Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was unable to appear in the Chamber today to vote on the nomination of Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education due to official business away from the Senate. I would like the record to show that I oppose his nomination and would have voted against his confirmation.

Throughout his confirmation process and career, Mr. Marcus has demonstrated consistent disregard for the rights of the very students he would be expected to protect in this role: women, LGBTQ individuals immigrants, and students of color. It is clear that Mr. Marcus is in lockstep with the Department of Education in this regard. He has supported the Department's decision to dismantle critical title IX protections for survivors of sexual assault, stood in the way of LGBTQ students seeking an educational atmosphere free from discrimination, and refused to commit to protecting a child's constitutional right to an education regardless of immigration status.

Mr. Marcus has made abundantly clear that he is unfit to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department or Education. I would like the record to show that I oppose his nomination and would have voted nay during today's confirmation vote.

(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a small agency with a major mission. Its goal is to protect the public from the threats of injury or death associated with defective and dangerous products. That mission is more important today than ever before because consumers face dangers from fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazards--not only consumers but their children and families.

The agency is already resource-starved. It is already depleted in terms of the support that it needs in Congress, and already it needs zealous and relentless advocacy.

The individuals who are members of that board should be dedicated to that mission and to the safety and well-being of consumers above all. That is their mission.

So, today, when we consider the nomination of Dana Baiocco, we should keep in mind that no matter how able and skilled and experienced a litigator she is, the question is whether she will devote those skills, ability, and experience to the mission of this agency.

Unfortunately, every sign that she has given indicates that her goal will be contrary to the agency's mission. I say that, first of all, because of her experience. She has participated in cases that are of extraordinary concern to Americans.

In 2007 she represented Mattel as a member of their litigation team when lead was discovered in the paint of 83 different Mattel toy products; I think nearly 1 million toys. In 2007, when she represented Mattel, I was the attorney general of the State of Connecticut. I remember that well because it was known as the Year of the Recall because of the frequency and the number of recalls involving unsafe products. In 2007, there were more than four recalls, on average, each week, and more than half of them were for children's products. It was a time when our Nation was facing this crisis in dangerous toys. Mattel ultimately was fined $2.3 million for violating the Consumer Product Safety Act and knowingly selling children's toys with contaminated paint or surface coatings.

This decision was an important win for consumers and children. The Consumer Product Safety Commission did its job. Ms. Baiocco was on the wrong side of consumer safety in that case.

Similarly, in representing the Yamaha Motor Company, a manufacturer of off-road vehicles, she was on the wrong side, standing with the industry that violated basic safety standards, causing multiple injuries and lawsuits when consumers were seriously maimed, injured, and harmed in operating Yamaha Rhino off-road vehicles. Those injuries occurred while the CPSC was conducting a campaign on ATV safety. Ms. Baiocco's defense of Yamaha put her on the wrong side of that issue at a time when there were more than 330 ATV-related fatalities and 101,000 ATV-related emergency department-treated injuries in the United States.

Another area that I know well where she was clearly on the wrong side related to Big Tobacco. Ms. Baiocco represented R.J. Reynolds in the early part of this century--2007--in a class action lawsuit in Florida brought by injured smokers who were seeking to recover the damages they suffered as a consequence of Big Tobacco deliberately and purposefully addicting them, leading to lives of disease and addiction. She was on the wrong side of that issue as well--on the side of injury and industry against consumers. She was instrumental in those lawsuits, and R.J. Reynolds has been instrumental in lobbying to encourage the extensive use of flame-retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture to deflect pressure on cigarette makers to make a fire-safe cigarette. That issue is squarely within the CPSC's jurisdiction.

She lacks that dedication to this agency's mission that is critical for any Member to have. She may have skill, ability, and experience, but if it is devoted to the industry's well-being rather than consumers, she should be working for a different agency or continuing to work for a law firm that represents these industries.

In fact, she has worked for a very large law firm that represents many of those clients and industries, but she has refused to provide a full list of the clients and companies she has represented. The only way we have gained full knowledge of these clients is to go to the law firm's website--where, by the way, her profile cites as follows: ``She is known for strategic business advice and high-intensity trials involving mass torts, consumer and industrial products, and medical devices in federal, state, and international courts.'' The clients are then listed in her profile.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this profile be printed in the Record.

I take this extraordinary step because she has failed to provide it in response to a specific question I asked in the written inquiries we submitted after her testimony. She said, in effect, she was ``duty bound to maintain the confidential nature of legal advice sought by or provided to any client.''

This claim of attorney-client privilege is absolutely bogus and ought to insult this body because there is no reason for the name of the client to be kept confidential or that attorney-client privilege to be sustained.

I think invocation of attorney-client privilege in this way speaks volumes to the kind of member of this Commission she would be. In fact, she has refused to reveal her full list of consumer product clients, other than the ones like Mattel and Yamaha, which are available through court filings and other public records. I have entered many of those other clients into the Record, but we

have no assurance that we know that full list.

She has also refused to recuse herself from matters involving her current firm, Jones Day, or its clients for more than 1 year. The Office of Government Ethics requires 1 year of recusal from the time she last represented that client, but no more than that length of time, and she has committed no more than the bare minimum requirement by law. In addition, her husband has represented IKEA in a major product liability suit involving furniture tipovers. She has refused to recuse herself from matters involving IKEA.

We are in a perilous time, when the norms concerning conflicts of interest have been reduced, almost eviscerated. We have an obligation to protect consumer interests at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That responsibility is to make sure serious defects, dangerous products, problems, and hazards that will face consumers as a result of deadly or defective products are prevented from reaching the market. Consumers may have no knowledge of how they are deadly or dangerous. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has the mission to protect consumers.

For someone who has the ability, skills, and expertise to represent wrongdoers which threaten consumers is the responsibility of admirable and able law firms, like Jones Day, and those skills and experience enable lawyers who work there. It is not the job of a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

So it is really not about her personal ability, it is about the mission of this agency and who is qualified to serve on it and whether they have told us everything we need to know to hold them accountable if they are confirmed.

On all those scores, this nominee is lacking. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no today on her nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, only in Washington, DC, and perhaps only in the walls of this Capitol, is net neutrality regarded as a partisan issue. Only here are there accusations that the left or the right favor a position on net neutrality. In the rest of America, net neutrality is bipartisan; in fact, nonpolitical. It is the lifeblood of the internet. It is the animating principle that enables companies and individuals to have equal access to the internet without blocking, discriminating, price gouging, or favoring of some companies at the expense of others.

In fact, in legislatures across the country, like Connecticut, there have been proposals to do there what we are seeking to do here; that is, to preserve an open internet in accordance with the open internet order, which has been rolled back by the FCC. Strong net neutrality rules are accepted across the country on both sides of the aisle in State legislatures and State governments, in board rooms, and in all the communities where people come together seeking to communicate and use the internet in the highest and best way it can be used. One example, in New Haven, is SeeClickFix. SeeClickFix is a New Haven company that helps citizens communicate with their local governments to improve their community. The internet's incredible economic success and this company's have been made possible because it is a free and open platform. This company has a good idea. It can put that good idea to work, helping people make their local and State governments work better and be more responsive.

That success story has been repeated countless times because of net neutrality and the open internet. We are here to stop maligned rulemaking run amok. The FCC, under the leadership of its Chairman, has, in effect, rolled back the progress that was made with the open internet order. It defied 10 years of evidence and the pattern of market consolidation and merger that endangered the open internet. It defied evidence of discrimination that was taken over the rulemaking process, and it basically ignored a court order upholding the open internet order--a court order that was the result of indepth and determined litigation to stop that order, and that effort was rejected.

The Justice Department has shown, from AT&T's own internal documents, that it sought to use its merger with Time Warner to raise prices and to hinder competition from online video services. A proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint threatens to further reduce scarce competition in wireless. Big broadband companies have more financial incentive and less market deterrence to obstruct competition than ever before.

Chairman Pai's plan would enable those broadband companies holding near-monopolies over access to consolidate even more power. If broadband companies are able to block, throttle, or charge fees for certain applications on websites, the result will be higher pricing, less innovation, and fewer new products. Reversal of net neutrality is a consumer's worst nightmare, but it is also a nightmare for small businesses and for competition and innovation and creativity in America.

I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 52, the resolution of disapproval of the FCC's disastrous plan to roll back net neutrality. It is vital to protecting consumers and small businesses, preserving the open internet, and upholding the integrity of the rulemaking process.

If this effort fails to succeed, the challenge in the courts will overturn Chairman Pai's rollback of net neutrality because he embarked on a preordained purpose without proper rulemaking to overturn the rule adopted by the FCC before he became Chairman. When he initiated that process, he promised an ``open and transparent process,'' but the outcome was predetermined from the start. That is not the way rulemaking should occur. That is why the courts will overturn it, and that is why we should be protected and proactive in this body and pass S.J. Res. 52.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow Collin Anderson be granted floor privileges until the end of June 2018.

Madam President, 1 year ago today, the President of the United States did the unthinkable. He did at least what many people thought was unthinkable. He fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey. Shortly thereafter, he acknowledged the reason. He told NBC's Lester Holt that he fired James Comey because he was thinking about ``this Russia thing'' and how unjustified he thought the investigation was. He later told officials of Vladimir Putin's government in a private meeting in the Oval Office that this firing relieved him of the pressure that he was feeling as a result of the Russia investigation.

The 1-year anniversary of Jim Comey's firing might well be permitted to pass without notice, but little did we know at the time that it would be part of a relentless and repeated denunciation of professional law enforcement at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the Department of Justice, even at the CIA, and law enforcement agencies all around the country. This concerted and coordinated attack on the FBI and Department of Justice is no accident. It is part of a strategy to undermine the credibility not only of the special counsel's investigation of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia in its meddling in the 2016 election and the potential of obstruction of justice and coverup by the President and his administration, but it is also deeply alarming as an attack on professional law enforcement.

The President's attacks have become so numerous and so brazen that they have almost become the new normal. Likewise, the attacks by his sycophants and surrogates in Congress undermine the credibility and trust of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why I am here today--because words have consequences.

These attacks have ramifications for the FBI when it investigates a crime. The willingness of potential witnesses to talk to them may be undermined. Their ability to prevent crime may be undercut because of informants' lack of trust in them. And the credibility of FBI agents at a trial in a conflict of credibility with a defendant who is lying can be sabotaged by the President through these denunciations--far beyond the special prosecutor's investigation.

This attack on law enforcement has consequences for the safety and security of our Nation, indeed, our national security, because the FBI needs those informants, needs credibility as witnesses, needs the trust of the American people to do its job in keeping America safe from sabotage or subterfuge internally, as well as organized crime, drug dealing--the panoply of threats that exist to our safety.

It is no accident that terrorist attacks have reduced in severity since 9/11. It is no accident that crime is at lower levels than in recent years. It is no accident that Americans feel safer as they walk the streets and communities of America, rural and urban. It is because we have devoted resources to local law enforcement, as well as the Federal agencies that are vital to support local law enforcement with the information and data they need to do their job and with the enforcement they provide in solving crimes and making sure the bad guys are convicted and go away.

The best laws in the world are dead letter if they are unenforced. The new laws that we pass here will mean nothing without strong and effective law enforcement.

We should all be deeply alarmed and concerned about this new normal of a President of the United States--who is responsible for making sure the laws

are faithfully executed--actually attacking the agency that is responsible for the enforcement necessary for execution of those laws.

Here are a few examples. On April 6, 2018, a notice appeared on the front page of backpage.com confirming that the Department of Justice seized the website and took it offline--a crucial and important step in the fight against sex trafficking. On that same day, the FBI raided the Sedona home of Michael Lacey, a founder of backpage.com and one of the 7 individuals charged in a 93-count indictment for Federal crimes relating to facilitating prostitution and laundering money.

For years, backpage.com and its owners have knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its adult ads to facilitate prostitution and sex trafficking, including modern-day slavery of children. Backpage's misconduct led to the prostitution of a 14-year-old Connecticut girl, who was advertised on the website for clients in Connecticut, New York, and Atlantic City. Without the intervention of the Department of Justice and the FBI, many more children could have been exploited and victimized by backpage.

We know about the extraordinary magnitude of backpage's activities and about the deep harm it causes as a result of an investigation performed by Senate committees. The Senate has taken steps to stop that kind of promotion on the internet as a result of legislation that Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and I led here, legislation called SESTA. It was bipartisan legislation that passed overwhelmingly. The legislation will assist victims and survivors in having their day in court and allow law enforcement to do even better in the fight against sex trafficking.

That story is just one example of the laudable work that the Department of Justice and the FBI do every day to keep America safe. The attack against them has extraordinary irony and harm because it seeks to sow doubt about democratic institutions that are vital to our way of life.

President Trump has literally taken a page from his authoritarian heroes who systematically seek to say that the law is not what our enforcement agencies say, not what our democratic institutions say, but what they say. He has persistently and purposefully attempted to undermine all of the Department of Justice.

The fact is, these attacks have effect. When they come from the President's mouth, they have consequences. Not surprisingly, these repeated caustic and careless attacks have diminished public confidence in these institutions. Since Donald Trump entered office, reports suggest that a number of Americans who view the FBI capably has diminished by 28 percent. Just 38 percent of Americans have confidence in the FBI. That is distressing for a party that once espoused and supported law enforcement. The long-term negative collateral consequences of these assaults on our top law enforcement agencies are likely to be extensive.

Consider the dedication, the courage, the tenacity, and the strength that is required of those at the FBI to do their job day in and day out, putting their lives on the line, literally risking their well- being not over a year or a couple of years but, many of them, for careers, a lifetime. They are among the finest men and women in public service.

The FBI is one of our premier law enforcement institutions. The Department of Justice is and should be the marvel of the world for its fairness and its unrelenting dedication to do justice. As one Attorney General--Justice Jackson--said, its goal is not to seek convictions but to do justice, and that is the mission that it performs.

A recent case by the Department of Justice's National Security and Civil Rights Division shows how Donald Trump's attacks are weakening support for the FBI's important work.

In March of this year, three anti-Muslim militia members who were on trial for plotting to slaughter Somali refugees in Southwest Kansas adopted a defense strategy that could have been taken directly from the Trump playbook or from his Twitter feed. Defense attorneys in that case argued that a biased FBI conspired against their clients because of their political beliefs. The defendants said that their political beliefs were responsible for their prosecutions, not their own actions. In a turn of phrase that is very suggestive of the President's Twitter feed, the defense attorney argued that the defendants' discussion of killing Muslim ``cockroaches'' amounted to ``locker room talk,'' which was inspired, no doubt, partly by the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, the government had to deal with jurors who expressed a number of concerns about the honesty and corruption at the top levels of the FBI, questioning the ability and integrity of the organization.

Ms. Ifrah Ahmed, a Somali resident of the apartment complex the defendants were plotting to blow up, felt differently about the FBI investigation. She and other residents said that the verdict allayed their fears and affirmed their faith in the justice system.

It was because of the work of dedicated law enforcement professionals that the defendants' plan to bomb innocent and peaceful Muslim immigrants was thwarted in a victory for the rule of law and a victory for civil rights and our national security. But instead of applauding or lauding victories like this one, the President of the United States continues to spread a false narrative. His sole purpose is advancing his political agenda, protecting himself, and shielding himself from accountability. His attacks are designed to undermine the credibility of the FBI and designed to shield him from responsibility and apparent culpability for possible criminal wrongdoing.

In reality, the FBI and the DOJ work every day to protect Americans against threats, both foreign and domestic, while upholding the Constitution.

The Department of Justice includes more than 40 separate organizations, including the FBI, and more than 110,000 employees. I know about the ones in Connecticut. As a former U.S. attorney, the ethic and tradition of the U.S. attorney's office is about upholding the rule of law and the dedication to doing justice.

The FBI has more than 30,000 employees spread over 56 field offices around the United States. They are dedicated to protecting the United States from terrorism, cyber attacks, public corruption, violent crime, and abridgement of civil rights. According to its most recent annual report, the FBI disrupted more than 700 terrorist incidents and over 170 violent criminal organizations in 2017 alone. The FBI targets crimes not only in the streets but in boardrooms. In the same time period, it disrupted more than 430 criminal enterprises engaged in white-collar crimes.

Let's make no mistake--wrongdoing affects real people in their real lives. There are very few victimless crimes, if any. Every crime has some victim and some survivor. That is the reason they are prosecuted, and that is why we hire those prosecutors and FBI agents to go after lawbreakers. We should reward them for disrupting and deterring the lawbreakers, not denounce them, as the President has done.

The FBI's hard work in building cases the right way leads to victories in the courtroom. I have seen them and have prosecuted them myself. The prosecutor, whether it is an assistant U.S. attorney or a U.S. attorney, contributes mightily to those victories, but they would be impossible without the nuts and bolts--the investigative work, the shoe leather, and sometimes the very significant risks involved in uncovering the truth and bringing it to court. Sometimes FBI agents work for months undercover on a single case at grave jeopardy to themselves. More than 90 percent of terrorism- and gang-related cases result in a conviction--a judgment favorable to the United States.

These statistics that I have cited here represent only a fraction of the work these agencies do to protect America every day, in real life, for real people. Despite President Trump's efforts to water down environmental protections, the FBI continues to pursue cases where corporations violate clean water and clean air standards and threaten public health.

At the end of April, the Department of Justice charged the ex-CEO of Volkswagen with conspiracy in the company's rigging of diesel vehicles to feign compliance and falsely portray compliance with the company's and Federal standards.

Volkswagen deceived American regulators. Why should that matter to ordinary Americans? Well, it is an unlevel

playing field with its competitors if it cuts corners. So it impacts fair competition, but it also impacts our clean air and the safety and health of Americans who breathe that air. Essentially, they not only deceived regulators, but they defrauded American consumers for years, promising them those standards, which they knew they were failing to meet. Only because of the tireless efforts of Federal investigators and prosecutors has the company's chief executive now been brought to justice to face these charges. The Department of Justice's actions send a message to businesses both here and abroad that efforts to cheat American consumers or harm the environment will have consequences. They ought to pay attention. They ought to be deterred.

The Department of Justice also develops key initiatives to respond to urgent threats, particularly in the frontline against terrorism. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces are comprised of small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They operate as part of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, because the FBI has that responsibility for our national security, along with them as a team. When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all. They chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment's notice. These task forces are based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of the FBI's field offices.

Without any exaggeration, these investigators and prosecutors protect us. They protect American lives from terrorist threats, both at home and abroad. Just last month FBI agents, working with the Newark Joint Terrorism Task Force, thwarted a plot of five men to join ISIS and carry out an attack in ISIS's name on U.S. soil using homemade bombs. Because of their brave and tenacious efforts and their countless hours of hard work--hour after hour, day after day--this plot, and many others like it, were disrupted and American lives were saved.

America has always faced threats to our national security and public safety, even as they are more complex today than ever before. We need the kind of professionalism that the FBI and the Department of Justice and other agencies bring to law enforcement every day. For all of us who have been Federal prosecutors--whether a U.S. attorney, as I was, or in another capacity--these attacks are repugnant. They belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the ethos and tradition of justice and the rule of law in our democracy.

Unfortunately, President Trump has failed not only to stand up for those law enforcement agencies, but he has actually hindered, actively and consistently, their vital work in protecting our Nation. He has undermined their stature and credibility. He has attacked their integrity, all without any basis in fact.

President Reagan once said that facts are stubborn things. The American people should know the facts. If they do, they will appreciate that the facts show that the Department of Justice and the FBI, even with their faults, are a paragon of law enforcement. Their faults should not be minimized or dismissed. They ought to be addressed, but not by denouncing or demeaning their hard work.

The numbers and statistics I have given and the examples I have cited are not meant defensively for them. They don't need my defense. Their actions and their work speak louder than anyone's words. I hope they will continue that service and sacrifice, undiscouraged and undeterred by these rash and reckless attacks from the President and surrogates who support him.

I personally thank them for their service and sacrifice, as all Americans should, and I thank many of them for their friendship.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Carolyn Lumsden, who received the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.

Ms. Lumsden, an opinion editor for the Hartford Courant, wrote an editorial series last year which revealed the breadth of the crumbling concrete foundations issue in northeastern Connecticut. Her work, ``Crumbling Foundations,'' gave a thorough look at this tragic situation where hundreds, potentially tens of thousands, of homes have foundations that need to be replaced because the concrete contains an iron sulfide that ultimately weakens the structure. Through her months of research, Ms. Lumsden spoke with homeowners, engineers, geologists, data analysts, bankers, and lawyers to understand the complete scope of this problem.

``Crumbling Foundations'' initiated much-needed, positive progress for the people of Connecticut, thanks in part to the data and personal testimonies Ms. Lumsden gathered. In the months following the series' publishing, the Internal Revenue Service approved tax breaks for homeowners, and the State of Connecticut approved $100 million in bonding over 5 years to help the homeowners suffering from crumbling foundations. I am working, along with my congressional delegation colleagues, on additional Federal relief to homeowners and funding for research into pyrrhotite.

Ms. Lumsden's dedication to using her position as a journalist to assist the people of Connecticut is deeply admirable. For over 200 years, the American press has uncovered and reported vital information to the public about our communities. Thanks to ``Crumbling Foundations,'' our State is now acutely aware of this significant tragedy and is working actively to find a solution.

I applaud her tireless efforts to uncover the truth of this problem and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Ms. Lumsden on her well-earned honor.

Mr. President, I am here to talk about money in politics and, even more insidiously and potentially perniciously, money in government.

The money in politics begins with the President's nominee to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I suggest to my colleagues that they read an article that appeared in opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

The article has the headline ``Trump picks top Koch recipient for secretary of state.'' The article says that ``former Kansas congressman whose political career was paved by Koch Industries'' received more money than others in similar situations.

The reasons to vote against Mike Pompeo are many, but one of the principal ones is that he was one of the chief recipients of money from the Koch brothers or their organizations. In fact, since his first bid for Congress in 2010, Pompeo has received $400,000 from Koch Industries, $335,000 from employee contributions, and $65,000 from its corporate PAC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Pompeo nomination is a poster boy for the impact of money in politics, the influence of the Koch brothers on this administration, and the enduring effect of campaign contributions, of influence-buying and pettiness in government.

The Koch brothers are blatantly using their influence in the Trump administration to advance an agenda based on their own self-interests at the expense of our democracy, and they have reached into the uppermost levels and echelons of this administration through individuals they have supported over years and years, such as Mike Pompeo.

In July of 2015, 2 weeks before he kicked off his campaign for President, the President said through a tweet: ``I really like the Koch Brothers (members of my [Palm Beach] Club), but I don't want their money or anything else from them. Cannot influence Trump!'' Well, they are good friends. They are members of the club. And nobody can deny their influence on Donald Trump, their impact on this administration, or their enduring reaches and effects on public policy.

If you have ever wondered where Republican ideological positions originated on lowering corporate taxes, undercutting healthcare, or loosening environmental regulations, look no further than a Koch front group called Americans for Prosperity. Americans for Prosperity is the recipient of the largest grants made by another organization called Freedom Partners. POLITICO describes Freedom Partners as ``the Koch brothers' secret bank.'' The group peddles dark money to front groups to drum up public support for policies that benefit the richest of the rich.

The Americans for Prosperity organization has been called by the Washington Post ``the third largest political party in the United States.'' It was founded in 2004 by David Koch, who serves as the chairman of the board, and he has crammed the group with Republican operatives. Many of them work for the Vice President. They operate in 36 States. They are heavily involved in electoral activities, spending millions of dollars on TV ads that spread disinformation, falsely claiming that the middle class will benefit from policies designed to enrich the millionaire backers and billionaire backers of Americans for Prosperity.

The organizations backed by these two groups and others have consistently claimed that tax cuts for the wealthy will benefit all Americans. They have consistently argued for measures that cause environmental degradation. In fact, the Koch brothers have an enormous stake in repealing regulations that protect the environment and put limits on polluting fossil fuel companies, repealing those regulations designed to accomplish that goal.

Americans for Prosperity drives the Koch energy agenda. The group spent millions lobbying for its industry-backed champion, Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as others nominated for EPA and Energy Department positions. Once they were in place, these cronies wasted no time in seeking to dismantle the environmental regulations prohibiting oil and gas drilling on Federal lands, withdraw from the Clean Power Plan, which is aimed at cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and revoke a moratorium on new coal leases.

There are other examples of influence by an American in modern political history but none so egregious as the Koch brothers in this administration.

Most recently, we saw their influence on the judiciary in suppressing votes. The Koch brothers are throwing a lot of money behind the nomination of judges who are poised to rule in their favor, undermining judicial precedence and the rule of law. Its network is helping Donald Trump stack the courts with far-right ideologues.

Donald Trump entered office with more than 100 vacancies on the Federal bench--an opportunity created in part by Senate Republicans who blocked many of Barack Obama's nominees before he left office. Judges enjoy lifetime appointments. If the Koch brothers succeed in rigging the judiciary against the needs of everyday Americans, the effects will be felt for generations to come.

Americans for Prosperity is also behind shameless efforts to suppress votes. It has launched disinformation campaigns, sending out bogus registration mailings with incorrect deadlines in swing States like North Carolina and Wisconsin. When challenged, Americans for Prosperity claims that these blatant lies were the result of clerical error.

Our Nation needs prosperity but not an influence-peddling organization that claims to be for prosperity but, in fact, leads to policy that undermines the prosperity of everyday Americans.

My reasons for opposing Mike Pompeo's nomination go well beyond the campaign contributions he has received. His views are contrary to American values. He has repeatedly devalued and dismissed religious tolerance. He has allied himself with anti-Islam and anti-LGBT groups. At a time when the environment our children will inherit hangs in the balance, he is a career-long climate change denier, drowning in dark money from the Koch brothers' oil industry. His regressive views on reproductive rights jeopardize the healthcare of millions of women around the world. If confirmed, he will be responsible for executing Donald Trump's misguided policies, and he will reinforce Donald Trump's misguided instinct, expanding, for example, the global gag rule that prevents foreign aid from being provided to global health programs that discuss or provide abortion services. He will cut programs covering everything from HIV prevention, to maternal and child health, to epidemic disease response, putting our lives at risk.

Money in politics has reached its apex in this administration, not only in politics but in government. Just within the last day or so, the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget gave a speech to a group of bankers in which he said:

We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you were a

lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If

you were a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.

That quote from Mick Mulvaney, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, was made to a group of about 1,300 bankers in plain view and hearing of the American public.

First, the idea that a lobbyist would have to pay in order to have access to a Member of Congress or his administration raises the potential of bribery, extortion, and perhaps pay-to-play. It is pay-to- play and the image of it that has so sullied this town and government in general that President Trump swayed so many people by describing it as a swamp. Well, the swamp has been deepened, and it has been further polluted by exactly this kind of talk.

I will say to Mick Mulvaney: You are destroying the credibility and trust of the American people and our honest colleagues, who come to work every day and try to help and serve the American people. Some of them still work in the Federal Government at high levels, in fear of losing their jobs because they adhere to a standard of integrity that no longer prevails.

In fact, the mindset and mentality of pay-to-play has become the new normal in this administration. It is filled with people at the highest levels who regard unbridled and unapologetic graft as the new normal. That is what that quote says to the average American.

It is typical of the practices of the Administrator of the EPA, who accepts virtually free lodging from a lobbyist who has access to him, as well as takes luxury flights and stays in exorbitantly expensive hotels at taxpayers' expense. Conflicts of interest, ethical violations, and other kinds of betrayal of the public trust have become commonplace at the top levels of the EPA.

It is the mindset of a President of the United States who literally every day accepts benefits from foreign governments and payment in violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically in violation of the emoluments clause that prohibits such benefits and payments without the consent of Congress. Donald Trump has never come to the U.S. Congress seeking approval for the payments and benefits that go to the Trump Organization, which he still owns. That failure is a violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, and it is the reason that 200 of us Members of Congress have brought legal action to vindicate our trust and the trust of the American people that the Constitution will be followed and that we will do our job. We have standing to bring that action because the President of the United States is preventing us from reviewing those payments and benefits that go to him, which we have an obligation to review under the U.S. Constitution. That case will be heard in court in June.

I hope the courts will vindicate the rule of law. I hope we will see an end to this corrosive and corrupting impact of money in politics and money in government through a web of deceit and contempt for the rule of law that betrays the trust of the American people.

The Washington, DC, that is conveyed by these quotes and actions by officials at the very top of our government are not my Washington. They are not the Washington, DC, of many of our colleagues--honest and hard- working in this Chamber, in the House of Representatives, and in the executive and judicial branches--who continue to do their job. Among them are two of our colleagues: Johnny Isakson and Jon Tester.

Senator Isakson of Georgia and Senator Tester of Montana have helped to lead the Veterans' Affairs Committee over the past few days as it raises concerns and questions about the serious allegations made by men and women in uniform or retired Active-Duty military. These concerns go directly to the ethics and integrity and character and ability of the President's nominee to be VA Secretary, Ronny Jackson, a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy. There is no realistic path at this point to confirmation of Admiral Jackson. He should have a hearing if he wishes. He should be considered if he chooses. But the administration owes the American people, as well as the Senate, answers to questions raised by the chairman and ranking member of the VA Committee. I have talked to both of them, as well as the staff, about this investigation, and I have participated in their thinking and support their efforts to uncover the truth. Facts are stubborn things. That is what Ronald Reagan said. It remains true even more so today in this inquiry.

The administration has failed to vet this nomination. It failed abjectly to uncover the truth before it submitted this nomination. It owes the truth and the facts now to the Senate before there is any hearing. Documents and evidence should be provided, and the administration should reverse course, if necessary, and make sure that full access is provided to all of these documents and evidence.

As recently as yesterday, members of the VA Committee were barred from viewing the FBI background check. The Inspector General's report of 2012 on Rear Admiral Jackson was not provided to our committee, and other relevant evidence and documents may exist, but they have been denied.

I urge the administration to provide the facts, respond to the questions, and address the serious allegations that have been made, because they are consistent and credible and compelling. The more time goes on, the more serious and substantial these allegations become in their detail and depth and power. Time is not on their side, and so far, the administration has abjectly failed to respond.

I thank Senators Isakson and Tester for their leadership and for their insistence on integrity and character because our veterans deserve it. Most importantly, our veterans deserve the very best leader, not one who will be encumbered by the baggage of allegations, unrefuted and unrebutted so far. Our veterans deserve the very best in healthcare and employment opportunities and skill training. Our veterans deserve that we keep faith with them and choose the very best leader, with experience in management, as well as a commitment to the high standards of integrity that befit the Veterans' Administration. It has seen problems. It needs improvement and reforms. The path forward for the VA is with a person and a leader who has unimpeachable integrity.

I thank Senator Isakson and Senator Tester for their leadership and insistence on that high bar in the Veterans' Administration for the sake of our veterans.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here to oppose the nomination of Kyle Duncan to be a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit. The court of appeals for that circuit and every other in our country is supremely important not only to people who live in its direct jurisdiction but for all people of our country. Courts of appeals make decisions that are binding on district courts in that jurisdiction and also have an impact on other judges and courts throughout the country at every level.

From day one, the Trump administration has made attacking basic civil liberties a guiding principle of the policies it supports, including its judicial nominees. It is inexcusably seeking to turn back the clock on the progress we have made. We fought back hard against these arcane and irrational policies, but President Trump's attempt to stack our courts with extremist judges may, in the end, have the most long- lasting and devastating impact on our Nation. That is why I am here today, with many of my colleagues, to sound the alarm on Kyle Duncan. He has been nominated to this court, but he has made a career of seeking to turn back policies that protect the most vulnerable members of our country.

He is out of mainstream. In fact, he is out of the stream entirely. His views are extreme, fringed, and, collectively, they make him unfit to be a judge on this court that I greatly respect. Out of respect to members of the court, we should confirm someone only if they meet high standards.

Kyle Duncan has attacked the voting rights of minority groups--in one case, even defending a law that a Federal circuit court said targeted African-American voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' He has attacked the rights of same-sex couples, leading several efforts against marriage equality. He has attacked the rights of the transgender community to be safe in their schools and communities. He has attacked protections for Dreamers, making it harder for them to obtain documentation, such as simple driver's licenses.

Over and over, he has attacked women's rights and women's health in a way that I think disqualifies him for this court. Like so many other nominees before him, Kyle Duncan is an anti-choice zealot who has shown time and again that he is more worried about pushing his personal ideology than faithfully upholding the Constitution. His views on women's rights and women's healthcare are more than morally repugnant; they are downright dangerous.

In fact, Kyle Duncan has led the charge in defending unconstitutional and unnecessary laws that target abortion providers, attempting to legislate

them out of existence with little regard for the women who will be harmed as a result. These laws, which have spread around the country at an alarming rate, serve no medical purpose. They put barriers between women and the care they need and deserve. Twice--twice--Mr. Duncan has falsely argued that these restrictions targeting abortion providers in Louisiana and Texas were ``medically reasonable'' and based on ``solid medical ground.'' These laws were rightly struck down both times. Indeed, these laws are the opposite of medically reasonable. In no way are they based on medical ground. With this nominee's enthusiastic support, these unconstitutional State-level restrictions have proliferated, shutting down women's healthcare providers, delaying much needed care, and putting women's health at risk.

Kyle Duncan's peddling of misinformation as a lawyer fighting for these unnecessary and unconstitutional abortion laws is frightening enough. Imagine what he could do on the bench.

He has fought to undo historic healthcare victories provided by the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. As we know in this Chamber--and I think we need to acknowledge--this mandate has made a difference in the lives of an astonishing 64.2 million women who were able to access birth control with no out-of-pocket costs in the last year alone. This has given women greater power over their health, their well-being, their futures, their reproductive decisions, and their finances.

Yet Mr. Duncan has attacked the birth control mandate repeatedly. He sought to leave a woman's right to access affordable healthcare to the whims of her employer. Worse, he has absurdly denied that contraception is healthcare at all and has said the idea of contraception as a right is ``disturbing.'' It is a constitutional right. To him, it is disturbing. What kind of a judge will he be?

Despite what Kyle Duncan believes, birth control is healthcare. A woman's access to it is a right, and his false, ideologically driven assaults are wrong.

I will oppose Kyle Duncan's nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Howard T. Owens, Jr., an exemplary public servant, leader, and friend. Sadly, Mr. Owens passed away on April 3, 2018, at the age of 83. He will be remembered for his outstanding legacy of dedication to Connecticut as both a statesman and a judge.

Howard began his impressive career in public service as an assistant U.S. attorney and then as a State senator representing the city of Bridgeport and the town of Trumbull. I had the honor of briefly serving with Howard during my tenure in the Connecticut House of Representatives.

Beginning in 1974 through 1988, Howard held this seat with the exception of one term in 1984. He took every opportunity while in the capitol to improve the quality of life for not just those who elected him, but for all the people of Connecticut, whether it was promoting mass transit, especially for the urban centers, as senate cochair of the transportation committee or seeking a fairer justice system as senate cochair of the judiciary committee.

In 1998, Howard's passion for State service took on a new shape when he received the appointment to serve as a judge on the superior court. Throughout his time as a State judge, he presided over a number of high-profile cases, which earned Howard recognition for his patient, thoughtful oversight of complex divorce decisions.

Although dedicated to public service, Howard always made time for his friends, especially when they needed help--in the courtroom, as well as outside of it. His legacy of unfailing service and dedication to his community is evident when speaking with anyone who knew him. A caring man with a good sense of humor, he carried out his work humbly and with a sense of devotion to those close to him and to the rest of Connecticut.

Howard added inimitable wisdom to the capitol and the courthouse and is known by many of us throughout the State as a tireless supporter of Connecticut and the Nation's best interests. His commitment to the rule of law and loyalty to his friends and family have left a lasting, positive mark on Connecticut's legacy.

My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Howard's family during this difficult time, particularly to his wife, Ann, and their four children. May their many wonderful memories of Howard provide them solace and comfort.

Mr. President, I would like to take the time to recognize March 31, 2018, as National Stop the Bleed Day. Stop the Bleed is a program offered by the American College of Surgeons to help educate the general public on techniques to assist victims suffering from uncontrolled bleeding using direct pressure, gauze and bandages, and tourniquets. As someone who has personally been trained to ``Stop the Bleed,'' I can attest to its importance and value.

Each year, more than 180,000 people die from traumatic injuries sustained as a result of events including vehicle crashes, falls, industrial and farm accidents, shootings, and natural disasters. The most common preventable cause of these deaths is losing too much blood in the minutes before trained responders arrive. Just like CPR training, a civilian familiar with basic bleeding control techniques is better equipped to save a life. The effort to make this training available to the public is driven by the goal to reduce or eliminate preventable death from bleeding.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Stop the Bleed Day so that we may raise awareness and work to end the loss of life from uncontrolled bleeding by getting trained to ``Stop the Bleed.''

Mr. President, I am proud to be here as a former U.S. attorney and the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut.

I have been involved in law enforcement for most of my career, and I am proud to stand here now in this Chamber, following the chairman of the Commerce Committee, whose dedication to this cause has brought us to the finish line, and my colleague Senator Portman, whose leadership on this bill is invaluable.

I wish to second a number of points that have been made by Senator Portman and Senator Thune, most especially about the very collaborative effort involved in this bill--a bipartisan championing of a cause whose time has come--and, particularly, about our colleague John McCain and his wife Cindy McCain, whose energy, spirit, courage, and strength have really been an inspiration to all of us. I also want to thank Senators McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Cornyn, because their contributions have been enormously valuable as well.

There is a face to human trafficking in this country. Here is one of the faces. Desiree Robinson, whose story you just heard from Senator Thune, is one such face. Her voice is still. Her voice could not be heard directly, but her mother, Yvonne Ambrose, came to our committee and talked about her

beautiful daughter, whose life was lost as a result of sex trafficking. She was killed after she was raped and after she was sold. Her story alone helped us to achieve unanimous approval in the Commerce Committee for this bill, and I hope it will lead us to an overwhelming vote today on the bill before us.

I hope, as well, that it will lead us to defeat amendments that would, in effect, kill this bill--amendments that may be well intentioned, but, in fact, have an effect contrary to their stated purpose.

This bill is completely bipartisan from beginning to end. It is the result of tireless work of advocates, sex trafficking survivors, and a bipartisan coalition of our colleagues. It now has 68 cosponsors. Its companion legislation passed in the House 388 to 25.

It is the product of stakeholder consensus. It has the support of every major human trafficking organization, every major law enforcement group, and every part of the tech community--if not unanimous, at least of many of its leaders.

This bill would clarify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was never intended to give websites a free pass to aid and abet sex trafficking. It was never intended to immunize completely those websites so they could knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. Those words are in the bill--``knowingly facilitate.''

The purpose of our measure, very simply, is to give survivors their day in court. Right now, the courtroom doors are barred to them, as a recent court of appeals opinion remarked, outrageously so. It would also open avenues of prosecution to law enforcement where they are currently roadblocked.

My experience combating sex trafficking at the State level led me to colaunch and cochair the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking with Senator Portman, seeking to find solutions to this problem. As a State prosecutor, I was told that I could not pursue actions again craigslist or other sites nearly a decade ago because of that section and the interpretation.

Clearly, the websites that facilitate this, knowingly encouraging and profiting from sex trafficking, must face repercussions in the courtroom. For law enforcement to succeed in combating sex trafficking, there have to be consequences. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children reported an 840-percent increase in reports of suspected child and sex trafficking from 2010 to 2015 alone. It found that spike ``directly correlated to the increased use of the internet to sell children for sex.''

Those numbers fail to tell the full story. In fact, this picture is worth a thousand words. This picture of Desiree shows her as a young girl, smiling. In fact, her mom told us that her smile could light up a room. She was a successful student who dreamed of becoming a physician in the Air Force.

When she was in high school, a series of men reached out to her on social media. They pressured and manipulated her into letting them sell her for sex and then advertise her on backpage.com. Her mom, Yvonne, told us what happened next:

On December 23, 2016, a 32-year-old man by the name of

Antonio Rosales was looking through Backpage.com for a child

to have sex with, just like countless others before him. . .

. He knew Backpage.com was a site to go to in order to find

young underaged girls to have sex with. During his search, he

came upon a picture of my 16-year-old daughter under the

posting, ``New girl in town looking to have fun,'' which was

posted by her pimp. Desiree was driven to Antonio's residence

by the pimp with the intent of having sex with this 32-year-

old man, a man twice her age.

This was the last night of my daughter's life. . . . On

Christmas Eve, December 24, 2016, Desiree, my baby, was

brutally murdered, and now my life has changed forever. She

had been beaten, raped, strangled, and if that wasn't bad

enough, he slit her throat, all because she said, no, she

didn't want to do this again. She screamed for help, and

there was no one around to help her.

Yvonne Ambrose had the courage to come testify before us, and I have repeated this part of her testimony not because it is ennobling or pleasant, but because it is the hard, ugly truth about sex trafficking. It is the reason that we must pass this measure. It is also the reason why we need to defeat the amendments that would send this measure back to the House and its possible demise.

Every one of the groups I mentioned earlier, including Desiree's lawyer, have urged us to defeat these amendments. I will read just one or two sentences from a letter that I received today from Desiree's lawyer about the so-called moderation amendment:

At first glance, it appears that the Moderation Amendment

is disguising itself as a good Samaritan amendment. However,

in a nutshell, its effect is a really bad faith Samaritan

immunity.

This measure is narrowly tailored. It would ensure that State and local law enforcement can join the fight against these criminal websites. It provides survivors a right of action that would not only be a source of relief for them but also a means of remedy. The Good Samaritan amendment, unfortunately--perhaps, unintentionally--would simply protect the websites.

The people who complain and take action certainly deserve protection. It is in the current law. One of the reasons why we want to defeat this amendment is that it would probably have unintended consequences in protecting websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave them up in order to continue profiting from them.

I think the letter from the attorney for Desiree Robinson's estate, Gina DeBoni, objecting to this amendment is a powerful reminder that we need to stick to what we have and what we know will work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Finally, there is a funding amendment that has been offered. While well-intentioned, it would, in effect, derail this legislation. It would provide money through Attorney General Sessions to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human trafficking.

This amendment, too, is opposed by law enforcement agencies. Yesterday, I put their letters into the Record. Every major law enforcement representative agency opposes it because ``the funding amendment is a poison pill that is dead on arrival if sent back to the House.''

I will conclude simply by saying that I believe this measure accomplishes some powerfully important purposes. It would not criminalize the so-called harm reduction communication--information designed to ensure that women and men wrapped up in commercial sex trade can avoid violence, prevent HIV, and access community and support services.

H.R. 1865 was not designed to target websites that spread harm reduction information, and the language of the bill makes that clear. The purpose of this bill is much more narrowly focused: A website user or operator must intend to facilitate prostitution. If their goal is to save lives by providing lifesaving information, they have not violated the law.

Finally, I want to make absolutely clear, this legislation is not intended to prejudice the rights of anyone who has been victimized by a crime online other than sex trafficking. For example, I disagree with the courts that have held that the Communications Decency Act immunizes online firearm sales--like Armslist--for facilitating illegal gun sales. While this legislation does not address those cases, nobody should infer that Congress believes they were rightly decided.

Again, my thanks to all of my colleagues and most especially to Senator Portman for his hard work, his leadership, and his courage in tackling this tough problem, which should bring all of us together. Making SESTA the law of the land will help save lives. It will spare others the fate of Desiree Robinson. It will make sure that more parents see justice, that survivors have their day in court, and that law enforcement has the right to pursue these wrongdoers.

Mr. President, I yield back to Senator Portman.

Mr. President, I say thank you to my colleague Senator Portman for his hard work. When we began this legislation, no one gave us a chance because of the entrenched and powerful interests against us. This measure will unlock the courthouse doors to survivors and to law enforcement who can stop sex trafficking--a scourge, modern- day slavery in this country. I thank so many of my colleagues for cosponsoring it and for helping to lead this effort that will make a difference in the lives of countless young girls and women and men who are victims and survivors.

Mr. President, at the very start, I am grateful, and I praise my cosponsor, Senator Portman, who has helped to lead in the championing of this measure. He has really been steadfast in the face of a lot of challenges. It was a difficult bill to draft and then to redraft and change again in response to suggestions that we received from friends and adversaries, but Senator Portman has been really stalwart throughout it.

I join him in thanking our partners, Senator McCaskill, Senator McCain, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and, of course, Senator Thune, who is the chairman of the committee, and Ranking Member Nelson.

This road began for me more than 10 years ago when I was the State attorney general in Connecticut, and I wanted to pursue legal remedies against the websites. Back then, it was craigslist or MySpace that promoted sex trafficking and prostitution as well as pornography. My staff informed me that there was a provision of Federal law--section 230 of the Communications Decency Act--that would stop me in my tracks. Indeed, it has stopped others, most recently some of the survivors of sex trafficking who were told by a Federal court of appeals, in effect, that what happened to you is outrageous, and there should be a remedy for you, but section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks your day in court. It closes the courthouse doors to you in your seeking a legal remedy.

Along the way, there were many who said to Senator Portman and to me that we could never pass this legislation because it would hold trafficking websites accountable. They said the opponents of this change were too powerful, too big, too entrenched. They said the victims and survivors were too powerless, too invisible.

We have met them. We know their stories. They are heartbreaking. They are children--some younger than the pages in this Chamber today--who have endured torture that is unspeakable and unthinkable for anyone of any age, and they deserve their day in court, rights, and remedies-- real remedies that make the rights real.

So I thank Senator Portman, and I thank, as he has also done, those survivors who have come forward and been the faces and voices of our cause. Their courage and strength and that of their family members have enabled us to reach this point.

I emphasize that this measure is very carefully and narrowly written to address a specific harm, and I want to take a couple of minutes to correct any misunderstanding that there may be in this Chamber.

First, some of the legislation's critics have claimed it will impose liability on the so-called Good Samaritan. In reality, this bill explicitly preserves subsection 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act, commonly called the Good Samaritan provision. This provision ensures that websites cannot be held liable on account of actions taken in good faith to restrict objectionable material. SESTA is crystal clear on this point. A website operator's good deeds cannot be used against him.

This measure is also technology neutral. It imposes no requirement that website operators use a particular technology to screen their sites for objectionable content. They are free to use whatever technology they wish. That is why the Internet Association and its member companies support this legislation. They know that if technology companies work to prevent human trafficking and not to profit from it, they have nothing to fear from this measure.

I understand that an amendment has been offered to restate SESTA's Good Samaritan provision. Even if the amendment only protected Good Samaritans, it would be unnecessary and potentially confusing to the courts. I emphasize that point. It would obfuscate and confuse the good intent of the Good Samaritan provision. It would also derail this widely popular legislation by sending it back to the House, where special interests will have another chance to kill it. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment--perhaps unintentionally--would not simply protect Good Samaritans; it would also protect websites that operate in bad faith. It would also protect websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave them up in order to continue profiting from them.

I will briefly talk about one other amendment that has been offered-- again, while being well-intentioned--that threatens to derail this legislation.

The amendment would provide additional money to Attorney General Sessions to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human trafficking. I believe law enforcement ought to have additional resources. I firmly support more funding to investigate and prosecute this criminal activity, but this bill is not the means by which to do it.

In fact, law enforcement and the community against human trafficking are strongly against these amendments. Let me repeat. These law enforcement groups include the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the FBI Agents Association, and I could go down the list. In fact, there is no need to.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these groups be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my colleagues should take heed of what these groups are saying because they see through the potentially derailing impact of these amendments.

I close by again thanking my friend and partner, Senator Portman, as well as Senator McCaskill, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and Senator McCain.

This measure is truly bipartisan, as it should be. There is nothing partisan about sex trafficking. There is nothing excusable or tolerable about it. I hope the Senate will do its job tomorrow and send this legislation to the President's desk.

I yield the floor to my partner, Senator Portman, with my thanks.

Mr. President, today is a momentous one in the Capitol because the students of America are giving us a real life lesson in the American Constitution. Their energy and passion are a civics lesson for America. What a proud and wonderful moment today is for our democracy. It is sad--indeed, tragic--that this lesson must concern gun violence that has taken such a devastating toll, most recently in Parkland, FL, but literally that toll is true of America every day. We can never become numb to the catastrophic costs of gun violence in America today.

I have the honor to read the names of some of those victims of gun violence; indeed, the Sandy Hook victims. Their deaths are still in our hearts. Their lives are still with us. Their memories are alive today. My friendships with their loved ones, particularly their parents, inspire me to continue this fight against gun violence in America. Their courage and strength have inspired so many of us in this country, and their names deserve to be remembered and read again in this Chamber.

Noah Pozner, age 6; Charlotte Bacon, age 6; Jack Pinto, age 6; Olivia Engel, age 6; Dylan Hockley, age 6; Catherine Hubbard, age 6; Avielle Richman, age 6; Jessica Rekos, age 6; James Mattioli, age 6; Josephine Gay, age 7; Caroline Previdi, age 6; Benjamin Wheeler, age 6; Chase Kowalski, age 6; Ana Marquez-Greene, age 6; Grace McDonnell, age 7; Emilie Parker, age 6; Madeleine Hsu, age 6; Allison Wyatt, age 6; Daniel Barden, age 7; Jesse Lewis, age 6. And their teachers: Victoria Soto, age 27; Lauren Rousseau, age 30; Anne Marie Murphy, age 52; Rachel D'Avino, age 29; Mary Sherlach, their psychologist, age 56; Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the principal of the school, age 47.

All of them died in December of 2012. All of them will be remembered not only on this day but forever, not only in Connecticut but around the world. We must always keep them in our hearts as a reason to keep this fight against gun violence going.

In the hearing presently underway in the Judiciary Committee, as I speak, there is testimony from members of the government investigative agencies which have responsibility for stopping gun violence. My fear is, this hearing will be an excuse for inaction and continued complicity by Congress in the failure to act. The complicity in those deaths is on our hands in this body by failing to take action.

There are actions we can take that will help to save lives-- commonsense, sensible action--that Congress has failed to take: universal background checks, ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, a red flag statute that will prevent people who are dangerous to themselves or others from having or buying guns. Many of these measures are bipartisan, and we can come together with the lesson from the students and young people who are in the streets coming to the Capitol today. That lesson should be a reminder that the right side of history is in favor of preventing gun violence.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I wish to pay tribute to Carmen Rodriguez, a wonderful leader, role model, and family woman. Sadly, Mrs. Rodriguez passed away on January 22, 2018--her 83rd birthday. She will be remembered for her outstanding public service, particularly her advocacy of Hartford's Puerto Rican community.

Mrs. Rodriguez was born in Aguirre, PR, where she lived until she moved to Buffalo, NY, with her husband, Faustino, and their seven children. She became an active member of the Puerto Rican community there, serving as a member of the Puerto Rican Center, as well as the director of bilingual education at Public School 76, now known as the Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy. During her time in Buffalo, Carmen worked tirelessly on her own education, obtaining her GED, a bachelor's degree from Rosary Hill College, a master's in education from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and began her PhD.

She took her passion for learning and educating to Hartford, CT, in 1979, where she managed the Work Places program at the Hartford Board of Education, which helped students learn specific trades. Soon after, she began working for the deputy mayor to measure the efficiency of the program. Subsequently, she supervised Hartford Housing Authority's tenant education program for a decade. For 3 years, Carmen served as the executive director of La Casa de Puerto Rico, until retiring in 1994.

Her legacy of extraordinary service and dedication to her community shines clearly through the many people she affected, as well as through her children's unfailing efforts to uphold their mother's progress. I have seen this firsthand as two of Carmen's children, Maria and Raul, served in the Office of the Connecticut Attorney General during my tenure as attorney general.

Carmen is known by many of us throughout Connecticut as an invaluable supporter of Hartford's best interests and a fearless leader of the Puerto Rican community. Her passion to use politics to initiate change has left her town--as well as the entire State--with great hope for the future.

My wife, Cynthia, and I extend our deepest sympathies to Carmen's family during this difficult time, particularly to her 7 children, 15 grandchildren, and 8 great-grandchildren. May their many wonderful memories of Carmen provide them solace and comfort in the days ahead.

Thank you, Mr. President.

We are here at a critical time for our democracy because our country is under attack. In fact, we are here because Russia is attacking our democracy as part of a campaign of informational warfare. That term is not mine; it is Russia's. It is quoted in an indictment that was handed down by the special counsel less than a month ago against 13 individuals and 3 entities. That document is absolutely stunning. It is chilling in its detail and breadth and in its revelations about the apparatus and personnel, the skills and expertise that Russia methodically and relentlessly brought to bear in the 2016 election, in its attack on our democracy.

That attack began in 2014. It was not a few hackers in the basement of some Moscow apartment; it was literally thousands of people, divided into different departments with different skills, pursuing disinformation, cyber attack, misinformation, and propaganda directed at undermining our democracy and, in fact, our election.

Let's remember, constitutionally, elections are foundational to our democracy, and Russia sought not just to sow discord and dissension but to affect the outcome. According to the indictment, its effort to affect the outcome was to assist then-Candidate Donald Trump and to disparage and damage Hillary Clinton. We will never know how much it affected the outcome, but it certainly impacted the views and the votes of some people in the United States of America.

That attack is now continuing. Our intelligence community is unanimous in the view that Russia interfered in our last election and that this effort is continuing. Indeed, all of the intelligence community that has come before the Armed Services Committee in the last 2 weeks has been unanimous that Russia is continuing its attack.

In his testimony, Admiral Rogers is very clear that they will continue that attack because they are paying no price for it. The cost to them is minimal, if any, and the benefit is highly asymmetrical. In other words, they pay very, very little to undermine our democracy, and they see a lot of return. That is because this country is doing little or nothing--or I should say more accurately that this administration is doing absolutely nothing to make Russia pay a price. In effect, that is the testimony from representatives of the intelligence community, including, most recently today, the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and GEN Robert Ashley.

When I asked what was being done to deter, counter, or retaliate against the Russians, Director Coats said, in effect, that it is everyone's responsibility, which means, in effect, it is no one's responsibility; that it was the whole of government responding, which means no single agency, and there is no plan and no action underway. There is at most perhaps some kind of study of what should be done.

But the denial of meddling is really the reason why nothing has been done and why no action is underway, and that denial comes from one person--the President of the United States. He has refused to acknowledge that the Russians interfered on the scale and scope that they did, and that denial or refusal to acknowledge is itself a tremendous boon to the Russians continuing to attack our democracy.

As recently as this afternoon, at his press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President said, in effect, that perhaps Russia might have meddled, other countries might have meddled, and other individuals might have meddled, but he has refused to acknowledge the extent and the depth and breadth of past and continuing Russian interference in our democracy.

Make no mistake--others of us on both sides of the aisle have said that the Russians will escalate in the sophistication of their attacks, in the depth of their interference, in the types of tools used through cyber and social media and platforms that are now being developed. They will use American voices. There will no longer be the broken English, no longer be the payment in rubles. They will become ever-more astute and adroit in their attack on our democracy.

So the question is, Why? Why has the President declined to acknowledge this attack--a continuing assault on our democratic institutions, particularly on our elections, which are foundational to our democracy? Some have put it this way: What do the Russians have on him? But my view is that we need to look back at the knowledge that the Trump campaign had of that attack in 2016 as it was proceeding.

To take one example, the stolen or hacked emails. Clearly, Trump campaign contacts with WikiLeaks and Russia show that the campaign knew about those stolen or hacked emails, which were then used to attack the Clinton campaign. If those members of the Trump campaign knew about it--those in responsible positions--the question is, How could the President not have known?

In April of 2016, George Papadopoulous, a member of the Trump foreign policy team for at least a substantial period of time, was eager to communicate with senior staff of the Trump campaign that he knew the Russians had hacked emails and that those emails could help the Trump campaign. He was anxious to ingratiate himself with his connections to make himself more valuable in their eyes. So he boasted, in effect, about his contacts with Russians and with Russian officials. Papadopoulous was already working overtime to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign leadership, and he certainly was not likely to keep valuable information about stolen emails possessed by the Russians to himself.

Remember, when the Trump campaign--specifically Donald Trump, Jr.-- was offered dirt on Hillary Clinton, he replied: ``I love it.'' From everything we know about Donald Trump, Jr.'s relationship to his father, he is unlikely to have kept that information to himself.

George Papadopoulous is one of several Trump associates who seemed to know that Russia was trying to help the Trump campaign win the 2016 election. Donald Trump, Jr., again, was in contact with WikiLeaks beginning in September of 2016, and we know this communication continued at least through July of 2017. We know that Donald Trump, Jr., turned over these messages to investigators. When Trump, Jr., received the first message from WikiLeaks, he emailed other senior officers within the Trump campaign. Those officers included Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. How could that information and other similar communications not have been transmitted to Donald Trump himself?

Donald Trump, Jr., received an email in which Rob Goldstone offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents from Russia that would supposedly incriminate Hillary Clinton. We know now that Donald Trump, Jr., jumped at the chance to receive this information, responding with the famous: ``If it's what you say, I love it.'' That, then, led to the meeting involving Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort at Trump Tower.

There is more here that raises the likelihood of collusion. There is a credible case of obstruction of justice against the President of the United States. There is a solid factual basis to believe that the Trump campaign not only knew but encouraged and cooperated and even colluded with the Russians in this effort. If motive is necessary for the Trump campaign to have done this kind of collusion--certainly it is in the prospect of impacting the outcome. If motive is necessary for President Trump now refusing to acknowledge Russian meddling during the election campaign and now continuing meddling, it is collusion as well.

So we are in a dangerous time because, in fact, Russia will continue to interfere and undermine our democracy if it pays no price for it. The only way to make sure Russia will pay a price to counter, deter, or retaliate is for the President of the United States to demonstrate leadership and to put aside whatever concern about legitimacy there may be. No one is relitigating the 2016 election as to what the outcome was, in fact. We have a President in office, but that President now must act to protect our democracy and our elections going forward from this day into the future.

Thank you.

I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Illinois.