Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am happy for that very pertinent and important question from my colleague from Oregon. In fact, the majority leader's amendments would not only scale back and roll back the protections for the American people in the event of exigent or urgent situations, they would also undermine the confidence and trust of the American people in this system to protect the homeland. Delaying these kinds of reforms undermines the goal of protecting our national security as well as preserving our fundamental constitutional rights. Delay is an enemy here. Uncertainty is an adversary. We owe it to the American people not only to restore their trust and confidence and sustain the faith of the American people in the intelligence agencies but also to make it more transparent, where it can be made so without compromising security and increasing accountability. That is what the FISA Court reforms do. That is why the Director of National Intelligence as well as the Attorney General, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the President's Review Group, at least two former FISA Court judges, civil rights advocates, and representatives of many of the most informed and able in our intelligence community all support these reforms. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General said in 2014, ``The appointment of an amicus in selected cases as appropriate need not interfere with the important aspects of the FISA process, including the process of ex parte consultation between the court and the government.'' Ex parte communication, in effect, secret conversation or consultation, can continue to go forward under this bill. The amendment would not alter that fact. The amendment simply makes the amicus less effective by depriving that amicus of access to facts and law that are necessary to do its job. So, in my view, these amendments fundamentally undermine the purpose of reforms that a vast bipartisan majority of this body has already approved today. It is an increasingly large margin that has voted for these reforms, recognizing what I hear from Connecticut, what my colleagues hear in their States; that people want to believe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is, in fact, operating as a court, hearing both sides, keeping secrets but at the same time increasing public access to facts and laws that are important to them without compromising our national security. I hope my colleagues will vote to reject these amendments. As the Senator from Oregon has said, adopting them will simply serve to delay reforms that are necessary. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to one of my constituents, who has recently announced that she will be resigning from her position as dean of the University of Connecticut School of Social Work. Dr. Salome Raheim has served in this leadership position for 7 exemplary years, and she will return as a faculty member during July of this year. Dr. Raheim has dedicated her career to advancing diversity and cultural competence across the board in areas from higher education to health and human services. During her time as dean, she has established numerous initiatives that have strengthened her department and contributed immensely to the future success of her students. Her tireless efforts and contributions as dean will be remembered fondly and will be missed by many. Under Dr. Raheim's leadership, the school has developed a campus-wide Just Community initiative, which advocates for a safer, more diverse community that is both equal and inclusive. The school has also expanded engagement between private and public agencies, in order to better provide for local communities and underrepresented populations. Dr. Raheim has also aided in fostering international partnerships with universities in Germany and Armenia, to the West Indies and Jamaica. All of these efforts have been a part in the overall establishment of this department as a nationally-recognized faculty of experts. As the first African-American woman to hold a deanship at UConn, and as a nationally recognized leader in the field of social work education, Dr. Raheim has undoubtedly left her mark on the UConn School of Social Work. My wife Cynthia and I are honored to celebrate Dr. Raheim's achievements, and we wish her all the best as she begins the next chapter of her life. I know that many across the State of Connecticut will join me in congratulating her on this laudable occasion.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I feel my speaking at this moment is appropriate because much of what I have to say follows logically from the last words of the Presiding Officer when he spoke recently on the USA FREEDOM Act because I agree with the Presiding Officer when he said we need a bill. We need to move forward and approve reforms and changes in the law that are contained in the USA FREEDOM Act. We may be in disagreement about some of the specifics. We may be in contention about the extent of the changes made. But there is a general consensus that this decade-and-a-half old law is in some need of revision. The USA FREEDOM Act contains many important and genuinely worthwhile changes in the rules that will apply as the United States helps to protect our security but also to safeguard and preserve essential rights and liberties. That is the balance which needs to be struck. It is a difficult balance in a democracy, one of the most difficult in an area where secrecy has to be maintained because surveillance is more useful if it is done in secret, but at the same time, rights need to be protected in an open society that prides itself on transparent and accessible courts. Changes in the rules are welcome, such as the end to the present system of bulk collection of phone data. We may disagree on that point. Changes in the rules that I support may not be supported by many of my colleagues. I believe the USA FREEDOM Act goes in the right direction on bulk collection of phone data by ending the current practice in its present form. What brings me to the floor is not so much a discussion about the rules as the method of enforcing those rules and implementing and assuring that they are faithfully executed, which is the role and the responsibility of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the first instance. There are means of appeal from that court, but, as with many courts in our system, that one is likely to be the end destination on most issues, particularly since it operates in secret. The USA FREEDOM Act goes in the right direction by making it more transparent and requiring the disclosure of significant decisions and opinions when it is appropriate to do so and under circumstances that in no way should involve compromising our national security--striking, again, a good balance. But this Court, we have to recognize, is an anomaly in an open, democratic system. Its secrecy makes it an anomaly. It works in secret, it hears arguments in secret, and it issues opinions in secret. Its decisions are almost never reviewable. It is, unlike most of our institutions, opaque and unaccountable--understandably so because it deals with classified, sensitive information, protecting our national security against threats that cannot be disclosed when they are thwarted in many instances. The success of actions resulting from the FISA Court are most valuable when they are known to most American people. So this court is special. It is different. But let's not forget that if we were to say to the Founders of this country that there will be a court that works in secret, has hearings in secret, issues opinions that are kept secret, and its decisions will have sweeping consequences in constitutional rights and liberties, they would say: That sounds a lot like the courts that were abhorrent to us, so much so that we rebelled against the Crown, who said in the Star Chamber, in courts that England had at the time, that there was no need for two sides to be represented or for openness. Secret, one-sided courts were one of the reasons we rebelled. Men and women laid their lives on the line. They lost their homes, treasures, families, and paid a price for open and democratic institutions. So we should be careful about this anomalous court. It may be necessary, but we should try to make it work better, and we have. Transparency in the issuance of opinions is very much a step in the right direction where the issues are significant and the transparency of those decisions is consistent with our security at the moment. There may be a delay, but we should remember that the bulk collection of phone data, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said was illegal, persisted for so many years because the decision itself was never made known to the American people. There is another reform that I think is equally if not more significant. Courts that are secret and one-sided are likely to be less accessible not only because they are secret but because they are one- sided. So as a part of this reform, I have worked hard and proposed, in fact, for the first time a bill that would create an adversarial process--two sides represented before the court. A bill that I sponsored in 2013 to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was joined by 18 cosponsors. I thanked them for their support, both sides of the aisle. The basic structures that I proposed are reflected in the USA FREEDOM Act today. Colleagues worked with me--and have since--on formulating that bill and in arriving at this moment where the central goals would be accomplished by section 401 of the USA FREEDOM Act, which provides for the appointment of individuals to serve as amicus curiae--friends of the court--in cases involving a novel or significant interpretation of the law. That provision would be egregiously undercut--in fact, gutted--by McConnell amendment No. 1451 because it would prevent these lawyers-- the amicus curiae who would be selected by the court--from obtaining the information and taking the actions they need to advance and protect the strongest and most accurate legal arguments, and that is really eviscerating the effectiveness of this provision as a protection. It is a protection of our rights and liberties because these amicus curiae would be public advocates protecting public constitutional rights, and they would help safeguard essential liberties not just for the individuals who might be subjects of surveillance, whether it be by wiretap or by other means, but for all of us, because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a court. Its decisions have the force of law. Its members are article III judges selected to be on that court, sworn to uphold the law, both constitutional law and statutory law. So this provision, in my view, is fundamental to the court as a matter of concept and constitutional integrity. That integrity is important because it is a court, but it is also important to the trust and confidence the people have in this institution. I was a law clerk to the U.S. Supreme Court--specifically to Justice Blackmun--and I well recall one of the Justices saying to me: You know, we don't have armies; we don't have police forces; we don't have even the ability to hold press conferences. What we have is our credibility and the trust and confidence of the American people. That is so fundamental to the courts of this Nation that consist of judges appointed for life, without any real direct accountability, as we can be held to through the election process. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has taken a hit in public trust and confidence. There is a question about whether the American people will continue to have trust and confidence and whether that sense of legitimacy and credibility will continue. The best way to ensure it is, is to make the court's process as effective as possible not just in the way it operates but in the way it is seen and perceived to operate, the way the American people know it should operate, and the way they can be assured that their rights are protected before the court by an advocate, an amicus curiae who will protect those rights of privacy and liberty that are integral to our Constitution--and the reason why the Founders rebelled against the English. But there is another reason an advocate presenting the side opposing the government is important to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; that is, everybody makes better decisions when they hear both sides of the argument. Judges testified at our hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the importance of hearing both sides of the argument, whether it is a routine contract case or a criminal trial-- where, by the way, often a judge's worst nightmare is to have the defendant represent himself because the judge is deprived, and so is the jury, of an effective argument on the other side of the government. And so, too, here we were told again and again and again by the judicial officers who testified before our committee--and I have heard it again and again and again as I have litigated over the last 40 years--that judges and courts work best when they hear both sides. I have no doubt the judges of the FISA Court believe as strongly in constitutional rights and implementation of the Constitution as anyone in this body, including myself. I have no doubt government litigators who appear before the court representing the intelligence agencies seeking warrants or other actions and approval by the court have a commitment no less than anybody in the United States Senate, including myself, to those essential values and ideals. But courts are contentious. They are places where people argue, where sides--different sides--are represented with different views of complex questions, and these issues before the court are extraordinarily complex. They also involve technology that is fast changing and often difficult to explain and comprehend and is easily minimized in the consequences that may flow from approval of them. So the USA FREEDOM Act would provide for, in effect, a panel of advocates and experts with proper security clearances that the court can call upon to give independent, informed opinions and advocacy in cases involving a novel or significant interpretation of law, not in every case, not every argument but where there is, for example, the issue of whether the statute authorizes the bulk collection of phone records. I tend to think the outcome would have been different in that case if the court had been given the opposing side of the argument, the argument that eventually prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a unanimous bench. So the court really deserves this expertise. It deserves the other side and it deserves to hear both sides of the argument. Just to clarify, those two sides of the argument should not be in any way given so as to detract from the time necessary. If it is an urgency, the warrant should be issued and the arguments heard later, just as they are in criminal court. When there is an exigency of time--and I have done it myself as a prosecutor--the government's lawyer should go to the judge, be given approval for whatever is necessary to protect the public or gain access to records that may be destroyed or otherwise safeguard security, public safety, and that should be the rule here too. Now, in the normal criminal setting, at some point, a significant issue of law is going to be litigated if the evidence is ever used, and that is the basic principle here too. If there is a novel or significant issue of law, it should be litigated at some point, and that is where the amicus curiae would be involved. Security clearance is essential, timing is important, and there should be no compromise to our national security in the court hearing the argument that the advocate may present on the other side. It can only make for better decisions. In fact, it will benefit all of our rights. These provisions were written in consultation with the Department of Justice attorneys who advocate before the FISA Court. They are supported by the Attorney General and the National Director of Intelligence. They reflect the balance and compromise that appear throughout the USA FREEDOM Act. Amendment No. 1451 would upset this balance. It would strike the current provisions providing for the appointment of a panel of amicus curiae--the provisions that represent a carefully crafted balance--and it would compromise those provisions in a way that need not be done because this balance has the support of numerous stakeholders, from civil liberties groups to the intelligence community, and it would replace this balance, this institution, with an ineffective, far less valuable advocate. There is no need to water down and undercut and eviscerate the role of the independent experts by removing requirements for the court to appoint a panel of experts to be on call, for the experts to receive briefings on relevant issues, and significantly to provide those experts with access to relevant information. Those provisions are unnecessary and unwise and, therefore, I oppose strongly amendment No. 1451 because it does unnecessarily and unwisely weaken the role of these experts and amicus curiae. Equally important, amendment No. 1451 would limit access and significantly restrict the experts in their going to legal precedents, petitions, motions or other materials that are crucial to making a well-reasoned argument. It would restrict their access unnecessarily and unwisely; thereby, endangering those rights and liberties the public advocates are there to protect. It would also restrict their ability to consult with one another and share insights they may have gained from related cases as government attorneys are currently able to do. By undercutting these essential abilities and authorities, this amendment would hamstring any independence, both in reality and in perception; thereby, also undercutting the trust and confidence this act is designed to bolster and sustain. In short, I know many people of good conscience may disagree over the best way to reform this law. I accept and I welcome that fact. I welcome also my colleagues' recognition that an amicus curiae procedure in some form would benefit this court, but I urge my colleagues to reject an amendment that would lessen its constructive and beneficial impact. We have already delayed long enough. This amendment would not only weaken the bill, it would exacerbate the delay by sending this bill back to the House. We all want to avoid a very potentially troubling delay in approving this measure. I have been dismayed by the divisions and delays that have prevented us from finally approving the USA FREEDOM Act before the existing law expires. We should move now. We should act decisively. We should adopt the USA FREEDOM Act without amendment No. 1451, which would simply further erode the trust and confidence, the legitimacy, and credibility of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment, passing the USA FREEDOM Act in its current form, avoiding the delay of sending it back to the House and then potentially having it come back to the Senate, so we can tell the American people we are protecting the strongest, greatest country in the history of the world from some of the most pernicious and perilous terrorist forces ever in the world's history. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I will withhold my request, and I will just add, while we are waiting for my colleague to take the floor, that I want to join a number of my colleagues and speak on another matter. Remembering Beau Biden Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues in our feelings and expressing deep sadness on the loss of Beau Biden, one of our Nation's greatest public servants, one whom I was privileged to join in serving with as attorney general--he as the attorney general of Delaware and I of Connecticut. I knew Beau Biden well and, in fact, sat next to him at many of our meetings of the National Association of Attorneys General. There was no one I met as attorney general who was more dedicated to the rule of law, to protecting people from threats to public safety, and respecting their rights and liberties in doing so. His loss is really a loss to our Nation as well as to the Vice President's family and my heart and prayers go out to them. I know how deeply the Vice President loved Beau Biden and how much, as a dad, his death will unspeakably and unimaginably affect him. So, again, I want to express, on behalf of Cynthia and myself, our thoughts and prayers which are with the Vice President and his family at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for the progress we have been making on a very bipartisan basis. I particularly wish to thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working so diligently on an immediate and temporary solution to advance the Aurora project and enable us to keep it going. Our visit out there illustrated to us the importance of this project which my two colleagues and friends from Colorado have described so well and eloquently. I thank my friend from the great State of Kansas. He and I have worked to make sure veterans are really served by the CHOICE program, along with the chairman, who has understood and enabled us to work together on a bill which will be passed by unanimous consent, I hope, and will be passed by the House of Representatives, I hope, by unanimous consent. But if not, as I have committed to him, I will continue to work to make sure the 40-mile rule and choice mean veterans are served by a facility that can give them the care they need and deserve. Our heroes ought not to have to travel great distances or wait an inordinate amount of time to receive medical care that is so vital and so well deserved by them. They have earned it, and they ought to have it. I thank my colleagues for working so well and diligently on this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from Colorado in celebrating and saluting on this historic day the service and sacrifice of so many of our military men and women who have given their lives so we can enjoy the precious freedom all of us will benefit from over this weekend. The freedom to gather as we wish, speak as we please, worship, and gather together with friends--all of these freedoms are due to the service and sacrifice of the men and women whose lives we celebrate this weekend. Identity Theft of Veterans As it happens as well, my office is issuing a report that shows our veterans and servicemembers often are victims of practices around the discounts and promotions that will be offered this weekend. Many retailers will offer sales and discounts to our veterans and, in fact, our veterans are twice as likely as the ordinary population and the general public to be victims of identity theft and fraud because they are asked to provide information in connection with taking advantage of these discounts. I am proposing reforms to be adopted by the Department of Defense under existing authority, and these reforms will save veterans from identity theft and fraud when retailers offer discounts but demand sensitive personal information. A national recognition of service card will honor our heroes and save them from scammers who may prey on them after they provide this information. Retailers who commendably--and I emphasize commendably-- offer veterans discounts, especially around this holiday and others, should not put them at undue risk in verifying their status. As Memorial Day approaches and as we celebrate it today, the Department of Defense should adopt the recommendations of the report I am offering today. And I will offer legislation, if necessary, to compel these kinds of reforms. Our veterans and servicemembers need and deserve commonsense protections so discounts don't become really bad deals. The reforms, such as the national recognition of service card, can guarantee privacy and protection for our veterans and servicemembers, even as they take advantage of the discounts and promotions that will be offered to them over this Memorial Day weekend, and avoid disclosure of information to third parties who may not protect that information as they should. USA FREEDOM Act I want to say a few words about the choice currently before this body in connection with the USA FREEDOM Act and the PATRIOT Act--words that come to mind over this Memorial Day weekend so often and frequently on our lips. This issue before our body is a profoundly important one. It has been framed as a question of whether the Senate passes the USA FREEDOM Act or the short-term extension of the PATRIOT Act that authorities say is a compromise. There is supposedly a compromise before this body, but let's keep in mind that the USA FREEDOM Act is, in fact, a compromise. It reflects the views of hawks and doves, Democrats and Republicans, the House and the Senate, the Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. Many of us have made significant concessions to reach the USA FREEDOM Act. In fact, I have wondered at times whether to walk away from this so-called compromise because it does too little in the way of reform and perhaps shortchanges the proposals I and others have made to protect privacy and balance that protection with the very profoundly important need to preserve our national security. A short-term extension is not a compromise. The USA FREEDOM Act is, in fact, already a compromise, and that is why I have opposed and will continue to oppose a short-term extension, even when it is portrayed and depicted as a compromise, as has happened so far. Another important point here is that a short-term extension will not solve our problem. A short-term extension is simply an invitation for more uncertainty, more litigation, more expense, and, in fact, more compromise to our national security. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has made it absolutely crystal clear that if Congress authorizes section 215, the Second Circuit will read it as disallowing bulk collection. That court held: ``If Congress fails to reauthorize Section 215 itself, or reenacts Section 215 without expanding it to authorize the telephone metadata program . . . the program will end.'' That means if Congress passes the so-called short-term reauthorization, phone companies in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont will not be able to comply with a bulk collection order. Around the Nation, the court of appeal's ruling is the law of the land, or should be given that respect, and it will be unclear around the land and throughout this country what kind of order, in fact, is demanding of them. The result is likely to be legal uncertainty that will last long after Congress decides to act. The only way to avoid endless litigation is to pass legislation that specifies what section 215 allows, what it does not allow, and the only proposal that does that task is the USA FREEDOM Act. I continue to believe that one of the central core provisions of the USA FREEDOM Act is that it requires transparency and the adversarial process, containing reforms that I proposed to make sure that this FISA Court is no longer a secret tribunal considering arguments in secret and issuing secret opinions--exactly the kind of court that prompted our rebellion from England. When it operates and when it hears arguments, it should hear both sides--it should hear from an adversary to the government that offers a different point of view. Courts make better decisions when they hear both sides of the argument. That is why I proposed from the start a constitutional advocate who will make arguments against the government without compromising the need for timely warrants and other surveillance and without in any way reducing the secrecy of this court where it is appropriate. I hope this body reaches a result that includes the USA FREEDOM Act. I hope we pass it. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, I withdraw my observation about the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for giving me the opportunity to ask a question. In the preface to that question, I would like to make a couple of remarks if he will yield to me for that purpose. My colleague from Kentucky has taken the floor tonight in the highest traditions of the Senate to make a point that should be meaningful to all of us who care about our democracy. My colleagues, including the Senator from Kentucky, have made a number of important points about the dangers of mass surveillance and the harms caused by the bulk collection of Americans' data. I agree with those who have pointed out that the USA FREEDOM Act is a strong compromise solution for protecting Americans' freedom and security at the same time as striking a balance between preserving our security and protecting our precious rights. I want to highlight for the Senator from Kentucky, in his very insightful remarks, as well as for my colleagues and others who are interested in this topic, a particular part of that legislation--the provisions that deal with the adversarial process in the FISA Court. The bulk collection program is a powerful example of why we need a stronger adversarial process. We know that bulk metadata collection is unnecessary. The President's own review group has made that clear. We also know that bulk metadata collection is un-American. This country was founded by people who rightly abhorred the general warrant, and no general warrant in our history has swept up as much information about innocent Americans as the orders permitting and enabling bulk collection. Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that bulk collection is also unauthorized by the law. More than 9 years after the government began bulk collection, we are finally told by the highest court to consider the question that the bulk collection program was never authorized by Congress. How do we get here? How do we arrive at a place where one of the most respected courts of appeals in the United States says that the executive branch of our government has been collecting data on innocent Americans without legal authority to do so--in fact, breaking the law by invading Americans' privacy? We got here because the FISA Court failed its most crucial test. In May of 2006, the FISA Court was asked whether the Federal Government could collect phone records of potentially every single American. The argument hinged on the word ``relevance'' in the statute. Under the statute, the Federal Government can collect relevant information. The court had to decide whether ``relevant information'' means all information. That does not strike me as a difficult question. Does ``relevant information'' mean all information? It did not strike the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as a difficult question either. The Second Circuit held that the Federal Government's interpretation is ``unprecedented and unwarranted.'' Those are strong words for a court normally extraordinarily reserved and understated in its characterization of illegality by the executive branch. But the court said unequivocally and emphatically that the Government was breaking the law. Never before in the history of the Nation had such a bizarre interpretation been entertained. At the very least, you would have thought the FISA Court would recognize that its May 2006 decision was important. If this question had gone to a regular article III court, it would have been immediately recognized as a momentous decision, permitting bulk collection of data on every American. Litigants on both sides would have, in effect, pulled out all the stops in their arguments. Yet not only did the FISA Court get the question wrong in May of 2006, it appears not even to have spotted the issue, not even to have raised it and addressed it in its opinion. Of course, nobody knew it at the time because the opinion itself was kept secret, as were all of the proceedings on this issue. The FISA Court upheld the government's bulk collection program, and it did so without even writing an opinion explaining its legal reasoning. Not until the program was made public roughly 8 years later was an opinion written, and every opinion released so far has omitted key issues or ignored key precedent. If the court had written an opinion, at least Congress would have quickly known what the court had done, not to mention the American people would have known what the court had done, but the court wrote nothing. It chose to be silent and secret, and apparently it believed this issue merited no notice to the Congress. A court that could get such an important question so disastrously and desperately wrong is fundamentally broken. Let me be clear. I do not mean to denigrate the judges of the FISA Court. Any judge, no matter how wise and well attuned to legal issues, needs to hear both sides of an argument in order to avoid mistakes. Courts make better decisions when they hear both sides. In fact, during a hearing on this issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to ask one of the Nation's foremost jurists whether she could do her job without hearing from both sides of an argument, and she was quite clear that she could not. Adversarial briefing, she explained, is essential to good decisionmaking. We know as much from our own everyday lives that we make better decisions when we know the argument against what we are going to do, what we are going to think, and what we are going to say. It is the genius of the American system of jurisprudence that judges listen to both sides in open court before they make a decision. Their rulings are public, and they themselves are evaluated and judged. Nine years after the FISA Court's ruling in May of 2006, we continue to wrestle with the impact of the court's grievous, egregious error, but we cannot simply fix the mistake without fixing the court. We cannot fix the system without remedying the process because that process is so broken, it will make more mistakes--not only predictable mistakes but inevitable mistakes. As technology evolves, we cannot say with certainty what the next big privacy issue will be. In 2006, the FISA Court decided whether the government can collect all of our phone records. In 2020, the government will have some new means of surveillance, and they will want to try it. In 2030, we will have another. We need a FISA Court that we can trust to get the question right. Trust, confidence, and the integrity of the judicial system that authorizes the surveillance of Americans' private lives is at issue here. We need a FISA Court that operates transparently, openly, and has accountability. A court that operates in secret and hears only the views of the government and faces only minimal appellate reviews cannot be trusted to pass the next big test. The USA FREEDOM Act would fix this systemic problem. It would demand, under certain circumstances, that the FISA Court hear from both sides of the issue and explain why it is making a decision and also explain why it has decided not to hear both sides if it chooses to do so. That would bring transparency to the FISA Court decision, requiring them to be released unless there is good reason not to release them. It preserves the confidentiality of the court where necessary, but it also protects the fundamental, deeply rooted sense of American justice that an adversarial, open process is important--indeed, essential--to democracy. And it would provide some appellate review, some form of review by an appellate court so that if mistakes are made, they are more likely to be caught and stopped before they result in fundamental invasion of private rights. In short, the USA FREEDOM Act will make the FISA Court look more like the courts Americans deal with in other walks of life, more like the courts they know when they are litigants, when they are spectators, and more like the courts our Founders anticipated. What would they have thought about a court that hears cases in secret, makes secret decisions, operates in secret, and issues secret rulings? They would get it wrong. They would have thought that that sounds a lot like the Star Chamber, that sounds a lot like the so- called courts that caused our rebellion. This change will help ensure that we are not back in this Chamber 9 years from now debating the next mass surveillance program that started without Congress actually authorizing it, as did metadata collection. It will help ensure that strictures of our Constitution are obeyed in spirit and letter. It will help ensure that programs designed to keep Americans safe can command the respect and trust they need to be effective. We need those programs. National security must be preserved and protected, but we need not sacrifice fundamental rights in the process. Unless and until this essential reform is enacted, along with the other essential reforms contained in the USA FREEDOM Act, I will oppose any reauthorization of section 215. The question that I ask my colleague from Kentucky and the point that I think he has made so powerfully and eloquently relates to this essential feature of our American jurisprudence system. Are not open adversarial courts essential to the trust and confidence of the American people, and do we not need that kind of fundamental reform in order to preserve our basic liberties? I ask this question of my colleague and friend from Kentucky because I think his debate on the floor of this Senate tonight raises fundamental issues that need to be discussed and addressed. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the opportunity to ask this question and address this body. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, these trade agreements are big deals. Trade promotion authority used to mean setting tariffs. Now they can affect everything from the safety of our food to the working conditions of people around the world and environmental standards. Very frankly and simply, that means that Americans should know what the agreements say and what our government is saying about them, and they should be given that information while there is a meaningful chance to influence them. I hope to influence them through this deliberative process. It is supposed to be open and transparent. I have two amendments--one that would promote greater transparency in trade agreements and the second to help ensure that foreign countries cannot use trade agreements to undermine the safety and security of America's food supply. First, on the subject of transparency, nothing is more fundamental than for the American people to know what is in these trade agreements. Despite their significance, despite the far-reaching ramifications and implications they have for our American economy and, indeed, our way of life, they are being negotiated in secret. In fact, Members of Congress can view them only if they go to secure locations, and staff of Members of Congress can see them only if they are accompanied by the Members themselves. The real problem is not Members of Congress or their staff but the American public who are kept in the dark. They are the supposed beneficiaries of these deals, and yet they are kept from knowing what is in them. The TPA would allow the text of an agreement to be made public only after it is already finalized--a point that is way too late for the people most directly and urgently affected by the deals to do anything but try to get Congress to vote down the whole thing in its entirety at once. That is not productive. That is not fair. More transparency would allow issues over a particular provision to be resolved individually on their own. This kind of practice is not in accordance with our democratic condition, an open and transparent process to set policy--whether it is trade policy or any other issue of economic and political consequence. So making the TPA more transparent is a relatively easy fix. My amendment would do it. This amendment would require the publication of ``formal proposals advanced by the United States in negotiations for a trade agreement.'' ``Formal proposals advanced by the United States in negotiations for a trade agreement''--that means that the United States, when it takes an official position and offers it to another country, ought to tell the American people, its own people--not just the people who are rulers of another country but our own people. They have a right to know when this administration or any other offers something to people of another country, and my amendment would require that basic protection and transparency. Very importantly, this amendment would not prohibit confidential negotiations or closed-door deliberations. Some off-the-record discussion, no question, is necessary for effective consideration of any multilateral agreement. And this amendment would not affect negotiations specifically relating to tariffs and similar market-access provisions that are the traditional subjects of trade negotiations. Some negotiations have to be done in confidence--in private--but basic positions, official proposals, are outside of this realm-- proposals that look more like traditional legislative policymaking, because they can involve give or take, sacrifices from the American people, and give and take by other countries. They can align standards for regulations across a number of areas, from drug development to finance. Other countries can be encouraged. They can be empowered to adopt stronger protections for workers, for clean air and water and more. But harm can be done if trade agreements undermine American laws and American protections for health, safety, and security of our citizens. There are a number of amendments that I have supported that will directly address labor issues, environmental issues, and security issues. This amendment would simply ensure that all of these issues are considered in an open, fair, and transparent way, so the American people--not just we in this Chamber, not just our negotiators, not just the President and his advisers--know what is happening. Publication of formal proposals, which is a term of art in trade agreements, would bring American transparency practice in line with the general practices of our European allies. The European Union countries engaged in the TTIP negotiations announcing that they will post on the Internet all textual proposals that will be offered to the United States, as well as position papers, establishing their approach and analysis. And America should simply do the same. We are a nation that prides itself on leading the world in transparency, openness, and democracy. We should not be behind our European allies on that score. I am very grateful for the support of Senator Brown, a tremendous leader in this effort to ensure that American trade agreements work for the American people, as well as Senator Baldwin and Senator Udall. And I urge other colleagues to support this amendment and the other amendments that I am offering on food safety. And I am grateful, again, to have the support of Senator Brown on this one. It would establish as a principal negotiating objective of the United States the protection and promotion of strong food safety laws as well as regulations and inspections. Enforcement is key. Standards are vital. Ensuring that trade agreements do not weaken or diminish our food safety standards ought to be a given. We take for granted all too often that our food is safe until we discover that it isn't, until we find there are food poisonings and tragedies that result from unsafe food. We saw it at the beginning of the last century. Unscrupulous corporations can cut corners by skimping on food safety or worse, by introducing dangerous additives or adulterations to foods, making them or processing them under unsafe or unacceptable conditions. They may save money, but they sacrifice lives and safety. The consequences in real lives and real time can be disastrous--not only in lives but in dollars. The majority of food manufacturers and producers take their safety responsibilities seriously. The majority in this country certainly do. But what about abroad? What about in another country? What about in countries where the standards are nonexistent or not enforced? A campaign of dedicated advocacy and scientific research led to a system of food inspection in this country, which is far from perfect but way ahead of other countries, and it gives Americans the confidence they need and deserve to walk into any supermarket or restaurant in this country and feel trust--deserved because it is earned and because the laws are enforced. Not all countries, unfortunately, follow these practices. Few countries have the standards that ours does. Food production is still under-inspected, spoiled or adulterated in those countries, and that is the product that we want excluded from this country if they fail to meet those standards. I am concerned that this trade agreement will affect our own food safety regulations by introducing those deficient products--unsafe food--into this country. My amendment directs negotiators to ensure that imports of that food do not undermine the trust and confidence of our people in our own food supply as well as products from abroad. Countries with less stringent standards in protecting their citizens should not be permitted to use trade agreements to force this country to imitate them. Trade is a crucial part of the American economy. It is an essential part of our Connecticut economy. Trade, when it is done right, is a great boon to many people and our entire economy. Defense and aerospace, small manufacturers, furniture and food companies in Connecticut all thrive because of trade. I want the world to see what Connecticut businesses have to offer, what our exports can do for them. I know we can compete with anyone. I know how important exports are to my State, but I also know trade deals can have negative, unintended consequences, which is what we want to prevent; consequences in abuses by foreign governments seeking to subvert or circumvent American regulations or by giant multinational companies looking to move jobs and capital to where labor is cheapest and can be exploited easiest or where health or environmental protections are weakest. My amendments would help ensure that the American people know what are in these trade agreements before they are approved, while they are negotiated, and when our food can be protected and transparency assured. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah, my friend and very distinguished colleague, as well as our friend from the State of Vermont for their leadership this morning and throughout the drafting and formulating of this very well-balanced compromise--a balance between security, which we must be able to preserve and defend, and our privacy and other essential constitutional rights, which we need to protect just as zealously, because the reason for fighting to preserve our security is so we maintain and preserve our great constitutional rights. That balance can be struck. It is feasible, achievable, and this measure of the USA FREEDOM Act is a strong step in the right direction. I wish to talk today about one of its great virtues, which is an American virtue, the virtue of due process having an effective adversarial process, one that is transparent and provides for effective appellate view. The lack of an adversarial process, as well as transparency and effective appellate review, is one of the reasons the USA FREEDOM Act is absolutely necessary. We know bulk collection of megadata is unnecessary. The President's own review group made that fact clear. We also know bulk metadata collection is, essentially, un-American. This country was founded by people who, rightly, abhorred the so-called general warrant that permitted the King's officials to rummage through their homes and documents. No general warrant in our history has swept up as much information about innocent Americans as orders allowing bulk collection. Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals told us something more; that we now know bulk collection is unauthorized. It is illegal. It is unauthorized by statute and has been so for the last 9 years that the government has collected bulk data of this kind. The question is, How did it happen? How did we arrive at a point where the Government of the United States has been collecting data illegally for 9 years? We know that in May of 2006, the FISA Court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--first was asked whether the Federal Government could collect the phone records of potentially every single American, and it said yes. It failed the most crucial test of any court, which is to uphold our liberties against any legal onslaught. It got it wrong because the government's argument hinged on a single word, the word ``relevance.'' The court ruled that relevance means all information. In other words, the court had to decide whether relevant information means all information, and it said yes. That judgment was just plain wrong, and it did not strike the Second Circuit as a difficult question. It doesn't strike us--now in retrospect--as a difficult question. The Second Circuit held that the Federal Government's interpretation is ``unprecedented and unwarranted.'' Never before, in the history of the Nation, has this kind of bizarre overreaching been successfully entertained. Now, the court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court--didn't even issue an opinion. There was no way for anyone to know that this bulk metadata collection had been authorized because the court never told anyone, never explained itself. One can hope the Court knew what it was thinking at the time, but we don't know what it was thinking. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to the FISA Court, which is composed of judges who have been confirmed by this body, article 3 judges who serve because they have been appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. The reason the court got this issue so fundamentally wrong, I think, is because it heard only one side of the argument. It heard only the government's side. It heard only the advocates seeking to collect in this sweeping way that was contrary to statute and, in my view, also contrary to fundamental rights and principles. The USA FREEDOM Act corrects that systemic problem. It not only enables, but it requires the court to hear both sides. We know from our life's experience that people make better decisions when they hear both sides of an argument. Judges on the courts know they want to hear both sides of the argument before they make a decision. Often they will appoint someone to make the other side of the argument, if there isn't anyone to do so effectively. They want effective representation in the courtroom. That is why I have advocated from the very start and proposed--and the President affirmed--that there needs to be advocacy for our constitutional rights before the court. The other side of the government's argument needs to be represented. We need a FISA Court we can trust to get it right because this proposal for an adversarial proceeding in no way contemplates an abridgement of secrecy or unnecessary delay. Warrants could proceed without delay. They could proceed without violation of confidentiality and secrecy, but the systemic problem would be fixed so the FISA Court would hear from both sides. This act also is important because it would bring more transparency to FISA Court decisions, requiring opinions to be released, unless there is good reason not to do so. It would require some form of effective appellate review so mistakes could be corrected. These kinds of changes in the law are, in fact, basic due process. They are the rule of law throughout the United States in article 3 courts, and these changes will make the FISA Court look like the courts Americans are accustomed to seeing in their everyday experience. When they walk into a courtroom in any town in the State of Connecticut or the State of Utah or the State of Montana, what they are accustomed to seeing is two sides arguing before a judge, and that is what the FISA Court would look like--rather than one side making one argument, whether it is for bulk collection of metadata or any other intrusion on civil rights and civil liberties, there would be an advocate on the other side to make the case that it is overreaching, that it is unnecessary, that it is unauthorized. In fact, that is what the Second Circuit said the government was doing by this incredibly overextended overreach in bulk collection of metadata. Unless and until this essential reform is enacted, along with other critical reforms that are contained in the USA FREEDOM Act, I will oppose reauthorization of section 215, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I thank my colleagues from Utah and Vermont for their leadership and all who have joined in this morning's discussion. The colloquy today, I think, illustrates some important points of why the USA FREEDOM Act is important at this point in our Nation's history. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, spring in Washington, DC, is one of the most beautiful times of the year, as it is in Connecticut and around the country. We have endured a tough winter in the Northeast--a lot of snow and a lot of cold. And now a lot of potholes are all around the country. Spring means potholes, which are endemic not only to the Northeast but to our roads all around America. Potholes are just the latest reminder of infrastructure challenges facing our Nation. That is one reason why this week is, in fact, Infrastructure Week, a time when we should be focusing on rail and roads, the decaying and aging infrastructure that bedevils and hobbles our Nation as we seek to compete globally. And our businesses in Connecticut seek to compete nationally as well as globally. This time of year is also the beginning of the construction season, especially in the colder regions of the country, such as the Northeast and Iowa, Nebraska, and the Midwest. In Connecticut, construction workers are ready to go, ready to take advantage of this chance to address our aging and decaying transportation assets. I know that trade is on our agenda this week. I urge and implore that trade be set aside, that the trade bill be delayed--not forever, by any means. As the leader of our caucus has urged--our leader Harry Reid has implored that we focus on infrastructure. We face a deadline. May marks the last month of MAP-21, the law governing surface transportation funding. On May 31--just 20 days from now--the authorization governing our highway trust fund will expire. That is right. There is a highway cliff that we are just days away from going over. This Nation will go over that cliff unless we act, and now is the moment. Now is the time. Now is our opportunity, and it is an opportunity that will not excuse us from acting. The bill covers more than just funding. It is crucial to keeping our roadways safe. Now, 2014 was a record year for auto recalls, auto problems, and issues. So part of what needs to be done in addressing the expiration of MAP-21 is to make safety a priority. But it cannot be achieved if we don't address the fundamental challenges of our aging infrastructure. Fundamental reforms are needed at the NHTSA and other safety watchdogs to make sure our constituents are safe. So one would think now would be the time to discuss legislation that would fix our streets and stop potholes from imperiling our drivers and put construction workers back on the job, providing a lifeline to nearly 2 million Americans who have jobs directly tied to the transportation sector. One would think we would want to cut down on our unemployment. In the construction sector, joblessness remains at a 10-percent level. You would think that now is the time to be advancing a multiyear, long-term bill that will provide certainty to States and municipalities so they can finalize planning for long-term projects. You would think that now is the time to take a hard look at our safety oversight agencies-- NHTSA, the FRA, the Federal Highway Administration--and to make reforms and increase the tools that they have in fines and penalties they can exact to protect all who rely on our transportation network. Unfortunately, the approach of this Congress is going to be, as engineers say, patch and pray. Patch the potholes, patch the roads, patch the railroads--even when the tracks are cracked, even when ballasts are failing. Patch the bridges. Patch and pray. We are about to become a nation of patch and pray when it comes to decaying, deficient roads, bridges, railroads, and all the vital nuts and bolts, literally, that transport our Nation. How ironic it is at this moment--when it is spring, when the construction industry is about to rely on the opportunities it has to put people back to work, and when many of us in this Chamber and others at school commencements will be talking about the big ideas, the big challenges, the big dreams and hopes that our graduates have for the future--that we are thinking small. We are thinking about patching-- patching our highway transit fund for months, maybe until the end of the year. A nation that patches and prays cannot be exceptional, cannot be a great nation when it comes to shortchanging investments in the vital facilities, in the nuts and bolts, in the roads and bridges that make it a national competitor. This kind of short-term extension of a highway and transit system fails to match the challenges that our Nation faces. We spend less and invest less as a percentage of our gross domestic product than many other industrialized nations. Europe and China spend far more as a percentage of their gross domestic product than we do. So I call on the leadership, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to make infrastructure our priority for this week, as it should be for this decade. Within this decade, according to some projections, one in four of our bridges will be 65 years or older, making them even more prone to decay and disrepair. The consequences are real and costly. Bridges collapse, such as the 50-year old Skagit River Bridge in Washington. The bridge collapsed sending cars into the river below. That wasn't a remote bridge. It was over Interstate 5, a major artery on the west coast. Of course, we all remember the 2007 bridge collapse in Minneapolis. We remember the Mianus River Bridge collapse in Connecticut, the Bridgeport derailment due to decaying and cracking tracks that were improperly repaired. We remember where lives were lost because of a derailment and the failure to invest in train communication and signaling that could have prevented that tragedy. We remember the railroad grade crossings where insufficient investment in modern technology causes deaths all around the country--hundreds of them every year--not to mention billions of dollars due to these collisions, derailments, crashes on the roads, costing lives and imperiling our Nation's future. A short-term patch robs our States and municipalities of the certainty they need to contract what is essential to construction at the lowest possible cost in the most efficient way. The certainty and reliability in funding are essential to our municipalities, knowing what their resources will be not just this year but into the future and driving the bargaining with contractors and subcontractors. It is not just because of our rebuilding needs that we need this investment. There are also many other significant related issues that we must address to keep our roads and bridges safe and reliable. We need to ensure that trucks on the road aren't too big, that truck drivers have enough rest, that our railroads are properly overseen, that constant train control is implemented, that testing for physical and emotional problems is done regularly and reliably. And the long list of NTSB regulations needs to be finally addressed and implemented. We are in a time when we are talking to young men and women as they graduate from school about those big ideas and about their futures and dreams, when we invoke what is best and brightest about America, our foresight, our strength, our courage to take risks, to invest in ourselves and our future. It is the same spirit that led to the building of the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, and the interstate highway system. Those initiatives were not partisan initiatives. The greatest generation came back from World War II and built the interstate highways under the leadership of President Dwight Eisenhower. He was committed to making America one Nation in its roads, tying us and binding us together as a Nation through that investment. He had the courage--as we should today--to say that what is great about America is what we give back, what we are willing to invest--not only for today, but for tomorrow. And we are in danger today in this Chamber, in this Nation, of being one of the first generations that left a lesser America for our children. Think of it--a lesser America at a time when the words ``exceptional'' and ``exceptionalism'' trip off the tongues of many of our colleagues here in the Chamber. We need to match that rhetoric with real action. So today, let us resolve that we will debate and act on a long-term investment program to make sure that our roads and bridges, our railroads and airports, and the ports that could make our Nation the envy of the world are matching our rhetoric and our goals; that they truly make us competitive for businesses in Connecticut and around the Nation, competitive on the global scene, where competition has never been tougher and where our infrastructure needs to be better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a Connecticut resident who recently demonstrated extraordinary capability and heroism. Mary Elizabeth Cunningham, a resident of Niantic, who works as an emergency room nurse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, was flying from Chicago to Hartford on April 22. When she heard an announcement over the loudspeaker seeking the assistance of any medical professionals on board, she quickly volunteered to help a passenger experiencing respiratory difficulties. After successfully providing aid, Ms. Cunningham was about to return to her seat when she was asked to help another passenger, who had lost consciousness. While assessing the situation, she began to feel dizzy herself, along with other passengers and members of the flight crew. Despite the challenging circumstances, she did not panic but instead urged the flight crew to make an emergency landing, fearing something was wrong. The pilot swiftly landed the plane in Buffalo, and although 17 passengers were later evaluated by medical personnel, it appears that everyone has made a full recovery. Had Ms. Cunningham not been on the plane to assist with handling the situation, that might not have been the case. Ms. Cunningham deserves the highest praise, not just for her choice to become a health provider, but for her speedy and decisive actions to help those in need and recognizing a potentially disastrous situation. I am particularly pleased to recognize her on National Nurses Day, when we recognize the essential services nurses provide in hospitals and communities all across the country. I know all of Connecticut joins me in honoring and thanking Ms. Cunningham for her exemplary performance in the line of duty.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are here debating choices. They happen to be choices about our budget, about the future of our Nation that will be determined by choices we make about how to invest. That is the key concept at stake in this very momentous moment as we consider choices for how to invest in middle-class financial security, and all that goes along with it, job creation, infrastructure, education funding, clean energy research. All of those choices are critical to the future of our Nation, and we will make disastrous choices if we adopt the budget that has come to us in the conference report for fiscal year 2016 because it fails to understand the need for investment in our future. We are in danger of leaving a lesser America--an America that for the first time in our history will reflect a lesser Nation left to our children and their grandchildren. All generations before us determined that they would sacrifice, that they would give back and pay forward. Yet now, sadly, in fact tragically, we endanger their future by failing in those investment decisions. The conference agreement would cut trillions of dollars to domestic programs without seeking revenue. In fact, it relies on gimmicks that undermine its integrity--a significant gimmick, for example, accounting, $2 trillion in tax revenue from the Affordable Care Act while at the same time repealing that law. It relies on trillions of dollars in supposed savings without detailing how those savings will be accomplished. At the very least, we owe a measure of integrity to the American people. We can disagree about choices, but at least we should be honest about how revenue is supposed to match the spending we allocate. The proposal before us would, in fact, repeal the Affordable Care Act, which has already allowed more than 16 million Americans to obtain health insurance, access preventive services, and save money on their premiums. It would cut more than $1 trillion from Medicaid, reversing the expansion that has provided health insurance to millions of Americans. Too many Americans are still struggling, and yet this budget would cut funding for job training and employment services. It would eliminate the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which provides vital support for small manufacturers in Connecticut and across the country. Time and again, we have learned that education is the key to a brighter future for our children. Yet, tragically, this budget would cut the funding across the spectrum of American education, from universal prekindergarten, which would be slashed, to college affordability, where loan programs would be decimated. In fact, instead of making college more affordable, this budget decimates two critical programs that would help future students pay back loans. Remember, the average student debt in this country is in the tens of thousands of dollars. In Connecticut, it is about $30,000, conservatively estimated. This budget would increase student loan payments for millions of borrowers, and it would slash Pell grants--increase the cost of loans, cut the amount of grants available that enable students to avoid borrowing. In fact, it would cut the Pell Grant Program by nearly 30 percent and eliminate other important Federal subsidies. These moneys are not spending, they are investments in our future, the futures of those students whose hopes and dreams will be constrained, undercut, and killed but also the future of our capacity to manufacture and compete around the globe because what we have--more than any other nation--is very smart, skilled people. That is why companies are coming back to this Nation after outsourcing. One of these programs, the Pay as You Earn Program, caps monthly student loan payments at a level that is proportionate to their earnings and forgives debt after 20 years of repayment. But the Republican budget would require cuts to this program in a way that could increase required monthly payment increases of more than 50 percent to some borrowers, and it paves the way for eliminating the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which assists students with debt payments for those who go into public service professions, such as teaching, firefighting, and policing. This program ought to be especially close to our hearts because we purport to be engaged in public service and to provide a role model for young people who engage in public service. I am particularly concerned about this program's impact on our railroads, roads, bridges, and airports. We know those facilities as infrastructure--the magic word in the Senate, ``infrastructure.'' In fact, we had a hearing just this morning in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on the importance of fully funded, long-term investments in our Nation's highway transit and rail system. We heard testimony from the public and private sectors about how important a revitalized and reinvigorated transportation network is for American competitiveness, American businesses, and American professionals to compete in the world. Yet, through this budget, we will not only sanction, but we will encourage and enable an inadequate investment in infrastructure. The budget conference report before us would cut funding for highways and mass transit by 40 percent over the next decade. There may be no more important fact to know about this budget. So I regret that I will vote against this budget because I wish, as do many of my colleagues, that we could reach a bipartisan measure that will embody the best in America, not encourage a retreat from our public obligation. In fact, I think America is ready to invest, ready to give back and to pay forward. In fact, I believe our wealthiest Americans are ready to do more and approve closing loopholes and ending subsidies, not making blanket cuts to vital programs, not cutting taxes for millionaires, as this budget would create a pathway to do, not forcing another 12 million middle-class families and students to pay for college by ending the American opportunity tax credit or adding $1,100 more in burdens on them, and not forcing 16 million middle-class families to pay a $900 tax hike by ending the expansions of the earned- income tax credit and child tax credit. I think our most fortunate Americans are ready to pay forward and do more and invest and, in fact, make more sacrifices, which is the way this budget ought to be arranged. And it isn't even a matter of sacrifices on the part of anyone; it is ending the subsidies for outsourcing to ensure that everyone pays their fair share without those hidden tax breaks and subsidies that can be closed. I hope we can do better than this. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the budget conference report. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, a number of my colleagues came to the floor yesterday to speak about the FDA's failure to release the tobacco deeming rule and the delays that have occurred with respect to that rule. As difficult as the American people may find it to understand why there are these delays in issuing a rule that protects our citizens against tobacco use--most particularly our children--we should all understand that these rules have real-life consequences. Tobacco, in fact, is the leading cause of preventable death. In this Nation, tobacco use kills more than half a million people every year. Most smokers and tobacco users begin as children, many under the age of 10. Each day, more than 3,200 people younger than 18 years old smoke their first cigarette, and the consequences are inevitable. Thousands of them will die early in life. Cigarettes are the only product in the world that, when used as the manufacturer intends it, kills the customer. If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of them are expected to die prematurely from smoking-related illness. Tobacco use is a path to addiction and disease, and it is a public health epidemic. Yet laws that protect the public, laws that forbid marketing to children, laws that are designed to uphold the public trust have been unimplemented. My fight against Big Tobacco began in the 1990s, when I was attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I helped to lead a lawsuit against tobacco companies for marketing to children. We succeeded in restricting tobacco companies from selling to and targeting children in their ads through sporting events, magazines, and point of sale methods. We helped reimburse the States for the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars spent on tobacco-related diseases, and those payments continue today. They are supposed to be used for prevention and cessation activities, but unfortunately and tragically, much of that money is now used to fill gaps in State budgets. I have continued my fight against the tobacco companies in the Senate, alongside dedicated colleagues such as Senator Merkley and Senator Durbin, who spoke yesterday, in urging the FDA to seek relief, to strive to do its job with the tobacco deeming rule in order to protect children and families from tobacco. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gave the FDA significant power and responsibility to achieve this goal. Now it is the FDA's responsibility to implement that law to prevent young people from becoming nicotine addicts, damaging their health, risking their lives, and costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions--in fact, billions--of dollars. Six years have passed since that law was passed. The FDA has yet to implement it, and the reason is that it has yet to issue those regulations. It wasn't until last year, April 2014--5 years after the measure passed--that the FDA took the first step, issuing draft regulations known as the deeming rule that would formalize this authority. The rule would allow the FDA to control the regulation and sale--in particular, the sale to minors--of e-cigarettes, as well as dangerous combustible products, such as hookah, pipe tobacco, and cigars. This past Saturday, April 25, was the 1-year anniversary of the release of the proposed rule. Over the past year, youth use of unregulated tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes and the hookah, has skyrocketed. E-cigarette use has tripled among 11- to 18-year-olds, while hookah use has almost doubled. There is clear data, absolutely irrefutable evidence that the rate of use of these products has increased even as some of the use of tobacco products has diminished, and this chart illustrates that evidence. It indicates that use of the regulated products has diminished, while use of unregulated products has increased. So laws work. Rules have an effect. People can be saved from addiction and disease. And these products--cigars, pipes, hookahs, e-cigarettes--lead to tobacco use in cigarettes and addiction to nicotine. They create the same kind of public health menace that tobacco products do. We know that nicotine addiction is surging through e-cigarette use, which is a disastrous tribute to the ingenuity of Big Tobacco. In fact, many of the big tobacco companies have bought the e-cigarette companies because they know they can use the e-cigarettes as a gateway nicotine- delivery device, addicting children so that they will then shift to cigarette tobacco. I am joining my colleagues in urging that the FDA act as quickly as possible to implement these rules, to finalize the regulations, to get them out of the regulatory apparatus, the morass in which they are now trapped, and make sure that our children and our citizens are protected against the marketing and other abuses that are involved in the current sale of these nicotine-delivery devices marketed to children. I am also proud to be introducing today a new measure, the Tobacco Tax and Enforcement Reform Act, which is supported by Senators Durbin, Reed, and Boxer. I am very grateful to them for their leadership not only on this measure but over many years in fighting this battle against nicotine addiction and tobacco use. Congress has a continuing responsibility to combat cigarette smoking directly. Right now, there are a number of areas where loopholes and gaps exist in the enforcement structure. We need to do more to fight illegal tobacco trafficking. We need to eliminate the tax disparities between different tobacco products. These gaps in our laws and law enforcement failures create opportunities and incentives for violations of those laws, at great cost to the State with regard to illegal trafficking. Similar to the changes outlined in the President's budget proposal, this bill would also increase the Federal tax rate on tobacco products. In fact, these reforms would help the Federal Government and States collect nearly $100 billion at a time when our States are strapped fiscally and our Federal Government needs that revenue as well. These revenues would not only reduce tobacco consumption, they would also aid the fiscal well-being of our State and local governments. Most importantly from the standpoint of law enforcement, it would force criminals who engage in illegal trafficking to comply with the law. It would combat those criminals who profit from the illegal sale of these products and trafficking across State lines, who are selling illicitly and gaining huge numbers of dollars from that legal noncompliance. Economic research confirms that raising the price of tobacco reduces use among young people, who are particularly sensitive to pricing. They are sensitive to price increases because they have less disposable income and know they have fewer dollars to spend. They are more price- sensitive. In fact, every 10 percent increase in the real price of cigarettes will reduce the prevalence of adult smoking by 5 percent and youth smoking by 7 percent. Adults are price-sensitive, too. Increasing the cost of cigarettes makes people more likely to want to quit and to pursue tobacco cessation, to break the nicotine habit and seek help through quit lines, the nicotine patch, and other pharmaceutical measures. The current tobacco tax code has many loopholes that enable even the least creative manufacturers to exploit them and incentivizes many manufacturers to manipulate products so they can be classified in a lower tax category. These tax incentives and loopholes not only sharply reduce Federal revenues, but they increase the overall use of tobacco and tobacco-related harms. Eliminating these tax disparities, along with the price, is one of the goals of the measure I am introducing today. By taxing all products at the same level as cigarettes, we can make progress against nicotine addiction and the illnesses and diseases associated with tobacco use. The increase in tax rate on cigarettes by 94 percent per pack and setting the rates for other tobacco products to an equivalent amount would help people who are now addicted and would also help America because at the end of the day the real cost of cigarettes is not only to people who are addicted and who endure the suffering and the pain of cancer, lung disease, and heart problems, it is to their families and to all taxpayers. All of us--literally, all of us--pay for the diseases that result from tobacco use through our insurance policies and through Medicare and Medicaid. We are the ones who bear the financial burden. Due to these current tax inequities, the GAO has projected $615 million to $1.1 billion in losses to Federal tax revenue right now, and tobacco-related health problems cost the country almost $170 billion a year in direct medical costs. We can save money and save lives through this measure. I hope my colleagues will support it. Every day that goes by without FDA regulation harms children. It hurts people who become addicted. It hurts all of America. Every day that tax disparities exist, every day that illegal trafficking continues is a day when America pays in the casualties, human suffering, loss of productivity, and loss of revenue. I hope my colleagues will support these efforts. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper and Senator Durbin, two of our most distinguished colleagues who have fought ceaselessly for the interests of students and veterans. I am very proud to be here with them today. I do have a very personal interest as the dad of a veteran and also of a currently serving young man whom I hope will be a veteran one day. Nothing is more important than this issue of making sure we keep faith with our veterans and protect them because the phenomena we have described today often create incentives for schools to lure veterans into education deals, and they are often education deals that fail them, that don't make sense for them, that don't give them the education and the qualifications they think they are going to receive. So very often they are failed by these programs, and they fail to complete their courses and leave with mountains of debt but no degree. These kinds of abuses that bring us here today involve some for- profit schools in effect scamming our Nation's veterans. We all know that for-profit schools are prohibited from receiving more than 90 percent of their total revenue from Federal student aid, but, as my colleagues have so well stated, the Department of Defense and Veterans' Administration education benefits are not counted toward that 90 percent. That loophole causes the for-profits to target those servicemembers and veterans, often with predatory marketing practices that lure them into those deals that make no sense for them. We need to change that law. We need to change the law so that DOD and VA benefits count under the 90-percent cap on Federal revenue. That is really our ultimate goal. I thank the President for including such a provision in his budget request for fiscal year 2016. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the President in moving that legislative effort forward. In the meantime, we need a more accurate picture of this problem because when it comes to for-profit schools and veterans, there are some things we definitely need to know and our veterans need to know. Here is what we do know. We know there are a large number of for- profit schools that would be in violation of the 90-10 rule if we made this change today. In fact, a 2013 Department of Education analysis identified 133 for-profit schools that would be in violation. We also know that the current loophole in that 90-10 rule creates those incentives for certain institutions to conduct aggressive, relentless, often predatory recruitment of veterans. What we lack and what we need is comprehensive, complete information on the exact scope of the problem. That part should be easy. The Department of Education already collects the information we are asking them to publish. It is a simple task of publishing how much revenue schools receive from all Federal education programs, including the DOD and the VA. That would bring accuracy and transparency to the debate over the 90-10 rule. Disclosure and transparency are part of the battle. Most importantly, this information and these statistics would provide veterans themselves and servicemembers better data and information to make informed choices about higher education. Let me briefly mention another tool that I think is very important because it encourages veterans to make informed higher education choices, and that is the VA's GI bill comparison tool. I am glad--and I thank Secretary McDonald--the VA has launched this vitally important resource for veterans in response to the President's Executive order, which established principles of excellence for schools that serve veterans. I also think Secretary McDonald can take steps to improve this tool, specifically by adding a risk index that would highlight unscrupulous bad actors in the industry. As our Nation's veterans decide where to spend their taxpayer-funded education benefits--their money but taxpayer funded--they deserve to know if the school they are considering is under investigation for deceptive practices, what its record is on this score, what its graduates do, what the value is of education and courses there. They deserve to know if the school they are considering has been placed on heightened cash monitoring status, a specific status from the Department of Education. They deserve to have this information. It is vital not only to them but to their smart use of taxpayer dollars. Let me finish by saying that for-profit schools have been problematic in many ways. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on which I served during my first 2 years, conducted an investigation. I was very proud to be a part of the effort to reform for-profit schools. Our former colleague Tom Harkin worked very hard on this issue. We should not tar every for-profit school with too broad a brush. We should note improvements that have been made. This problem is discrete, identifiable, critically important, and I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to talk about it and work with them on it.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would add one last note. My colleague Senator Durbin has very appropriately mentioned the Corinthian debacle. We should note that this debacle is not an innocent failure. It is not a victimless debacle. Behind that staggering number of $1.2 billion are thousands of real people with huge debt and no value in the courses they have taken in terms of a degree that can give them marketable qualifications. There are real-life stories of huge debt, no degrees, and people who are tragically trapped in financial situations really beyond their own fault because of this situation. So that, too, is a phenomenon we need to keep in mind when we talk about this 90-10 rule. Those veterans who are failed, who are marketed to, who are lured into this system are often left in tragic situations that they don't deserve and that they wouldn't have undertaken if they had been well-informed, which is what ultimately this Nation owes them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise with regret because, unfortunately, we remain divided. There is so much common ground, so many good ideas in this bill, and so much that unites us. We have so much more in common than in conflict on this bill. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act has involved so much work by great colleagues--Senator Cornyn, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, and my colleague who has just finished speaking. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. We are divided on one paragraph that is simply unacceptable, and it is fundamental to the goals of this bill, which is to restore human dignity and freedom to victims and survivors of human trafficking. Restoring freedom involves giving those survivors choices over whether they will bear children as a result of that trafficking. Trafficking is, fundamentally, modern-day slavery. It is sex slavery and sex exploitation, which results, all too often, in pregnancy. At its core, the human trafficking bill before us today is about restoring human dignity to those victims and survivors and enabling them to avoid the long-lasting and enduring consequences of that slavery. This legislation is an acknowledgment of our common commitment to these survivors and to providing them the services and support they need so much. One of them is abortion. Where we are divided is on guaranteeing that reproductive right--the essence of freedom, dignity, and choice. So it is well beyond a technicality here. It is about the fundamental goals of this bill, which are contradicted by this provision in the law. Senator Cornyn's proposed amendment changes the words of this paragraph that we find objectionable, but it doesn't change the basic substance or its practical effect. We are told the provision in question doesn't matter because it includes a rape exception, but it requires the survivor to request, to ask, to entreaty and supplicate to the State whether the rape was really rape, whether it is a pretense or they must bear a rapist's child. We are told the provision in question is essentially the same as the Hyde amendment, but that is flatly untrue because the Hyde amendment applies to taxpayer funds. I would say to my colleague from Texas, a good friend, who is determined to address this problem of human trafficking, there are no taxpayer funds in that $30 million that is taken from criminal fines and penalties. It is an entirely different source of funds. As a former prosecutor, I view those moneys as restitution. They come from criminals and they are used to try to support and serve the victims of that criminal activity. There is nothing more fundamental than using funds taken from criminals for the benefit of their victims. Congress has never before privileged the concerns of criminals over the rights of women, and we should not start now. I respect my colleague from Texas and other colleagues who may differ with me on this issue. He has stated, in heartbreaking and eloquent terms, the practical human impact of trafficking, sex slavery. I ask my colleagues now to give these women the real freedom from that sex slavery. Liberate them, truly, from this heinous and horrific violation of basic human rights by guaranteeing them one of the basic human rights, which is the right to make choices about their own bodies, about their futures, about their hopes and dreams as they are liberated from this slavery. Let this Chamber and my colleagues recognize the rights they have to truly be free from those who enslave them. I urge this body to strike the Hyde language from S. 178 and to make good on its promise. As cochair of the bipartisan Senate caucus to end human trafficking, I agree completely this cause ought to be bipartisan. It ought not to divide us along any partisan or party lines. I am proud to have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle, and I hope we can come to agreement now with my good friend and my excellent colleague Senator Cornyn and others who have worked so hard and who are so genuinely determined to solve this problem and to take a step--it is only a first step--in the direction of combating human trafficking. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to state my opposition to S. 650 in its current form. This legislation would extend the deadline for installation of Positive Train Control, PTC, by 5 years. I cannot agree with allowing such an extension without addressing so many other critical rail safety matters. As Joe Boardman, the head of Amtrak and former FRA Administrator has said, ``PTC is the most important rail safety advancement of our time.'' The need for this technology was first brought to our attention over 45 years ago, sparked by a head-on train collision in Darien, CT in 1969. There have been many other horrible crashes since, and within the past decade alone, the National Transportation Safety Board has completed more than two dozen train accident investigations that took 65 lives and injured over 1,100 people--all of this, according to the NTSB, could have been prevented by PTC. One of those horrific crashes occurred in 2008 in Southern California, and 25 lives were lost. PTC could have saved those lives. Accordingly, soon after that tragedy, Congress took real, thoughtful, substantive action and gave railroads more than 7 years to implement the life-saving technology of PTC. Since then, there have been other major accidents, such as the horrific crash of a Metro-North train in the Bronx in 2013 in which four lives were lost. Metro-North did not have PTC, and the NTSB has said the technology could have prevented those four deaths. Now, as we near the end of the 7 years, S. 650 gives railroads an extension of 5 more years--and then an option for 2 more after that. So, again, we must wait and risk continued loss of life as we further put off proven, life-saving technology. There may be issues with the deadline, and we should have a discussion about those issues. We should also have a discussion about the many other issues with PTC. These include the need for resources for commuter railroads, the need for greater transparency for all railroads and the need for dedicated spectrum to ensure commuter railroads have bandwidth to operate PTC. S. 650 doesn't address these other issues. Rather, the bill just focuses on the deadline. I want to make sure the bill solves all the other problems. In the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I filed amendments that actually address these other outstanding issues. I want to make sure funding is available for cash-strapped passenger railroads and commuter lines. I want to bolster transparency and make sure we know where railroads truly are in the implementation process. I want to make sure commuter railroads have the frequency they need to build out PTC, and I do not want any bill to move to the floor that ignores these needs and shortchanges our commuter railroads. Another issue I hold with S. 650 is the bill's lack of attention to other serious safety concerns that should be addressed hand-in-hand with the shortcomings PTC works to resolve. Over the past few years, we have witnessed an onslaught of other rail safety issues spurred by far too many preventable accidents. Many of these accidents have happened on Metro-North, the commuter railroad serving Connecticut, the State I proudly represent. From mid-2013 into early 2014, we witnessed five major incidents on our commuter railroad. Then, again in February 2015, we witnessed another horrific incident in which six lives were lost. These accidents have raised a host of other needs: cameras on trains, sufficient crew size, improved rail inspections, close-call reporting systems, redundant signal protection, alerters on rail cabs, speed restrictions, better Federal oversight, and safer highway-rail grade crossings. In the committee, I filed amendments that also advance these reforms. Those reforms must be a part of any real rail safety discussion. If we are even to consider a PTC deadline extension, it is imperative we take up other well-known measures that can improve safety while we work toward full PTC implementation. I appreciate the commitment from the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to work with me to advance these reforms. I also appreciate the committee including a modified version of one of my amendments in the bill that passed out of the committee. Although I withdrew my other amendments in the committee, I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to improve this bill further. I am confident that together we can achieve important reforms and truly advance safety for all who depend on rail.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this amendment helps to keep faith with our veterans and to make sure we leave no veteran behind by reflecting and responding to their voices and the message they have given us about the need for more and better health care relating to post-traumatic stress, treatment for military sexual trauma, and an improvement in the delivery of health care for them around the country. It also improves the job training and rehabilitation programs for our veterans and makes sure, among other provisions, there is greater accountability and more funds and support for the inspector general of the VA so we can avoid the kinds of gaps and egregious shortcomings we have seen in this past year and also improve the Choice Program this Congress passed. I urge my colleagues to join me in this bipartisan amendment. I thank Senator Moran and Senator Baldwin for their support and cosponsorship and urge that we keep faith with our Nation's heroes and leave no veteran behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership on this issue. He and I have cosponsored a bill that achieved this goal. This amendment is vitally important to advance public awareness and make our colleagues more aware of the importance of this very significant issue. I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this amendment builds on the reserve fund in section 307 to provide for better medical research into the issues affecting women in our military, most particularly women who become veterans, which is a neglected aspect of health care in our Veterans Affairs health care system. It focuses on military sexual trauma, which is continuing to be a scourge in the military, and its effects. But it also deals more generally with the need for research into post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, which is unfortunately lagging in our Veterans Affairs system, as determined as our VA is to do more of it. It would also build on existing programs for job training and vocational rehabilitation so our veterans entering the job market and seeking to become productive in well-paying jobs will be able to fulfill that ambition. It essentially fills in some of the gaps left by the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act which this body passed not long ago, to meet the emergency as well as the sustained needs of our veterans that are unfulfilled by our present VA. It is our obligation to do better for our Nation's heroes, keep faith with them and leave no veteran behind when it comes to jobs and health care. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.