. If they do not come forward, there will be no discipline or prosecution. That is the fundamental reason why I believe the amendment we will address tomorrow is so important. I have held roundtables on campus sexual assault all around the State of Connecticut--more than 12 or 13 of them--and have worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, including not only Senator Gillibrand, who is the major sponsor of this amendment, but also Senator McCaskill, who has been an extraordinary leader in this area having been a prosecutor herself, and Senator Heller as well as others on both sides of the aisle, to devise a solution to campus sexual assault--not just a single panacea but a set of measures that addresses one of the major obstacles to effective action against campus sexual assault, which is the underreporting of this heinous, horrific crime. It is a crime wherever it occurs, whether in the military or on campus. That is why we have to combat and conquer it, just as we do an enemy who preys on our men or women in uniform or on campuses or elsewhere. We went through this debate last year. We reached a solution last year, which we hoped would, in fact, be a solution. But the simple, plain fact is that this insidious, pernicious epidemic of sexual assault in the military continues unabated or at least unreduced by the amount that we should regard as minimum for judging this supposed solution a success. The fact is that the Department of Defense's own research shows that 52 unwanted sexual contacts occur every day on average across the military. That is the same rate it was 5 years ago in 2010. The fact is that in fiscal year 2014, the Department of Defense estimates 62 percent of servicewomen experienced retaliation for coming forward, the same percentage as 2012. Servicemembers who report assault are 12 times more likely to experience retaliation for reporting their cases than seeing the assailant convicted of a crime. Retaliation is more likely than effective discipline or punishment against the perpetrator. The amendment we have offered, the Military Justice Improvement Act, seeks to address this issue through explicit codification of punishment for any person--any person--deciding to retaliate against anyone who reports this crime of sexual assault. Explicit punishment for retaliation will not only send a message, but it will deter what is in civilian terms one of the most severe crimes, known as obstruction of justice. The reason why retaliation or obstruction of justice is so insidious is it prevents the justice system from reaching a just result. It not only deters victims and survivors from coming forward regardless of the crime, it also permits perpetrators and criminals to go free and feel they can again commit the crime of sexual assault or other crimes. But in the case of sexual assault, it is particularly pernicious because we know also from statistics that this crime is recommitted. There is recidivism at a higher rate than many others. A large proportion of sexual assaults is committed by a very tiny fraction of members of the military. What happens, in effect, on campuses or in the military is there are serial rapists, serial perpetrators of sexual assault. If they feel they can do it without consequences, they will continue to commit this crime. We have learned from many survivors that the anxiety to come forward stems not only from the fear of retaliation but from the bias and inherent conflict of interest entrenched in the chain of command. The fact is that the Department of Defense estimates that 60 percent of cases involve a supervisor or a unit leader. Think of that number--60 percent of cases involving alleged sexual assault are committed by the supervisor or the unit leader in the U.S. military. The MJIA--the Military Justice Improvement Act--the amendment we will offer tomorrow and will vote on, will address this obstacle by amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice to assign the decisionmaking power regarding sexual assault to an independent, trained prosecutor or, actually, a team of professional military prosecutors, while leaving decisions to the chain of command regarding purely military crime. I recognize there is an argument that good order and discipline require the chain of command to work as a source of discipline and punishment and justice. But where retaliation, bias, and conflicts of interest are so prevalent and so inherent in the process, where the chain of command is making decisions about the perpetrator, who so commonly is in that chain of command, these decisions should be made by independent, trained, military prosecutors. The type of crime involved here, sexual assault, is one that is very difficult, excruciatingly daunting to prosecute simply because of the nature of this crime, the nature of the evidence, and the nature of the testimony. So trained, professional military lawyers are in a better position to make these decisions about whether to go forward--not just decisions about what evidence to introduce but whether the evidence justifies the prosecution, whether proof can be presented that will do justice, not just reach a conviction. Our amendment will entrust military lawyers with specialized training in prosecuting complex cases to make those prosecutorial decisions. Removing the commanders from the prosecutorial process will also protect the privacy of victims when reporting these crimes. Typically, they involve some of the most intimate of details. A trained, independent, military prosecutor and removing the commander from those decisions will protect privacy and encourage reporting. I believe this step is a critical next step in this effort to improve the military justice system. I have immense respect for colleagues who disagree with me. Some of them are seasoned prosecutors, extraordinarily talented and dedicated lawyers, and we may differ on these issues. Many of our allies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Israel, Germany, Norway, and Australia, have already taken steps to remove sexual assault reporting and prosecution from the regular chain of command. Military leaders there report no particular change in their ability to maintain good order or discipline. The facts are there to justify removing these decisions from the chain of command. But I hope colleagues who disagree with me will continue this effort--I know they will--to improve our military justice system. We can agree to disagree on this step. We should agree to move forward on other steps where we can reach consensus because we have in common much more than we have in conflict--that the greatest, strongest military in the history of the world should be rid of this heinous crime. That is our military. We owe it to the men and women who serve in uniform to have a system of justice that matches their courage, strength, and skill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Presiding Officer in the Chamber in allowing me to speak this late in the day about issues that are vital to our national defense, which will be addressed tomorrow and during the course of the week in votes on the National Defense Authorization Act. The task before the Senate in the National Defense Authorization Act is nothing less than to craft a sustainable, long-term strategy to defend America. In fact, it is to sustain our global leadership in a time of shifting alliances, significant challenges, and emerging threats, while bringing a long-term balance and sustainability to our military. This defense measure is a solid start, but it must be made stronger to better meet the needs of our military men and women and our Nation as we enter this supremely perilous time. The danger to America has never been greater. Our foes have never been more insidious and pernicious, and many of the States opposing us have never been more willing to take measures that fundamentally contravene not only our security but our sense of moral right and wrong. I approach the National Defense Authorization Act with this principle in mind. Neither the United States nor our troops, nor anyone involved in our national defense should ever face a fair fight. Our men and women in uniform should never be challenged in the air, on the sea or on land with a fair fight. It should be one-sided and in our favor. That is the basic principle. We must be superior in our military Armed Forces. I am grateful to the chairman of our committee, Senator McCain of Arizona, an extraordinarily distinguished veteran and a partner in a number of amendments to this measure, and to the ranking member Senator Jack Reed, also a public servant of extraordinary distinction and a veteran. I am grateful for their leadership in bringing us to this point on a bill that attracted bipartisan support--overwhelming support--on the Armed Services Committee, where I am privileged to serve. The provisions in this bill will enable us to remain the strongest country militarily in the world. At the end of the day, our values, our way of life, and our democracy give us our real strength, but the military is necessary to defend those values and our quality and way of life. The military defends our values and traditions and our fundamental rights and liberties, which we worked hard last week to uphold in the USA FREEDOM Act. I have filed a number of amendments that underscore the need for continuing improvement in this bill. They are forward-looking amendments. One of them would modernize the National Guard's helicopter fleet by providing vital capabilities for the military as well as the sustainability and growth for Connecticut's dedicated defense industry. To protect our heroes in uniform, I have also proposed an amendment that would provide stronger legal tools against predatory lending and other abuses targeting our military men and women nearby the very bases they are stationed. Mr. President, I refer my colleagues to these two amendments, Nos. 1820 and 1564. I also joined Ranking Member Reed in cosponsoring his amendment, which will set forth a responsible and sustainable budget strategy by ending sequestration in our military budget and allowing us to ensure that all of our Nation's key security priorities are addressed. Tomorrow, this body will vote on that amendment. It is a critical vote. It allows us to choose sides as to whether we will put close to $40 billion, in effect, on our national debt rather than in our budget or on our credit card rather than find a sustainable means to pay for it. Each of us will have to decide whether we want to end sequestration, which I am committed to ending, or instead whether we will continue sequestration-and the very real harm it imposes on our nation-by putting an extra $40 billion in the overseas contingent operations account known as OCO. Sequestration cannot be allowed to become a permanent fixture. We must work together in a bipartisan manner to end it. In my time in the U.S. Senate, I have fought for our national defense funding because I believe our troops in harm's way deserve our full, uncompromising, unyielding, and unstinting support. We owe them the best equipment, the best training and supplies, as well as the best institutional support and health care that the world has to offer because they are the best fighting force that our world has ever seen. They fight for a nation that is the best, strongest, and greatest in the history of the world--not only in its military strength but in its fundamental values and freedom that allow us to speak as we wish in this very Chamber, to criticize authority, to speak truth to those in power, to debate, to come together, as we did this past weekend to worship and gather together and say whatever we please and think as we wish. I hope we will address this vital interest in making sure we provide a sustainable source of funding by ending sequestration rather than relying on the overseas contingency operation account, which is a form of borrowing. It increases the deficit; it doesn't reduce it. It diminishes stable and sustainable funding; it doesn't enhance it. It simply provides more uncertainty rather than a long-term strategy. This measure, which I support, enhances our security by providing for the construction of Virginia-class submarines--that are necessary. In fact, the NDAA provides $800 million in additional funding over what the President requested, and it endorses equipping all future attack submarines within an enhanced payload capability. Naval warfare, and particularly undersea warfare, is as relevant and important now as it ever was, and these submarines will do much to enhance our readiness, our nuclear deterrence, our special operations, and our surveillance. They are the stealthiest, strongest weapons platform under the sea ever known to man. Likewise, the research and development in the Ohio replacement program will continue to go forward. The bill provides for $1 billion for six additional Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Marine Corps--this is profoundly significant-- as well as $17 million in new military construction for the Connecticut National Guard. There are other measures, but apart from the hard work is an important step for fairness and keeping faith and dealing fairly with our men and women in uniform. This legislation provides for a 1.3 percent pay raise and $85 million to be directed toward improving financial literacy among our servicemembers. That is really the very least we can do. Our military men and women do not do this for the pay or the financial compensation, but for their families' sake, we need to deal with them fairly and keep faith with them. In my role as ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have paid special attention to ensuring that this bill helps to ease the transition of military personnel into civilian life by establishing a new ``Record of Service'' card upon their separation that will help prevent identity theft and financial fraud. I urge the DOD, as does the Armed Services Committee, to discontinue its use of Social Security numbers on military records. It will help prevent identity theft and the kinds of breaches that put our servicemen and their families at risk financially, just as they are often at risk physically in combat. The bill also directs DOD to stem the tide of opioid prescription drug abuse, and it helps military retirees get smoking cessation assistance. I would go further and provide for stronger measures to deal with over-prescription through education programs and drug formularies that provide alternatives, and that is one of the amendments I will offer. Finally, two principal amendments I propose are an amendment to provide additional helicopters for the Army National Guard, which I will speak on now and seek to make pending at a later point, and an amendment improving consumer protections for military personnel and their families, which is currently pending. First, we can greatly strengthen this bill by making a commitment to our National Guard to provide additional helicopters. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is one of the most versatile and heavily used aviation capabilities in the Army National Guard, as well as by all the states in which they serve. The UH-60A is the oldest model Black Hawk in service and is currently flown almost exclusively by the Army National Guard. We can strengthen this bill by fulfilling our commitment to the National Guard in providing 15 additional UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters that are the workhorse of our warriors who serve in our National Guard, warriors who have distinguished themselves not only in combat but also in emergencies and disasters at home. These helicopters will help them serve at home and abroad, which is one of the reasons that acquiring more of these helicopters, M model Black Hawks, are one of the priorities of the National Guard Association. I have listened to the National Guard leaders in Connecticut, and I have listened to distinguished warriors and veterans of the National Guard from around the country, and I know these UH-60 Black Hawks are the workhorses. They are important in medium-lift capability to the National Guard in support of homeland defense and response to emergencies. The UH-60A models now lack onboard capabilities--modern capabilities that would enable them to be deployed overseas in hostile environments without significant upgrades to others parts of their configuration. They need that upgrade to be configured properly. The new aircraft would flow to states all across the country and ensure the National Guard is ready to deploy both at home and abroad. Under the Army's current budget projections, the Army National Guard will not replace their aging UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters until 2025. We need to do better, we need to do it more promptly, and that is why I am proposing amendment No. 1820. The amendment is fully paid for by an offset from the Foreign Currency Fund. The upside of a strengthening American dollar is that the Army can put more funds towards buying American helicopters and spend less in foreign currency expenses. The other principal amendment, which I have made pending to the bill, improves the consumer protections afforded to our servicemembers and their families by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. On the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, penalties, quite bluntly, are too low, and that is why I wish to thank my colleagues Ranking Member Reed as well as Senators Durbin, Murray, and Whitehouse, all of whom have been working tirelessly and have joined me in proposing stronger protections in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by doubling the penalties and making them as high as $110,000 for a first violation and $220,000 for a second or subsequent violation. This legislation provides deterrents, punishment, and a stop to this kind of financial abuse that may take place, literally, within sight of military bases. Recently, the Department of Justice used this authority to obtain a civil penalty against Capital One and Sallie Mae. We have seen financial abuse by Capital One, when it foreclosed improperly on servicemembers' homes. These practices can include these kinds of abuses involving foreclosure and other kinds of exploitation which Sallie Mae, unfortunately, engaged in. ``Federal law protects our servicemembers from having to repay loans under terms that are unaffordable or unfair.'' Student lender Sallie Mae sidestepped requirements by charging excessive rates to borrowers who filed documents proving they were members of the U.S. military. For over a decade Sallie Mae violated SCRA by failing to provide over 60,000 military servicemembers with the 6 percent interest rate cap they were entitled to on their student loans. This type of conduct is more than just inappropriate, it is inexcusable, and it will not be tolerated. In addition, my colleagues have been working to make other important improvements to the SCRA. For example, Senator Reed has worked tirelessly to ensure servicemembers can terminate leases on rental properties without early termination fees if they are assigned to, or relocate to, government quarters. Senator Whitehouse has sought to make permanent a one-year post service protection from foreclosure for returning servicemembers and Senator Durbin has been fighting to make sure our servicemembers with student loan debt can take advantage of the protections of the SCRA. I appreciate my colleagues tireless advocacy and look forward to working together to advance these important provisions. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for Senator Reed's amendment tomorrow. We face critical decisions ahead. This measure has extraordinary merit. We must keep faith with those who serve, and I hope we will when we vote this week on the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Larry Babin, my military fellow, who is also a major in the Army, during the pendency of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow my distinguished colleague from Vermont and to emphasize some of the points that he has just made. But first let me thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and his courage on this issue of foreign intelligence surveillance reform. He has helped to lead this effort, long before I was in the Senate, in favor of more transparency and accountability. Those are among the overarching objectives here. My colleague from Vermont, who shares with me a background as a prosecutor, rightly makes a point that warrants and other means of surveillance when prosecutors seek them are sought ultimately from judges. I want to speak to some of the myths and misconceptions here that endanger this key reform. Our colleague from Texas, whom I greatly respect, has argued that the FISA Court is like a grand jury. In fact, he has said that an amicus should not be appointed, in effect, to intervene with a body that is like a grand jury. Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not a grand jury, as my colleague from Oregon has said very well. The FISA Court makes law. It interprets the law in ways that are binding as legal precedents. Far from being like a grand jury, as a truly investigative tool of the court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a court. In fact, it is composed of article III judges who do as they do on their own district courts or appellate courts; that is, they interpret law and thereby, in effect, make law. To keep that law secret is a disservice to the American people and to our legal system. To have only one side represented skews and, in effect, impedes the operations of that court because we know that judges make better decisions when they hear both sides and rights are better protected. Even so, the FISA Court needs to hear from that amicus panel only when it chooses to do so, ultimately. It has the discretion under the statute, as it exists now, to decide to appoint an amicus in any particular matter. It is required to appoint an amicus in novel or significant cases unless--and the word ``unless'' is in the statute--it issues a finding that the appointment is not appropriate. It can make that finding whenever it wishes to do so. So the discretion is for the FISA Court in whether to hear from an amicus, even under the bill that the USA FREEDOM Act is now. It can permit the amicus to address privacy, technology or any other area relevant to the matter before the court--not just constitutional rights. And that leads to the second misinterpretation, if I may say so, in the remarks made by my colleague from Texas. The bill does not direct an amicus to oppose intelligence activity or to oppose the government's view or position. In fact, it is to enlighten the court. In some instances it may oppose the government, but it is as part of that process of constructively arriving at the correct legal interpretation--not as a kind of knee-jerk reaction to oppose the government. Again, I stress, a novel or significant issue in the discretion of the court may be addressed by the amicus. What the amendment does is to deprive the amicus or expert panel of the access it needs to facts and law to be the best that it can be in interpreting, arguing, and protecting rights. It, in effect, bars access to past precedents of the court, to briefings from intelligence experts, to facts that may be known to the Department of Justice or intelligence agencies. That hampering and hobbling of the amicus in no way serves the cause of justice. It in no way serves the cause of intelligent intelligence activities--in fact, it undermines that activity. It undermines trust and confidence in the court. This court has operated in secret. It has heard arguments in secret. It has issued opinions in secret. It is the kind of court our Founders would have found an anathema to their vision of democracy and freedom. We may need such a court now to authorize surveillance activities that must be kept secret, but we need to strike a balance that protects very precious constitutional rights and liberties. After all, what does our surveillance and intelligence system protect if not these fundamental values and rights of privacy and liberties that have lasted and served us well because we respect them? More than a physical structure that we seek to protect through this system, it is those values and rights that are fundamentally paramount and important. So this FISA Court reform goes to the core of the changes--constructive changes that we seek to make. I hope my colleagues will defeat amendment 1451, along with all of the other amendments, because the practical effect of adopting amendments is it further delays implementation of the USA FREEDOM Act at a time when our country may be at risk from the expiration of the PATRIOT Act. We cannot afford for this country----