Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the magnitude of this moment should be apparent to all. A sitting U.S. President's campaign chief and his protege have been indicted for conspiring against the United States. Another campaign adviser has pleaded guilty for lying to the FBI about meetings with Russians. At those meetings, he illegally discussed obtaining dirt on the President's political opponent and emails that had been stolen.

Two points need to be underscored for the American people. First, these indictments and conviction are a sober, shattering moment in American history. Second, all of us on both sides of the aisle should come together to support the work of the special counsel and assure that he is able to follow the facts and the law and all of the evidence, wherever they may lead.

This moment will stand as a landmark in American history, just as many of the moments in Watergate did. This investigation has proceeded more quickly than Watergate did. John Mitchell was indicted in 1974 for conspiracy, perjury, and obstruction of justice. He was convicted a year later. That indictment took a year and a half of investigation. These indictments have occurred just 11 months after the election and barely 6 months after the beginning of the investigation.

We know that the President's campaign hired two alleged criminals and one admitted criminal. Two of them were foreign agents, and the campaign was run by a Russian agent, unregistered, now charged with conspiring against the United States. He was supported by another Russian foreign agent who was also charged with the same 12 criminal counts. These two individuals, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, were significant people in the Trump campaign.

In the case of Gates, his influence continued through the early months of the new administration. Manafort ran Trump's campaign at its most critical point, and he organized and directed the 2016 Republican National Committee convention, including the critical delegate- corralling effort against a potential ``Never Trump'' insurrection, securing the Republican nomination for Donald Trump.

Under Manafort's leadership of the Trump campaign, the Republican Party stripped language from their platform that would have called for arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. Ahead of the convention, Manafort also offered to brief a Russian billionaire on the state of the 2016 race. The convention he helped organize became a venue for a meeting between Attorney General Sessions and the Russian ambassador, after which the Attorney General misled Congress, implying--indeed stating--that it never took place.

The Trump campaign also worked extensively with George Papadopoulos, a foreign adviser whose actions constitute the most significant indication of possible collusion--so far the most significant--between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Papadopoulos was named a foreign policy adviser in March 2016 and began communicating with Russian nationals the next month. He met with a professor for breakfast in London. They discussed stolen emails from Hillary Clinton and subsequently shuttled messages to the Kremlin and back for the Trump campaign.

He worked with officials at the highest level of the Trump campaign. His direct boss, in fact, was Jeff Sessions, who was then the head of Trump's national security advisory committee, and he is now, of course, the Attorney General. He communicated extensively with the campaign manager and members of the national security team.

President Trump tweeted today that he was a ``young, low level volunteer,'' but the President sang his praises at a meeting with the Washington Post editorial board in March 2016, calling him an ``energy and oil consultant, excellent guy.'' These revelations are stunning.

Now the President is at a critical juncture. He can choose the course of cooperation or confrontation. He is literally teetering on the brink of a decision that could prove disastrous for himself and for America if he chooses a constitutional confrontation.

We are at a moment very much like the one that occurred in Watergate. It is still memorable to many of us in this Chamber, although we were not here at the time. Our Nation could be careening toward a constitutional crisis. Some of the actions the President has already taken, such as firing Jim Comey as FBI Director, may be evidence of obstruction of justice in the investigation by the special counsel. As part of our oversight responsibility, the Judiciary Committee must continue its work in investigating that firing and other actions that may constitute obstruction of justice.

Firing the special counsel himself is something only the President could try to do. It would be the ultimate act of contempt for the rule of law that is rightly seen as the actions of someone who has something to hide.

At stake is more than just this President or this special counsel. It is literally the rule of law. To this President, the rule of law may be meaningless, a facade or a fiction, but that is exactly why Congress must give the judicial branch specific, enforceable power to stop the President from firing the special counsel.

That is the purpose of legislation I have introduced, along with colleagues. I am here to call upon this body to support and pass the Special Counsel Independence Protection Act.

I called for the special counsel to be established in February of this year and was joined by 10 of my colleagues in that call. It was based on credible allegations that the Trump team had colluded with the Russian Government. The Special Counsel Independence Protection Act, which I have cosponsored along with colleagues, seeks to forestall the kind of potential constitutional crisis raised by the President's threats not so long ago and his labeling the investigation a hoax and a witch hunt.

The Washington Post reported today that advisers close to the President are urging that, in fact, he take more aggressive action against the special counsel. The specter of Presidential action against Robert Mueller, designed to stop or stymie a virtually unavoidable and necessary criminal investigation of the President himself, makes safeguarding the special counsel more urgent and necessary now than ever before.

Rather than encouraging Presidential abuse of power by inaction, the Congress must move forward right away to check potential malfeasance and abuse before it occurs. Even the threat of such political interference constituting potential obstruction of justice undermines the special counsel's investigation. It makes witnesses less likely to cooperate. It discourages the agents and investigators working for the special counsel. It creates unnecessary confusion in the American public. Only judicial review can provide the check against such abuse and ensure confidence that the special counsel will proceed methodically and systematically to uphold the rule of law and follow the facts in evidence, wherever they may lead. That is what the American people want him to do. That is what we should guarantee that he will do. Make no mistake, this investigation will continue and conclude fairly and fully. The only question is how much turmoil and how much damage is done in the course of that investigation.

Clearly, like any investigation and prosecution, this one is a mosaic, consisting of many different diverse pieces and already it is coming together on the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian officials. They include, for example, campaign adviser Papadopoulos's contacts with a Russian agent who claimed he had ``dirt'' on Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump, Jr., and the campaign aides' Trump Tower meeting with Russian agents to obtain information on Clinton; Jared

Kushner's meetings with sanctioned VEB Russian bank CEO Sergey Gorkov; Sessions' meetings with the Russian Ambassador; the Cambridge Analytica CEO's outreach to WikiLeaks to obtain Hillary Clinton's missing emails; and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's dining with President Putin in Moscow. Those pieces of the mosaic are only the beginning. We are at a critical stage--the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end.

As a former prosecutor, I know investigations take time. The best investigations are done without deadlines. In an important case like this one, and in a complex and challenging one, we must allow all the time necessary to assemble that full mosaic and put together the pieces of this puzzle.

The Watergate scandal took 2 years to unravel, from Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein's first piece in the Washington Post in June of 1972 to Nixon's resignation in August of 1974. We are less than a year into the Trump Presidency and fewer than 10 months into this investigation.

The first individuals to be indicted in the Watergate scandal were considered to be generally outside the President's inner circle. They were E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, and the Watergate burglars in September of 1972. No one knew--and many denied--the conspiracy that involved the President and his top lieutenants at the time of those first indictments. In these cases, too--in these first indictments and conviction--a lot more is to come.

We cannot wait until the President potentially shuts down his special counsel to come to his defense. Already, the rule of law is under threat. On Sunday--the day before the indictments were handed down--the President tweeted: ``DO SOMETHING!'' with regard to the Russia investigation. Although his reference was unclear exactly what he meant and whom the message was targeting, it certainly was an indication that some kind of action might be taken to thwart the investigation.

Any interference in this investigation will be a red line for me and for others in this Chamber. Let the President hear that message loud and clear. There is a red line that cannot be crossed. It is political interference or intrusion in the special counsel's investigation, and it will be met with a firestorm, I hope, on both sides of the aisle. My conversations with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicate they would share our outrage and outcry if there is an effort to stop and stymie this investigation or if there is any other kind of political interference in it.

Senators Graham, Booker, Whitehouse, Coons, and I have cosponsored measures that will help protect the special counsel. There are two measures now, but they are so closely similar that they should be brought together, and conversations are underway to do so. I expect we will have a single bill in the very near future.

We should stand with one voice against obstruction of this investigation. I ask that my colleagues go on the record now to state that they will absolutely resist and oppose any interference by the executive branch into this investigation or investigations that are underway by our congressional committees--on the House side, the Intelligence Committee and, in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee along with our Intelligence Committee. The congressional committees have separate purposes. In the Judiciary Committee, we have the unique responsibility of oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI. We have the unique responsibility to prevent the obstruction of justice and to uncover it, as is indicated by the firing of Jim Comey. My hope is that investigation will proceed and that it will be bipartisan, so we will have hearings and subpoena witnesses with public testimony under oath and eventually some report to the American people. That is my hope, and that will be our decision here.

The decision we cannot and should not make is what the outcome will be of the special counsel investigation. We must guarantee--and we have this responsibility in the Congress--that there is adequate funding and authority for the special counsel, that there is no effort to either cut resources or limit the purview of the special counsel or place constraints on the time it may take for this probe to conclude. There should be no firing and no pardons, and we should speak out and stand up to assure that message reaches the White House loud and clear.

This moment is one of historic magnitude. I cannot emphasize how strongly I feel but also how deeply my colleagues have expressed to me their own feelings about our responsibility in this moment.

The grand jury that is bringing these indictments is an arm of the courts, which should be independent of both the executive and legislative branches. That independence gives the special counsel some new measure of permanence and protection, but the President can still try to fire the special counsel. He cannot fire the grand jury or the U.S. District Court judge who impaneled the grand jury. Judicial review of any firing of the special counsel, which is the core principle of our measure--the Special Counsel Independence Protection Act--would add a highly significant protection to not just deter misguided and deeply mistaken actions, throwing our Nation into turmoil, but also assuring that confidence and trust remains with the special counsel, and he can follow facts and the law with the full support of the American people. The American people can put their trust and faith in him and in our courts. We should assure that we uphold that faith and trust.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to begin by paying tribute to the people of Puerto Rico, who have been through unimaginable disaster--a natural disaster not of their making and a financial disaster that is not any more their fault than the hurricane they have endured. They have persevered and, indeed, now are surviving and even thriving, despite the hurdles placed in their way by the humongous storm that destroyed parts of their island. In fact, even now, at least a quarter of their water is undrinkable, more than 80 percent of their electricity is down, many of their roads are unpassable, their schools are largely closed, and their island is paralyzed or, at least, largely paralyzed as far as economic progress and job creation are concerned.

They don't deserve this fate. They are Americans. They fought in our wars. I have been privileged to spend time with the Borinqueneers and led the effort to award them a Congressional Gold Medal as a sign of their patriotism and their dedication to our country.

They are not only Americans; they are patriotic Americans. So, too, are the first responders, military, and others from States around the country who have gone to Puerto Rico to help with relief. I want to recognize their courage, sacrifice, and service to our Nation.

The National Guard from Connecticut has gone to the island to help with National Guard from at least 13 States. There are thousands of them now, and they are working with men and women on the ground from FEMA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security generally, and our military. They deserve our thanks. Yet, for all that heroic work, this Nation is failing Puerto Rico. Americans are on the verge of failing fellow Americans.

Puerto Rico has a population of about 3.4 million people, roughly the size of Connecticut. If the humanitarian crisis now ongoing in Puerto Rico had occurred in Connecticut, there would be an outcry and outrage of unprecedented proportion, comparable to a public surge of criticism unseen before. Yet the people of Puerto Rico endure this humanitarian crisis seemingly without response.

The President of the United States gives himself a 10. I agree. He deserves a 10 if the grading scale is 1 to 100 because barely one- tenth--in fact, less than one-tenth of what this Nation owes to Puerto Rico--has been done for them.

I flew over the island of Puerto Rico in a Sikorsky Black Hawk during a recent bipartisan trip and saw out of the side of that Black Hawk the devastation and destruction I never thought I would see in America. Whole towns were flattened, homes razed to the ground, community centers destroyed, power lines dangling and down. I heard from the Corps of Engineers that there is no timetable to repair those lines, to restore electricity, which is the lifeblood of civilization and essential to bare economic functioning, let alone progress going forward, which is what the island needs. From what I hear, which families have told me, the shortages of food, water, and medicine persist. The hospitals depend on generators that are sometimes nonfunctional, and medicine is lacking in those hospitals.

What is at stake in Puerto Rico is really our humanity. In the midst of this humanitarian crisis, what is challenged is our humanity, not just the legality or the protocols but our basic instinct to help fellow Americans when they need it.

This Nation should not have a double standard for disaster relief. The Americans of Puerto Rico deserve what Connecticut would receive. I have stood in Connecticut with our Puerto Rican community. We are proud of the fact that we have more Puerto Ricans per capita than any other State in the country. That community has given back to Connecticut and has contributed to our quality of life. And we are proud of all of our Puerto Ricans who came from the island in past generations or recently. I stood with Gladys Rivera, who lived in Connecticut, went to Puerto Rico, and has just come back; with the Bermudez family, who have deep ties and family there and here; with Jason Ortiz, who is in charge of the Puerto Rican Agenda. And I could list many others. They have given me a picture of the humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico that speaks to my heart--families who continue to suffer and endure these hardships.

The measure we are passing today is a tiny downpayment on what is needed for Puerto Rico. It is a short-term, very small sign of what we owe. It is a downpayment that must be followed by a much bigger long- term commitment, a Marshall Plan that will enable the island to not just repair the power lines or the roads but to rebuild with different kinds of power--renewables and solar--and not be dependent on diesel or coal. It will enable them to build stronger, more resilient structures, whether homes or commercial buildings, that can withstand future hurricanes. What is needed in Puerto Rico is not just repair but true rebuilding and recovery--and not just the physical structures but the sense of financial stability and pride.

So the pittance in this supplemental for Puerto Rico is the least we can do. In fact, it is less than the least we can do because it actually adds to the debt Puerto Rico now has. It adds $5 billion to the $74 billion that is owed by Puerto Rico. It does nothing about the bankruptcy of PREPA, the power company. It in no way alleviates the financial burdens of debt; in fact, it adds to it.

Instinctively, we in this Chamber know we have an obligation to do more. There have been enough reports to fill this Record today about the courage of Puerto Rico and about the burdens it has to endure. We have seen and heard enough to know that a longer term plan is necessary, a Marshall Plan. Stronger leadership is necessary. Leadership has been lacking.

I have proposed a disaster relief czar who can cut through the redtape and the bureaucratic lack of cohesion and get this job done, someone who can tell the Corps of Engineers what the deadlines are and bring together the leadership of Puerto Rico and give them the empowering authority in resources, not just in words.

I also call for the CDC to be engaged more actively and effectively because Puerto Rico now faces a potential epidemic of mosquito-borne diseases: Dengue fever, Zika, chikungunya. The standing pools of water throughout the island--and I have seen them--pose a real public health threat at a time when the island is ill-equipped to deal with it.

I have begun working with my colleagues on a longer term plan because this measure must be followed by stronger, more robust steps. The damage done to the island was in the range of $100 billion. That is a rough estimate. That $100 billion must not only be reinvested, it must be used to provide resilience--real investment, real rebuilding. That is what is necessary for Puerto Rico.

I hope to return and visit again shortly, but in the meantime, the voices and faces of our fellow Americans there come to us clearly through my friends and neighbors in Connecticut who have joined with me in this call for real action and real rebuilding and real investment much more than this short-term downpayment which will shortchange the island if we do no more. It must be simply a first step that we owe our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my colleague from Minnesota, who has made many of the same arguments very eloquently that my colleagues have made as we approach a vote literally in the dead of night. There is a reason for the timing of this vote.

My Republican colleagues would much rather have it done past the deadline for the newspapers, out of the public eye, because most Americans would be repulsed by the idea that they are losing fundamental rights, and what could be more fundamental than the right to go to court. That is the right that will be lost to countless Americans if this vote in favor of S. J. Res. 47 succeeds tonight. It would literally repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule using the Congressional Review Act.

Most Americans will discover this repugnant step when they go to their lawyer's office, and they state their grievance, their harm, their cause of action, and their lawyer looks at a contract or some other piece of paper, which has in fine print a forced arbitration clause. That forced arbitration clause, in effect, blocks the courthouse door. It denies them their day in court. It compels them to go before a group of people--often, the majority selected by the big company they want to sue. At best, the result is to give them less to remedy the wrong against them than they suffered in harm.

Often, the lawyer will say: You know, this effort is going to cost you more than you will gain. In good consciousness, I must tell you that you will not recover as much as you have to pay me, and that is because those consumers cannot join together in arbitration as they can in a class action. Often, it is because the cost of going to court individually, even if they win, will be more than they would gain in arbitration. It is done in secret, when their case is arbitrated, so others cannot be warned about a similar harm in a product or a service they are about to purchase and suffer the same harm or wrong.

A vote in favor of this resolution is a vote in favor of predatory lending. It is a vote in favor of wage theft. It is a vote in favor of sexual harassment. It is a vote in favor of medical malpractice. It is a vote in favor of denying millions of Americans a fundamental right to a day in court.

Without the promise of justice from the courts, few consumers can even think about undertaking the cost of an attorney or take on the tremendous effort of bringing those individual actions against service providers.

The harm falls, tragically, particularly on our veterans. I commend and thank Holly Petraeus for her profoundly significant work to alert our veterans and all of us to those harms. These abusive practices harm our veterans more than others because they trust the abusive pitches that come at them as they are about to leave Active Duty or sometimes while they are on Active Duty or shortly after they leave. They have no control over where they are deployed or even where they are based, but the con artists and big corporations can come after them. They know where they are. They are targets of opportunity.

In one stunning example--just to give one--documented by the New York Times not long ago, a sergeant in the Army National Guard who was serving in Iraq said that men came to his house and improperly repossessed his car, threatening his wife with jail time if she didn't give them the keys. Appallingly, this sergeant received no restitution. His case was discarded because his contract with the auto lender included a forced arbitration clause. That is the practical harm resulting from these causes.

Wells Fargo has been mentioned as an example of how contracts, in effect, are forced on people without their knowledge for accounts, contracts for insurance that were put on their loans without their knowledge.

Equifax, in the height of arrogance--the remedy offered to consumers had a forced arbitration clause as part of their acceptance of a remedy for the harm done by Equifax itself. You can't make this stuff up. You cannot create the fiction that matches this reality for abuse and harm to consumers.

Repealing this rule strips consumers of one of their only avenues of relief

from careless negligence or a slow response to harm. In the case of Equifax, unfortunately, it probably will not be the last.

The CFPB rule draws a line in the sand. It puts consumers on a level playing field. It eliminates a provision that in law school was often identified as a contract of adhesion, where one side has such power over the other that they can dictate the terms, inherently unfairly, to the consumer. It demands that those consumers be treated fairly.

Repealing this rule would allow companies like Equifax and Wells Fargo to have their run of the contracts in America, repeat the harms that have caused such widespread consumer harm, and let them off the hook. I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous rollback of rights. It may be welcomed by some corporations, but in their hearts, as well as their minds, the vast majority of companies want to do the right thing. The outliers are the ones supporting this rule.

It would not eliminate arbitration where both sides feel it is in their mutual interests; it would simply eliminate that fine print that enables those rip-off clauses that harm our veterans--people who fight for our fundamental rights. One of those fundamental rights--access to justice--is barred by this resolution.

I hope my colleagues will reject it, enable consumers to hold financial institutions accountable, and continue the work of the CFPB in making sure that consumers really receive a fair shake when they enter into a contract.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island.

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for that very pertinent question. Before I answer it, I thank him for his service as his State's attorney general and his State's U.S. attorney. He has as much experience as I do, and I know he appreciates that there are countless examples of exactly the kind of predicament he has so well described.

The harm to each individual may be measured in tens of dollars, but the harm nationally to consumers may be measured in millions of dollars. If each of those consumers is forced to arbitrate, the result at best would be a few dollars to each of them, and most of them will abandon the claim because the services of an attorney or even the time they have to take to appear before a panel of arbitrators simply won't be worth it.

The harm is not only to them, as my friend and colleague from Rhode Island has implied so well, it is to the consumers of the future because without public knowledge of the defective product or the predatory lending or the sexual harassment, that same harm will happen again and again.

To take the topic of the day, sexual harassment, many of those employment clauses had the forced arbitration requirement that led to settlements and secrecy. For years and years, that harm was repeated to women who suffered because they were unaware of the harm about to befall them.

It is a human tragedy, not just a financial tragedy, that often befalls consumers because of those fine-print arbitration clauses that consumers very often never even consider because at the time they sign the contract, they are not thinking about what can go wrong; they are buying a car or a product that seems just fine, or they are entering into a new job, or, as in the case of a veteran, they are signing up for a for-profit college, and they scarcely expect they will be, in effect, victims of these forced arbitration clauses.

So the answer to my colleague's question, as he knows because he himself is such an expert in consumer protection, is a resounding yes. This rule is necessary to protect consumers against those kinds of harms, which, when added nationally, can be tremendously costly to our Nation as a whole.

I would be happy to yield.

I appreciate my colleague's question. That is absolutely right. Arbitration panels do not have the power to issue injunctions--it is that simple. They do not have the power to grant injunctive relief even in the worst of circumstances. That is one of the reasons forced arbitration clauses exist: There is no danger of a court ordering increased disclosure or fairer terms going forward or an end to deceptive and misleading practices.

I see we have been joined by another of our colleagues, Senator Cornyn of Texas, who served as attorney general before he began his distinguished career here, and he knows well that, as attorneys general, we often insisted on injunctive relief because we wanted to protect people going forward. That is a remedy that arbitration panels simply cannot award, and it is enormously consequential.

That is exactly right. It is not infrequent in class action cases and not infrequent in individual cases where a plaintiff is willing to persist and takes it, as a matter of principle, that he will go to the nth degree legally and spend whatever it takes, if he or she has the resources, and some have done it as a matter of conviction and conscience to vindicate individual consumer rights, even though their ultimate payback in monetary terms may not have actually been worth it. But injunctive relief is often the key to fairness and justice.

Exactly right. I think that is the essence of what the effect will be today of this vote if it is to roll back this rule and, in effect, enhance the overweening power of companies and corporations that force consumers to engage in arbitration that they do not know will be the result and cannot change because it is a fixed term, even though it is in the fine print, and eventually rips them off.

I thank my colleague for those extraordinarily insightful questions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Greater Danbury NAACP as they celebrate 60 years of outstanding advocacy and support for equal rights and an end to race-based discrimination in Connecticut and the Nation.

Founded in 1957, the Danbury NAACP serves as a branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. By focusing on the Danbury, CT, area, this branch helps connect people in the region with the national NAACP mission. As part of the oldest civil rights organization in America, the Greater Danbury NAACP has had a valuable role in the progress we have made toward a society free from discrimination and respectful of individual civil rights. This year's theme, ``Steadfast & Immovable,'' exemplifies the branch's continuous dedication to leading the fight to ensure every person in our great Nation will truly enjoy equal rights under the law.

The organization continues its rich history of collaboration with other civil rights groups. Recently, alongside other organizations and individuals, the Greater Danbury NAACP participated in an International Workers' Day event to emphasize the need for better treatment of immigrants. The branch's president, Glenda Armstrong, spoke at the event, emphasizing how, even with its founding centered on the inequality facing African Americans, the NAACP's goal of racial equality encompasses everyone in America.

One of the national organization's key objectives, mirrored in the work of the Greater Danbury branch, is to use democratic processes to put an end to racial discrimination. In March, the Danbury NAACP expressed its support--along with its parent association--for the NO HATE Act. I introduced this act with Congressman Beyer to counter the rising number of hate crimes in America. The NO HATE Act will encourage more thorough reports on hate crimes by law enforcement, grant victims of these crimes the right to sue in civil court, and establish hotlines run by the State to make sure hate crimes were reported. These key measures align with the NAACP's vision of equality.

Since its formation, the Greater Danbury NAACP continuously strives to eliminate racial discrimination and achieve social, political, economic, and educational equality for the people of Danbury, CT, and the Nation. I applaud their tireless work and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Greater Danbury NAACP on 60 years of dedication and advocacy on behalf of Connecticut residents.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Connecticut State Labor Council AFL-CIO as they celebrate 60 years of extraordinary and exemplary advocacy on behalf of Connecticut workers and their families.

Since its formation in 1957 with the merging of the Connecticut Federation of Labor and the Connecticut State Industrial Union Council, the Connecticut State AFL-CIO has demonstrated an impressive dedication to the wellbeing of workers across the State. The organization seeks fair and equal treatment for workers through collective bargaining on their behalf and promoting legislation to create good jobs and provide people with the skills needed for them.

Simply, they strengthen the middle class, allowing tens of thousands of people to own a home, raise their families, and retire with financial security.

Uniting workers and their families toward these common goals, the Connecticut AFL-CIO has fought continuously and ceaselessly for better wages, benefits, and conditions for the working families of the State. Throughout its six decades, the Connecticut AFL-CIO has facilitated union member access to insurance plans, credit cards, and beneficial mortgage programs.

Always looking for ways to raise the standard of living for our middle-class workers, the Connecticut AFL-CIO was one of the early leaders in the fight to achieve affordable and accessible quality healthcare, pay equity, and parental and medical leave for all employees. The Connecticut AFL-CIO also helps those who have lost their jobs, supporting fair unemployment compensation laws and education and job training programs.

Since its formation, the Connecticut AFL-CIO continuously puts the needs of workers and their families first. I applaud their numerous achievements and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Connecticut State AFL-CIO on 60 years of service and commitment to Connecticut employees.

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

Mr. President, we have been here before. We have been here in the wake of Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Orlando, numerous other mass shootings, and now Las Vegas.

We can all agree that our hearts and prayers, mourning and condolences go out to the families of loved ones who have suffered this senseless, horrific violence. We can also agree that many of the details are unknown about the shooter, and a lot of investigation will be done. We can all agree that Las Vegas was struck by evil; call it pure evil.

We know what it looks like in Connecticut because we saw it firsthand in Newtown. We lived through the heartbreaking, unspeakable violence of that day, just a few years ago, when evil visited Newtown and caused the death of 26 beautiful human beings, including 20 children. America came together in support of us in Connecticut, and today we should come together in support of the people of Nevada.

My heart and prayers are with them, but thoughts and prayers are not enough. We know the evil that visited Connecticut also brought forth good in other people--in the first responders, the doctors, and countless members of the community and people of America who united.

I will never forget that day in Newtown when the community came together in St. Rose of Lima Church for an evening of mourning. I said then that the whole world was watching. Indeed, what the world saw was courage and resilience of truly heroic proportions--some of the good along with the evil.

When I saw those images today in Las Vegas--the sound of that gunfire, the pandemonium, the reports of injuries and deaths--it brought back to me that day in Newtown. I was not there for the shooting, as I had gone later in the day, but the memories of that day and of the successive days, weeks, and years had been brought back. My heart broke, but my stomach also churned with anger. I was frustrated and furious.

I am now furious because Congress has failed to act. Nothing has changed since Newtown. Congress has been complicit when we have had numerous opportunities and many reasons to make America safer and adopt commonsense measures that 90 percent of Americans support. So thoughts and prayers are not enough. Hand-wringing and soul-searching is needed, but it is insufficient. What is needed now is action.

I am under no illusions. Nobody needs to tell me where the votes are at this moment. We need to be realistic about what the agenda is in our going forward. We need to be very clear-eyed and realistic, but we also need to recognize that we can win this fight. Between the time that Ronald Reagan had almost been assassinated and the day that the Brady bill had passed, it had been almost 10 years. We need to be in this fight as a marathon, not as a sprint, and that is the determination and resolve that must be brought to this effort.

It was 5 years ago when a man wielding a semiautomatic rifle murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The cries of grief echoed around this country, and there was a moment when action could have been taken. We need to seize this moment. Then, the vote, shamefully, failed to reach 60 for commonsense measures, like background checks. We needed 60, and we had a majority, and our colleagues in the House of Representatives told us that that measure would have passed there.

Since then, every day in this country an average of 92 Americans die due to gun violence, which is 33,000 Americans every year, and 59 is the death toll as of this moment in Las Vegas. Day after

day, 92 Americans are killed as a result of gun violence, and 60 of them are suicides, but that is no less a death, and it is a preventable death if there are commonsense measures that will stop this carnage.

I would be happy never to speak about this topic, never to complain again about Congress's complicity, but our hearts break, and our stomachs churn with fury. America's should as well. After Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Charleston, Chattanooga, Lafayette, San Bernardino, Orlando, and, now, Las Vegas, these cities have become synonymous with mass shootings--unjustly tarnished. What is needed is national resolve.

For anyone who says that we should only mourn or offer condolences, let me just say, very simply: Let us honor those victims and keep faith with their memories, so that their lives and losses will not be in vain, by taking action that makes America safer. Let us redouble our determination. The bills are ready to go, the agenda is set, and the action is clear. Let us honor their memories through action. If the President believes this carnage was pure evil, let him lead--if not today, tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, Wednesday, when he visits Las Vegas. If these actions were pure evil, let us all lead by our example, and let us move forward to stop this carnage in the future. We grieve these losses, but we need to recognize that the measures now before Congress are a travesty and a dishonor to those lives that were lost.

One of these proposals is an innocuous-sounding Hearing Protection Act--let me repeat: the Hearing Protection Act--which could come to a vote as early as this week in the House of Representatives. This measure would gut regulations on gun silencers.

Now, let's be very clear. Silencers are already widely available to hundreds of sportsmen who pay the fee, register, and wait for a short period. This legislation would make it terrifyingly easy to buy a gun silencer. Hunters and recreational shooters deserve to have silencers but only if they comply with those regulations. This measure would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and make it more difficult for law enforcement, especially in urban areas, to identify gunshots, locate shooters, and protect civilians.

In one interview after another of the victims of last night's shooting, there was a common refrain: They ran, and they escaped because they heard those gunshots. The only supposed reform measure before the Congress right now that has been given a chance of passage is a proposal to make it easier to buy gun silencers. The only thing that led those individuals to escape--or one of the only things--was, in fact, the sound of gunshots. How many lives would have been taken last night if the shooter had had a silencer?

Another proposal is the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would essentially eliminate the States' ability to regulate concealed-carry permits in their States, undermining the laws that States like Connecticut have put in place to keep our residents safe.

In the wake of Newtown, Charleston, Orlando, and, now, Las Vegas, Members of Congress should come together to protect our lives from these senseless killings. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is not about politics. It is not even about policy. It is about public safety, simply. We should not be undermining protection. What a travesty and tragedy and what a dishonor to the memories of those victims in Las Vegas to now be on the verge of weakening rather than strengthening our public safety laws.

Let's join hands across the aisle and across both Houses to stand up to the gun lobby, the NRA, and other special interests and release and break their grip on Congress. More than thoughts and prayers are necessary, although they fulfill a vitally important function. Talk must be turned into action. Waiting simply means more deaths, and delay means time. Time is not on our side with there being 92 deaths, on average, every day as a result of gun violence.

Let us join together and combat evil. Certainly, it was there in Las Vegas, but it will visit other communities, as it does every day. Those 92 deaths and mass shootings will continue unless commonsense, sensible measures, like a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, are adopted, as well as there being mandatory background checks for all gun sales. Until this is adopted, America will be more at risk. We must make America safer, and that is an obligation that we share across the aisle and across the two bodies of Congress.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here for the third time in as many days to talk about this Nation's response to a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of Americans--the people

of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It is similar to the situation in Florida, in the gulf coast, and, some years ago, in Connecticut and in other parts of this country when they faced a natural disaster that was almost as devastating as an attack would be by a foreign power. Analogous but different, this category 4 Hurricane Maria caused consequences as devastating and destructive as any that man could do. It is a natural disaster, not manmade, but it is turning into a manmade disaster.

So far, the response from our government has been underwhelming. In fact, it has been inadequate and anemic. It has been shamefully slow and undersized and should be vastly upgraded and increased.

Just moments ago, I learned that Lieutenant General Buchanan has been appointed to head the military efforts in Puerto Rico. That appointment followed a call just an hour or so ago with all of the representatives, including FEMA, the Department of Defense, other Federal agencies, and the Red Cross, during which I urged our U.S. military to be mobilized, much as we would be in responding to a natural disaster in Connecticut or Texas or Florida or other places in this country on the mainland where we have seen the same kind of storm.

The 3.4 million people in Puerto Rico are almost exactly the same number as the population of Connecticut. I hope, and I believe, the response would be better in Connecticut if we were to face the same kind of natural disaster. Yet the manmade disaster is the failure to move food, fuel, medicine, water, other necessities, and communications equipment from the ports and the airports into the interior of the country, even into the major cities, where currently apparently a lack of drivers and passable roads make it all the more difficult. Whether the supplies of food and fuel and medicine and water are adequate on the island or need to be increased on an emergency basis and whether there are sufficient shipments and airlifts going into the island, the simple fact is that Puerto Rico faces a disaster--manmade after natural.

I commend the loyal and dedicated people of FEMA and all of the National Guard, including the National Guard of Connecticut, who have performed with such heroism and dedication in the face of the most difficult circumstances imaginable, but their efforts need to be matched by many others. There are 4,500 American military personnel now in Puerto Rico. Rather than 5,000, there should be 50,000 of our National Guard, not to occupy the island, not to enforce martial law but to make sure the logistics--the transportation, the means of delivery of the lifeblood of that island in food and fuel and medicine and water and other basic necessities--are sufficient to move those basic supplies to the places they are needed. The troops who are there now are performing heroic, Herculean work, and so are many volunteers, along with FEMA officials, the Coast Guard, and others, but they need more help.

Nearly a week after this storm, Maria, more than 90 percent of the island's residents are without power, 42 percent have no water, the vast majority of the country's 69 hospitals cannot function, and only 10 percent of the cell towers are working. If those conditions existed in Connecticut, I would be on the floor 24 hours a day. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have no one here, and they have no elected Representatives in the House of Representatives. They are voiceless or at least voteless in this body. We need to stand for them, speak out, and fight for them. That is why I am here for the third day in a row.

We need a plan and a strategy, which has been lacking from this administration. In that phone call earlier today with FEMA officials and the Department of Defense, I asked about a plan. They are working on it. The military, U.S. Northern Command, is working on a plan. They could not tell me when it will be ready or what it will say or what the total number of troops or other logistical supplies will be nor could they commit that there would be a waiver under FEMA regulations of the C through G conditions, which apply to permanent recovery.

The only decision that has been made is A to B, which provides for debris and other emergency responses over the next 180 days, and that is part of what the island needs--a longer term plan as well as an immediate one to make sure there is a road to recovery, that there is a path that will provide hope. Not only is the well-being and health of this island threatened but so is hope, which is so important for progress to be made.

The people of Puerto Rico have been met with, at best, ambivalence and ambiguity by the President of the United States. Earlier this week, he seemed more inclined to blame the island itself and the size of the ocean than in advocating for help. I hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis. With the kind of situation that is there now--the danger of epidemic as well as immediate health threats before disease takes hold--we must act before people die. We must come to the aid of Puerto Rico. They need medical care. They need access to food and safe drinking water, and, yes, they need greater security.

The 78 mayors of Puerto Rico, along with the Governor, are doing also heroic and Herculean work, but a whole of government response is necessary from this body and from the Federal Government at a much higher magnitude. In the long term, we must have a martial plan--a strategy for rebuilding the island's roads, bridges, rail, airports, ports, and VA facility, much as we do in this country, except that, there, the need is so much more dire and immediate. Hospitals, transportation, electricity, power, communications, safety, housing all have been destroyed, and the consequences will be deadly.

My hope is that Lieutenant General Buchanan will expedite that plan. So far, it has been lacking. It should be done today. It should be integrated with the FEMA approach, and I hope they will permit visits by Members of the Congress who, so far, have been prevented from going there.

The American people deserve to have elected Representatives there because Puerto Rico has none here. The extraordinary work done by the cable TV and reporters for the print media and others who are there have given us a picture--and often a picture is worth a thousand words--of the devastation that now continues from a manmade disaster that must be avoided before it takes lives and destroys hope.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in the last 24 hours since I came to the floor to talk about Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, there has been progress but far less progress than is necessary at this critical time of humanitarian crisis, when the people of those islands literally face a chasm, a deepening canyon of needs and challenges.

Over the next 24 hours, over the next 24 days, over the next 24 months, this crisis must be met with a strategy, an overarching plan, a Marshall Plan for Puerto Rico that commits the resources unequivocally and unambiguously, making sure we match the depth of this crisis with a magnitude of resources and commitment that is needed and deserved. That kind of response, which has been lacking so far, is absolutely necessary for the hope of Puerto Rico because as the threats of disease and contaminated water increase, not to mention the lack of proper medicine, healthcare, roads, transportation and communication, food, water, medicine, basic necessities rise on that island, the people of Puerto Rico will lose trust and confidence in fellow Americans that must do more. We need to give them the hope they deserve, and that hope has to be more than rhetoric and more than patting ourselves on the back as the President has done. It has to be a real commitment.

In fact, there is no reason for back-patting. The response so far has been inadequate, lacking the full attention and commitment that is needed. It has been a story of inattention and inadequate strategy so far to meet this deepening humanitarian crisis.

The people of Texas, Florida, and throughout the gulf coast and the Southeast who have been affected by the storms have received the full commitment of America. It is what we owe our fellow Americans. That same commitment is owed to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We saw an immediate disaster response there that must also be devoted to Puerto Rico. The emergency aid and full funding made to the victims of those storms in the gulf coast and Florida must be given to Puerto Rico, and I am hopeful that a relief bill will be fashioned this week.

I am also hopeful that the financial control board that has responsibility for Puerto Rico's internal finances can be given the flexibility and that the Government of Puerto Rico will be given the flexibility that is needed to deal with this disaster--nothing less than a full court press, a full plan and strategy, and a plan that directly addresses the needs of Puerto Rico in so many areas.

On transportation, what is the plan to ensure that basic goods can move from one end of the island to another? Right now the roads are unusable. By

all accounts, getting things across the island by road is impossible. Radar and navigation systems at the airports are down. The transportation mechanism of the island is literally ripped apart. So potable water, food, and fuel are impossible to move where they need to go. That state of affairs is inadequate and unacceptable in America in 2017.

Electricity and power are disrupted across the island. What will be done to restore power and electricity throughout the island? What will be done to make sure that diesel is available there and in the Virgin Islands? Many of the machines essential for lifesaving at the hospitals cannot be powered by generators alone. That state of affairs is inadequate and unacceptable in America in 2017.

All five of the hospitals in Arecibo, one of Puerto Rico's largest cities, are without power. Many other hospitals are shuttered as well. Clinics are closed.

Mosquito-borne diseases are a real and present danger. Deadly ailments in contaminated food and water may cause serious and possibly deadly diseases. As these diseases spread, what is the plan to stop this kind of inadequacy? It is unacceptable in America in 2017.

As to communications, or the basic ability to talk to each other, to reassure each other, and to know what is going on with relatives and loved ones and friends--no wonder that angst and alarm are spreading beyond Puerto Rico to Connecticut, where those relatives and friends live now--this kind of lack of communication is unacceptable in America in 2017. What is the plan to correct it?

On public safety, looting and theft are becoming more prevalent. As the days drag on, law and order will deteriorate unless public safety is addressed more effectively.

There is another kind of challenge. A dam that is about to burst and could cause havoc in surrounding areas is a clear and present safety danger that illustrates again the weakness of Puerto Rico's infrastructure.

Towns throughout the island have suffered severe flooding. So housing and basic shelter are inadequate. What is the plan to rebuild?

Payment for medicines cannot be made unless cash is available, and the lack of electricity means that the ATM machines are not working. If there is no cash for residents to buy basic goods, including food and water, how does the administration plan to solve this problem? This kind of inadequacy is unacceptable in America in 2017.

Rebuilding will require a long-term commitment. It will require a plan and a strategy, not just over the next 24 hours or 24 days but 24 months and longer. It must deal with a financial situation that is a storm of its own.

As I described it yesterday, this storm is not a natural disaster. It is a manmade disaster, the result of healthcare and tax programs that are beyond any fault of the people of Puerto Rico. It is not of their doing.

Vast swaths of resources have been swept away in Puerto Rico, including many of the attractions important for Puerto Rico's tourist industry. The same is true, for example, on the island of St. John in the Virgin Islands. Tourism is a key component of Puerto Rico's economy. It may take years and possibly decades to restore. What is the long-term plan? What is the strategy for Puerto Rico and for the Virgin Islands? There needs to be a kind of Marshall Plan for rebuilding because the devastating damage done is no less than what Europe suffered as a result of World War II. We have an obligation--certainly, no less than rebuilding our European allies--to restore and rebuild Puerto Rico.

All of these natural disasters and the financial manmade storm come as Puerto Rico continues to endure the struggles of its internal financial commitments that are necessary for the lifeblood of the economy. Jobs and economic progress must be the end goal.

With so many questions about the President's plan or lack of plan, I am struck by the need for this body and this Congress to take the initiative. I think we will need to begin action, begin hearings, and begin a process of building a plan if the administration fails to present it.

I believe, too, that we share so much with the island of Puerto Rico in people who have come to Connecticut and other parts of the country that we will find a ready and enthusiastic audience and support for such an effort.

In the past 2 days, after silence through much of it about Puerto Rico, the President seemed to blame the island itself, its financial struggle, other storms, and even the size of the ocean. There should be no excuses. There must be a call to action.

I thank the Coast Guard, our military, the first responders, the rescuers, and relief organizations--from Americares to the Red Cross to Save the Children--that have devoted so much and given so much in these times of crisis. They have been stretched thin. They have performed with courage and generosity and so have the donors who have come forward in Connecticut and around the country. People are calling my office asking what they can do for the people of Florida and the gulf coast and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. They are all fellow Americans, and we owe it to them to do more and do better to make sure that we keep faith with our fellow Americans.

I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to talk about this subject.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the terrible humanitarian crisis faced by the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the gulf coast and the people of Florida, who have endured the fury and ferocity of Mother Nature at its worst.

All of the people who live in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are Americans. First and foremost, they are Americans who are going through one of the toughest periods of their lives, a time that no American wants to face alone.

My message to the people of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: You are not alone. You are not alone in this humanitarian crisis. Congress will act. We will provide the kind of relief package--food, medicine, whatever supplies are necessary not only to endure and survive but to eventually thrive.

That is more than just rhetoric; that is a promise this Senate must make to our fellow Americans. These Americans citizens in Puerto Rico, for example, have lost their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods, and, some of them, loved ones.

I come to this floor on this issue that has preoccupied me and others because it is truly a story of two storms. It is a tale of two catastrophes--one of them resulting from nature's fury but the other manmade.

We know very visibly and dramatically about the storm that directly hit Puerto Rico, and it is called Maria. It was side-glanced by an earlier storm that missed it with its full fury, but Maria was a direct hit, leaving more than 60,000 American citizens without power, passing within miles of San Juan, home to 400,000 people. It was the strongest storm to hit the island in 80 years. The winds tore off the trees and dumped more than 2\1/2\ feet of rain on the island. It razed houses there and on the U.S. Virgin Islands, leaving a wasteland, crumpled structures, scarred concrete, shells of buildings, no electricity, and virtually no telecommunications for most people.

There are 3.4 million people in dire need of housing, food, water, medicine,

diesel, gasoline--the necessities of life. There is a humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico that requires an immediate and unconditional response from Congress--not from just the Senate but from the House and from the President.

One area where the President had made an announcement today concerns the potential matching amounts of money that Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands may have to provide. There should be no match. There should be no requirement that Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands provide a share of the money needed for rebuilding and recovery, and the President should waive every bit of the required matching share. Every dime, every nickel should be waived.

That leads me to talk about the second storm that has hit Puerto Rico. It is less visible and less recent. It is the result of a continually building set of headwinds, a financial storm that had built over many years and has now reduced Puerto Rico to a state of near insolvency, virtual bankruptcy--$74 billion in debt that would have been a severe storm for the people of Puerto Rico--not of their making--even without the hurricane that directly hit the island.

We have an obligation as immediate and dire with respect to rebuilding and recovering from that second storm as we do for the first. That is the reason I have been involved over a period of many months in seeking to construct solutions, beginning with the PROMESA Act. And I intend--and I commit that I will continue seeking that kind of solution, not just solutions to the buildings that have been collapsed but to an economy that will collapse if we do not act. That is an important obligation that we share to fellow Americans, because this storm is not due to their neglect or profligacy; it is due to the tax laws and healthcare laws that unfortunately failed to treat them fairly.

Delay in meeting the astronomic costs of Hurricane Maria would be unacceptable and unconscionable. We must act promptly. I am hopeful that it will be this week. I am talking to our leader, Senator Schumer, who has provided such strong vision and courage in this area. He has been a champion of Puerto Rico, and I hope he will help us craft a solution that is immediate, vigorous, and prompt.

The administration and Congress must ensure as well that the Federal Government plays a robust and responsible role in funding and financing these recovery efforts so that no additional damage is done to Puerto Rico's already fragile economy. It is time to forgo the miasma and bureaucratic rigmarole of Federal redtape and financing constraints, while flooding is still an acute risk to life and health and recovery efforts are just beginning.

The Puerto Rican Government must be granted direct and instant tools to bring electricity back to the people, to feed the hungry, to provide drinking water and shelter to lives that have been upended by this unforgiving storm. All arms of the Federal Government should be brought to bear to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico.

This morning, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, whether he would be ready, willing, and able to help and provide additional assistance on behalf of the Department of Defense and the military that he commands, and his unequivocal response was yes. I commend and thank him for that willingness to help our fellow Americans. And he affirmed they are our fellow Americans, they serve in our military, and they give back to communities in this country.

I am proud to represent 300,000 fellow Americans who have come from Puerto Rico to Connecticut, and they, in turn, reflect families there. I have spoken to friends in Puerto Rico who described to me the dire images outside their window--similar to the images we have seen on national television.

Puerto Rico's debt troubles are no secret to anybody here today. We have discussed them, debated them, and failed to provide adequate assistance to meet them. We must work on two tracks--the immediate recovery effort in the face of this truly destructive hurricane but also the financial peril that continues to put Puerto Rico's economy at risk, jobs in jeopardy, and the island's precarious financial position as much at risk as its water and roads are.

Puerto Rico's infrastructure, energy, water, schools, hospitals, transportation, and other vital facilities necessary for a functioning economy must be rebuilt and made whole. That is our obligation. And the same is true of the Virgin Islands, where fellow Americans are equally at risk, their safety in jeopardy, and their economy potentially struggling.

We owe it to our fellow Americans and friends and families--there are people in Connecticut who have friends and family there--and all of us who share a love for these islands that are populated by patriotic Americans dedicated to our country.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Connecticut State Medical Society, as they celebrate 225 years of dedicated service to the medical profession and to the improvement of health services for Connecticut residents.

Founded in 1792, the Connecticut State Medical Society consists of more than 7,000 physicians who provide healthcare across the State. The society enhances the profession of medicine by providing educational courses and innovative learning experiences to physicians, which helps improve the overall quality of healthcare services and safeguards patient health.

For two and a quarter centuries, the society has set an impressive example for all physicians and served as a leader on countless issues that impact the health of our citizens. Early member physicians founded the Yale School of Medicine, the State's first general hospital--now known as Yale-New Haven Hospital--the world's first tumor registry, and many other medical milestones that have shaped the health of Connecticut and the Nation.

Most recently, the society has been at the forefront of efforts to combat the current addiction crisis and opioid abuse by working with policymakers to enact State laws tightening opioid prescribing, expanding knowledge and understanding of opioid addiction, and providing greater access to treatment. The society has also worked for many years to educate physicians, patients, and the general public on opioid abuse, as well as mental and behavioral health issues.

To its credit, the society goes beyond improving the quality of health services for the people of Connecticut. It has strongly advocated for affordable and accessible health insurance coverage while fighting against harmful consolidations of healthcare facilities that would result in less health service availability at a higher cost. The society is helping to address inequities in health services and disparities in health outcomes. Further, the society is a strong advocate for transparency throughout the entire healthcare insurance delivery system, ensuring its health services are easy to understand.

Steeped in rich history but always forward thinking, the Connecticut State Medical Society is a catalyst for positive change. I applaud the society's accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Connecticut State Medical Society for its 225 years of service.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding me this time before we close business today, as the last speaker of the day.

Let me first of all say how deeply we feel about folks who have been affected by these mammoth storms in the gulf coast, in Florida, and in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, as well as others elsewhere. Our hearts and prayers are with them.

I am here today to talk about another potential disaster to our country, although it is of a completely different kind and not a physical disaster made by nature but a disaster potentially of our own making--one that can be prevented and avoided. I am horrified that I am here again, fighting back again, against a proposal that would devastate the health and finances of so many families in Connecticut and around the country.

This proposal--the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill--is cruel beyond measure. It is undoubtedly the most extreme proposal we have seen from my Republican colleagues in their political crusade to destroy the successes of the Affordable Care Act. How illogical and irresponsible to pretend, as my Republican colleagues continue to do, that any proposal that cuts billions of dollars from Medicaid and decimates important Affordable Care Act provisions protecting people with preexisting conditions and high medical costs will somehow result in a better healthcare system. In fact, it will vastly diminish and in some respects destroy that system.

The Republican obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act and gutting Medicaid really has to end, and it has to end today.

My constituents in Connecticut made themselves heard loud and clear in saying that past proposals were sickening attempts to ruin the gains we have made in providing better healthcare to many people. Those folks who came to town meetings and emergency field hearings, who wrote, who phoned, who made their views known, were the catalyst in defeating these ill-advised efforts before. I can assure you that, once again, they will be heard. They will make themselves heard. They will, once again, guarantee its defeat.

Under this lethal proposal, hundreds of billions of dollars will be cut from Medicaid. Those severe cuts will cause Connecticut more than $2 billion by 2026. In 2027 alone, without the reauthorization of funds, Connecticut would lose $4 billion. In 2027 alone, $4 billion would be lost to Connecticut without reauthorization. Those are not just dollars, those are lives. They are hundreds of thousands of lives.

This bill would end the patient protection that countless Americans have come to rely on in their oftentimes lifesaving care. States would allow insurance companies to reimpose annual caps and lifetime limits; insurers could decide to drop essential health benefits, like maternity care or mental health services; and those with preexisting conditions could see their premiums skyrocket, leaving them with no affordable options and nowhere to turn. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe. This is not hyperbole. It is not exaggeration. It is reality.

In a recent report on this legislation, there was a finding that a person with metastatic cancer would see a $142,650 premium surcharge; a pregnancy would mean a $17,320 premium surcharge; and, during a deadly and unrelenting opioid epidemic, people struggling with substance abuse disorder could expect to see a $20,450 premium surcharge. These effects are immoral and incomprehensible. They will lead to many Americans needlessly losing their health insurance and very likely their lives.

When I see the true effects of this bill and what they are likely to be, I can't help but think of a little boy in Connecticut whom I mentioned on the floor before. He is 7-year-old Conner Curran. Conner has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is a chronic and terminal condition that will slowly erode his motor functions unless there is a cure, and none exists now. This disease will eventually take his life. He is a young man of extraordinary courage and strength and so is his family.

His parents have told me that although he appears healthy, he will slowly lose his ability to run, walk, or even hug them goodnight. In fact, earlier this summer, just days before the last Republican effort to gut Medicaid and repeal the Affordable Care Act--which failed in the Senate, fortunately--Conner's family had two lifts installed in their home so he could move up and down the stairs more easily. The video shows Conner's infectious smile as he tries out the new lift, not fully understanding the disease that necessitates it but enjoying his newfound freedom. He is just a little kid.

His mom wrote that this experience shows just how important Medicaid is to their family. As Conner gets older, he will only need more and more help, more medical services and equipment, and more financial support for his family to enable that kind of care. He will need a loving and compassionate healthcare system that will protect and care for him when he is at his most vulnerable. That is the only way he will have a fair chance at life. This bill, to put it mildly, deprives him of that fair chance.

So I question whether my Republican colleagues can look Conner or his family in the eye and explain to them why protections for children with preexisting conditions should be weakened, diminished, eviscerated. I question whether they can look at Conner's smile and tell him why Medicaid will be eliminated. This is the program that one day will make sure he has everything he needs to live. It is a program that should be enhanced, not cut by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Tell his parents why the insufficient or temporary funds my colleagues have proposed to replace Medicaid will run out in 10 years, as a shadow of Medicaid that you have left behind goes dark. See whether Conner's family cares about your legislation. See if your empty promises leave them reassured.

I can tell you, Conner's parents are two of the kindest, most wonderful people you will ever meet. They are also among the hardest working. They worry about countless things every single day. They worry about Conner's slowing body and medical research that could save him before that pernicious disease takes his life. They worry

about his independence. They worry about his two brothers and the toll this awful disease will have on them. They worry about those stairs-- the ones that will have a lift. I promise you, Conner's parents worry nonstop. All of us worry about our children. They worry about Conner unceasingly.

I will say it again. I am ready to work with all my colleagues on solutions to the healthcare problems our country faces. They are urgent and important--critically important--to address. I refuse to stand silently and let this cruel proposal give Conner's family even more reason to worry.

We as a country are better than these reprehensible proposals--first, repeal and replace; now, Graham-Cassidy. They are all different versions of TrumpCare that is a catastrophe which will lead to a humanitarian crisis. This heartless proposal should be put behind us. We should work together as our colleagues Senators Alexander and Murray are doing and, at least for the moment, give Conner some assurance that we are making things better for him, not worse, and the parents who worry about their little boy know that at least we are moving in the right direction, not rolling back the progress we have made.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank the leaders of the Armed Services Committee. I know the Presiding Officer serves on that committee so he is well aware of the extraordinary work and service done by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed and our colleagues on the committee who have cooperated so collegially, in a bipartisan way, to produce a defense bill that supports our military men and women and their families and, more importantly, supports the United States of America in continuing to be the greatest and strongest power ever on the planet.

I want to talk about some of the specifics of that measure but first want to honor the 17 sailors who perished on the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald. Two of them were sailors from Connecticut, and I want to pay tribute to ET2 Dustin Doyon of Suffield and ST2 Ngoc Truong Huynh of Watertown, CT. They were true patriots. Their families

should be proud of them. All of Connecticut celebrates their extraordinary service and sacrifice to our Nation, even as we are struck by the grief and share the sadness of their families as best we can.

I know we also feel we owe it to them, their families, and all families of the men and women in uniform to be safe. The investigation is proceeding into the circumstances surrounding the crash that caused their deaths. I will be interested, and I hope that investigation will be expedited.

The NDAA is a vital measure that preserves our national security in an uncertain era of unprecedented threats and delivers support necessary to sustain our servicemembers and our national defense. A number of the provisions I helped craft in this measure will improve opportunities for veterans, military sexual assault survivors, help with the Ukrainian soldiers, and extend the Afghan special immigrant visa program. Those measures, among others, I am proud to have participated in crafting and supporting.

This year's bill invests billions of dollars in submarines, helicopters, and the Joint Strike Fighter engine, all produced by Connecticut's highly skilled and dedicated workforce.

The bill includes over $8 billion for Virginia and Columbia class submarines, including over $1 billion above the President's request for Virginia funding and full funding for the Columbia class program following a successful amendment I led to secure our undersea superiority and grow Connecticut jobs. Nothing is more important to our national defense than our undersea superiority. The stealth, strength, and power of our submarine force is vital to our national security.

The measure also includes $25 million for undersea research and development partnerships which Electric Boat and the University of Connecticut are well poised to take part in.

This defense measure provides, as well, $10.6 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, adding 24 above the budget request submitted by the President. Those 24 are necessary, and they are important now.

It includes $1 billion for 48 Army Black Hawks, $1.3 billion for six Marine Corps CH-53Ks--two more than requested--and $354 million for the Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter Program.

Today our Active and Reserve components are deployed together in Afghanistan, and the National Guard brings unique capabilities to the fight. I am very proud of the Connecticut National Guard. I am proud to be a supporter, to work to protect and secure their vital mission as they work for us.

This year's NDAA authorizes $7 million in military construction for a new base entry complex, bringing the 103rd Airlift Wing into compliance with the Department of Defense's antiterrorism and force protection requirements to support their C-130 mission.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. For these reasons and many others, this bill keeps faith with our military men and women. It secures our national defense. It provides the assurance going forward that we will remain as strong as we need to be as the world's only superpower, guaranteeing not only our own freedom but that of others around the world.

As we consider amendments on the floor, I urge my colleagues to reject the new BRAC proposal that was introduced by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed as McCain amendment No. 933. With all due respect, I support the intent. Again, I thank them for all of their work on this bill, as it has been an extraordinary accomplishment to bring it this far and to, hopefully, within the next few days, get it over the finish line. The intent is good. Our military is capitalizing on future savings where they exist, and it must continue to do so. Base closings will be necessary, as that is a stark fact of life, but I cannot support the BRAC effort they have proposed.

The BRAC amendment would set in motion a long and time-consuming and convoluted base closure process. Connecticut is all too familiar with that process. We had a near-death experience with our base not all that long ago. It was an experience that should sound alarm bells not only for Connecticut but for other States my colleagues represent. As a Senator who represents one of the last military bases in New England, I am deeply concerned that there may be harm to civil-military relations and harm to our national security that will be caused by closing bases in our region.

The first obligation of Congress is to do no harm to these military bases. Connecticut has seen this process before. It took almost a decade for the Connecticut Air National Guard to be assigned the C-130 flying mission that was the outcome of the last BRAC round. To carry out this mission, the Connecticut Air National Guard began deploying in support of operations in the Middle East this year.

I know personally about that BRAC process. I was involved in the BRAC Commission proceedings, and afterward I was involved in literally suing the Secretary of Defense to preserve the flying mission of our base at the Air National Guard in Connecticut. Closing that base to the Air National Guard, to the C-130, or to other planes like it would have been a disgraceful outcome, but we succeeded in reaching a result, through settlement, that preserved it.

The submarine capital of the world, also known as the ``First and Finest Submarine Base,'' is in Connecticut. The fate of that base, the Naval Submarine Base of New London, was unnecessarily put in jeopardy in 2005 as it endured unnecessary questions over its viability and military value that delayed investments and the homeporting of submarines there. Given the importance and prominence of our submarine fleet today, as well as the $17 million since 2005 that the State has invested in this base--$17 million invested by the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut--it is inconceivable that we would close this asset. It is home to 16 submarines as well as to a submarine training school.

BRAC is long on unrealized returns and short on increased readiness. In 2005, BRAC was anticipated to cost $21 billion and save over $35 billion in the next 20 years. In reality, costs have ballooned to $35 billion, and savings will be less than one-third of what was initially projected--just $10 billion. That is the 2005 BRAC verdict; that it costs more than it saves. Simply put, BRAC cuts capabilities, and we can never get those capabilities back. At a time of global uncertainty and an expanding threat environment, we should be investing more, not less, in our readiness.

As a first step, I would welcome an independent study on where excess capacity exists today, but I am concerned that this amendment sets into motion a BRAC authorization before Congress is provided with the justification for doing so and where and how it should be set in motion. I am concerned this amendment employs a force structure baseline that has not been adequately assessed by the Department of Defense. That force structure baseline is the lifeblood of our future military, and moving forward without it provides a distorted view of where excess capacity may exist.

The BRAC amendment eliminates the independent commission that was previously designed by Congress in an effort to take politics out of the process. I deeply respect my colleagues who support this measure, but I have no confidence that they will be able to set aside the impact closures will have on their individual States. Let's be very blunt. This measure will exacerbate the role of politics in this process, not diminish it.

While an independent commission is by no measure completely above politics, removing it will aggravate the roles that parochialism and politics play in deciding the future of military installations. Under the rules of the Senate, this body stripped itself of the ability to even make requests for individual military construction projects at specific bases. It follows that deciding the fate of entire military bases should also be a power we keep from ourselves.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, for our own sake, as Members of a body that should support our national defense, keep it as free as possible from politics and parochialism, and make sure we insulate it as much as possible from the currents and forces of special interests. I admire and respect the time and effort our committee leaders have devoted to this amendment. If it is defeated, I will

work with them to address the issues I have outlined. Base closing must be considered. There are bases that can and should be reduced and perhaps completely eliminated, but I cannot support the BRAC amendment before us, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for all of their great work on this very important measure, which I hope will be passed shortly.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.