Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, by voice vote, this body has extended the highway funding program, which is a good thing. It has also included in that extension a delay in the deadline for positive train control, which was inevitable. None of us opposed a delay in positive train control; what we opposed was an extension of that delay with inadequate accountability and excessive time. Let's be absolutely clear. This delay in positive train control is really a delay until 2020, not 2018, because when railroads hit 2018, they can apply for 2 more years, and that second extension is dependent only on having completed work on half the system. Much of that determination is within the control of the railroad itself. That will be the 50 anniversary of the NTSB calling for positive train control. We are not talking about a novel, untested technology. In fact, five railroads will meet the deadline to implement this technology at the end of this year. Clearly, all could have at least sought plausibly to meet that deadline. If they had a reason for failing to do so, they should be required to present it case by case, year by year, with a firm deadline of 2018. That is the system I proposed in the legislation I offered 6 months ago--well before this deadline became an imminent necessity. Forty-six years ago, two passenger trains collided in Darien, CT, killing four people. There have been similar crashes and catastrophes since that time, resulting in nearly 300 deaths, 6,700 injuries, and incalculable economic loss. The worst of those cases was a crash in Southern California in 2008, killing 25 people. Another took place in the Bronx in 2013. Many of us visited the site in the Bronx and observed the remnants of this derailment and so are closely familiar with it. My colleagues in California and in New York have been ardent advocates of positive train control, and I thank them for their support. These are examples of only a few of the many instances of death and destruction over decades that could have been prevented by positive train control. Positive train control could have prevented Spuyten Duyvil. It could have prevented other repeated instances of death and destruction that resulted from trains speeding excessively and thereby derailing. It could have prevented trains from colliding. It could have prevented drivers from ignoring signals. It could have prevented death and injury around the country with economic losses far exceeding the cost of installing positive train control. Joe Boardman, head of Amtrak and former FRA Administrator, said: ``PTC is the most important rail safety advancement of our time.'' Today, the Senate delayed it by 5 years. There are reasons and there is blame enough to go around. The Federal Government--in all frankness, the Federal Communications Commission--perhaps bears part of that blame in the failure to allocate sufficient spending. But let's be honest today in saying that 5 years of delay was unnecessary. The railroads sought it, and they won it with a threat to shut down railroad service everywhere in the country--an unacceptable outcome. The question is, Can we change this deadline in a smart, responsible way? Unfortunately, the action today rewards the dilatory with unnecessary delay. Congress has sent a message that these deadlines can be avoided without repercussions and responsibility. That is bad policy. It is a bad process. I regret it. There was a better way to act that would have ensured continued funding for our highways and continued accountability for positive train control, which is indeed the most important rail safety advancement of our time. This is not some abstract, novel system. It has been around. It has been used. It has been tested. I regret that today it has been delayed unnecessarily. Finally, I wish to congratulate and thank Sarah Feinberg, and the good news today is that her nomination has been approved. I look forward to working with her, and I welcome her as a new source of leadership, which she has already demonstrated. I hope she will act aggressively and responsibly to ensure that positive train control and other safety measures become the law and that the law is enforced as effectively and promptly as possible. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am going to yield to Senator Markey, if I may, and then follow him in light of the scheduling needs that he may have, and then I will yield to Senator Warren. Thank you.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for their very powerful comments, and I have a poster as well. In the spirit of Halloween, mine uses candy. I doubt that children this Halloween are going to receive some of these products--I hope not--when they go door-to-door, but people looking at this poster could easily mistake the candy for the candy-flavored cigarillos or the candy that looks like cigarettes, appears to be tobacco products, or the spit tobacco that is flavored with candy look-alikes. Today the temptation is to have some fun, use some puns, but I come here in sadness and frankly in anger--sadness that every day thousands of people will become addicted to nicotine and suffer from diseases that tobacco causes, whether it is cancer or smoking-related lung problems, and also tobacco-related problems that can increase the cost as well as the suffering in our Nation. We are dealing here with indefensible delays in issuing a rule that is necessary to enforce the law. Let me be clear about what is happening. The Tobacco Control Act was passed 6 years ago. All of us thought the provisions of that Federal law would go into effect to protect Americans against the nicotine addiction that is peddled relentlessly and tirelessly by the tobacco industry. We are 6 years later in an administration that is probably the most pro-public health and anti-tobacco abuse of any in our history, and still, 6 years later that law is unenforced, and the reason is there are no regulations. We are 18 months after the FDA released the rule called the deeming rule necessary to enforce that law. Eighteen months have passed since the FDA acted, 6 years since the law was passed in this body, and still there is no protection for Americans. This fight goes back years and years, and I was involved as attorney general for the State of Connecticut in helping bring a landmark lawsuit. I helped to lead that lawsuit as one of the States that sued the tobacco companies for marketing to children. Back then this poster might have been used in court, and I appeared in court to say that the tobacco companies, despite their denials, were marketing and pitching to children by using Joe Camel. Today the playbook is exactly the same. The tactics have changed, but the strategy is the same: using pitches, wrappings, and flavors to target children--not teenagers or college kids--but younger children who are persuaded by the model of their older siblings and friends to begin a lifetime of addiction and disease. They may be fooled by the candy flavors and the wrappings and the pitches that are used, but we should not be, the FDA should not be, and the Office of Management and Budget should not be fooled. They should not be waiting to issue this rule. It should be issued now. We have written to them, asking that the rule be issued. A number of us wrote a letter to Shaun Donovan. I very simply asked the President of the United States for no more delays. Do the rule now. There is no excuse for delay and, by the way, time is not on our side. During every year of delay, thousands more children become addicted, and the President of the United States knows about that addiction because he is a former smoker--hopefully it is former, not present--and he knows the power of nicotine because he has worked hard to overcome it. Let's prevent young people from becoming addicted in the first place. Let's save money and save lives. Please, Mr. President of the United States, issue this rule. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in 2013, the VA estimated that about 1.5 million veterans required mental health services, which VA provides in a variety of settings. In addition to the traditional VA medical centers, veterans may access mental health services and support through Vet Centers--which often appeal to veterans because of their welcoming, home-like environment; Community Based Outpatient Clinics, which play an important role in telehealth delivery by connecting rural veterans to psychiatry services from the medical center home-base, a Veterans Crisis Line, VA staff on college and university campuses, and other outreach efforts. Another important means of delivering mental health services has been the inclusion of mental health professionals within primary care delivery through VA's Patient Aligned Care Teams, which improves the screening process and allows providers to recognize and treat mental health issues occurring among those veterans who present in their primary care locations. In addition to providing ongoing care to veterans with mental health needs, VA plays a role in suicide risk assessment and prevention among veterans. According to VA, about one-quarter of the 18 to 22 veterans who die by suicide each day were receiving care through VA. Suicide rates are even higher among those veterans who do not use VA for the health care services. Given the stigma and reluctance of some veterans to seek mental health treatment, veterans using VA for primary care may be missing a key entry point to the peer support model of care. Expanding this effective model into the primary care setting could provide another opportunity for veterans to access mental health services through VA. That is why, today, I am introducing--with my cosponsors Senators Baldwin and Markey--the Veteran Partners' Efforts to Enhance Reintegration, Veteran PEER Act, a bill that would expand the peer support model of care for mental health services within the VA system to help ensure that veterans receive the effective and timely care they deserve. VA has begun a program to co-locate mental health care providers within primary care settings in an effort to promote effective treatment of common mental health conditions in the primary care environment. This is a positive step; however, the peer support model of care for mental health services has not been similarly integrated. Research on the use of the peer support model of care for mental health services within the VA has shown that Peer Specialists helped patients become more active in treatment, which can promote recovery. Peer support was recognized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as an evidence-based practice in 2007; and over 20 states have Medicaid reimbursement for peer support services. In response to the President's August 2014 Executive Orders to improve mental health services for veterans, VA committed to integrating and expanding the peer support model of care beyond traditional mental health settings into primary care clinics in order to better connect with veterans wherever they seek care. However, progress toward placing Peer Specialists in primary care teams has been slow. The Veteran PEER bill would require VA to expand its use of Peer Specialists--VA employees who promote veterans' recovery by sharing their own recovery stories, providing encouragement, and teaching skills needed for successful recovery. These professionals may also provide case management assistance, help with accessing the right mental health care, and teach coping and self-advocacy skills. In general, peer support programs aim to develop veterans' self-management skills and restore participation in work and other social roles. Recognizing this effective model of care, this bill would require VA to establish Peer Specialists in Patient Aligned Care Teams within VA medical centers to promote the use and integration of mental health services into the primary care setting. Over a two year period, the program would be carried out in 25 locations. The bill directs VA to take into consideration the needs of female veterans when establishing peer support programs, ensure that female Peer Specialists are made available to veterans through the program, and consider rural and underserved areas when selecting program locations. VA would be required to regularly report to Congress on the progress of the program including on its benefits to veterans and their family members and data on the gender of clients served by the program. Given that VA is one of the largest employers of Peer Specialists, VA's regular reporting on the program would not only allow Congress to conduct appropriate oversite of the activities, but could also provide important insights for the wider peer support community. Given the pressing need for mental health services, it is imperative that we equip VA with the resources and organizational structure it needs to care for veterans who access these services and to find ways to reach more veterans with effective mental health services when they need them. Expanding the peer support model into the primary care setting could provide another opportunity for veterans to access mental health services through VA. As a nation we have asked more of these individuals than most of us can comprehend. We must now honor the promise we made as a nation--to take care of those who have taken care of us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in 2013, the VA estimated that about 1.5 million veterans required mental health services, which VA provides in a variety of settings. In addition to the traditional VA medical centers, veterans may access mental health services and support through Vet Centers--which often appeal to veterans because of their welcoming, home-like environment; Community Based Outpatient Clinics, which play an important role in telehealth delivery by connecting rural veterans to psychiatry services from the medical center home-base, a Veterans Crisis Line, VA staff on college and university campuses, and other outreach efforts. Another important means of delivering mental health services has been the inclusion of mental health professionals within primary care delivery through VA's Patient Aligned Care Teams, which improves the screening process and allows providers to recognize and treat mental health issues occurring among those veterans who present in their primary care locations. In addition to providing ongoing care to veterans with mental health needs, VA plays a role in suicide risk assessment and prevention among veterans. According to VA, about one-quarter of the 18 to 22 veterans who die by suicide each day were receiving care through VA. Suicide rates are even higher among those veterans who do not use VA for the health care services. Given the stigma and reluctance of some veterans to seek mental health treatment, veterans using VA for primary care may be missing a key entry point to the peer support model of care. Expanding this effective model into the primary care setting could provide another opportunity for veterans to access mental health services through VA. That is why, today, I am introducing--with my cosponsors Senators Baldwin and Markey--the Veteran Partners' Efforts to Enhance Reintegration, Veteran PEER Act, a bill that would expand the peer support model of care for mental health services within the VA system to help ensure that veterans receive the effective and timely care they deserve. VA has begun a program to co-locate mental health care providers within primary care settings in an effort to promote effective treatment of common mental health conditions in the primary care environment. This is a positive step; however, the peer support model of care for mental health services has not been similarly integrated. Research on the use of the peer support model of care for mental health services within the VA has shown that Peer Specialists helped patients become more active in treatment, which can promote recovery. Peer support was recognized by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as an evidence-based practice in 2007; and over 20 states have Medicaid reimbursement for peer support services. In response to the President's August 2014 Executive Orders to improve mental health services for veterans, VA committed to integrating and expanding the peer support model of care beyond traditional mental health settings into primary care clinics in order to better connect with veterans wherever they seek care. However, progress toward placing Peer Specialists in primary care teams has been slow. The Veteran PEER bill would require VA to expand its use of Peer Specialists--VA employees who promote veterans' recovery by sharing their own recovery stories, providing encouragement, and teaching skills needed for successful recovery. These professionals may also provide case management assistance, help with accessing the right mental health care, and teach coping and self-advocacy skills. In general, peer support programs aim to develop veterans' self-management skills and restore participation in work and other social roles. Recognizing this effective model of care, this bill would require VA to establish Peer Specialists in Patient Aligned Care Teams within VA medical centers to promote the use and integration of mental health services into the primary care setting. Over a two year period, the program would be carried out in 25 locations. The bill directs VA to take into consideration the needs of female veterans when establishing peer support programs, ensure that female Peer Specialists are made available to veterans through the program, and consider rural and underserved areas when selecting program locations. VA would be required to regularly report to Congress on the progress of the program including on its benefits to veterans and their family members and data on the gender of clients served by the program. Given that VA is one of the largest employers of Peer Specialists, VA's regular reporting on the program would not only allow Congress to conduct appropriate oversite of the activities, but could also provide important insights for the wider peer support community. Given the pressing need for mental health services, it is imperative that we equip VA with the resources and organizational structure it needs to care for veterans who access these services and to find ways to reach more veterans with effective mental health services when they need them. Expanding the peer support model into the primary care setting could provide another opportunity for veterans to access mental health services through VA. As a nation we have asked more of these individuals than most of us can comprehend. We must now honor the promise we made as a nation--to take care of those who have taken care of us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I would like to pay tribute to one of my constituents, who has recently retired from her position as a board of trustees distinguished professor at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work. Dr. Healy has served as a professor for over 30 exemplary years, preparing new generations of social workers for service in an increasingly diverse and global world. Professor Lynne Healy has been an outstanding pioneer in the field of international social work, making significant contributions with her publications and work in the classroom. Dr. Healy was instrumental in establishing the University's Center for International Social Work studies over 20 years ago. The center helps social workers develop a global perspective on human rights, human needs, social policy, and social work practice. These efforts have had a role in the overall establishment of this department as a nationally recognized faculty of experts. We should all aspire to build such a prolific and inspirational legacy as Professor Lynne Healy. My wife, Cynthia, and I are honored to celebrate Dr. Healy's achievements, and we wish her all the best as she begins the next chapter of her life. I know that many across the State of Connecticut will join me in congratulating her on this laudable occasion.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I do respect the expertise and experience and dedication of my colleague and friend from Tennessee. I especially understand and am grateful for his leadership as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation. I understand that he is moving toward reform and overhaul of the current system of financial aid and loans that will make it better for students. That is the goal, that it will be ready perhaps sometime early next year. As we know from our experience in this body, timelines frequently shift and give way. So early next year may turn into later next year or the spring of next year or at some point in time. In the meantime, futures are in the balance--the futures of students in Connecticut and around the country who are trying to plan in their senior year. Their faces and voices are with me and with all of us every day. Their futures are the future of this country. The House has extended the Perkins Loan Program for 1 year. Why won't the Senate do it? My colleague from Tennessee urges that we simplify the program. Well, let's simplify decisions that are being made right now at the kitchen tables and the living rooms of families across the country and make available this option even as we simplify and reform the program because the failure to do so vastly complicates and confuses the lives of students who are making real-life decisions while we debate. We are, in fact, debating right now a cyber security information sharing act which pertains to the cloud and computing that takes place in the cloud. We are talking here in the clouds compared to real-life decisions being made by students and their families every day. I am hearing from them. I am hearing from financial aid administrators, for example at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, CT, who tell me that there is a level of anxiety and angst they have not seen in recent years because of this body's inaction, its failure to continue a program that has worked and worked well for countless students. In fact, in the 2014-2015 school year, institutions in Connecticut disbursed over $20 million through the Perkins Loan Program, using that funding to provide targeted financial aid to support their very neediest students. Low-income students who face a gap in funding and who have to make hard decisions about real dollars and cents need this program not early next year but right now. The Senate's failure to act, as the House has done, to extend it for 1 year, abrogates its responsibility. In previous years, Quinnipiac, for example, would have been able to offer these students Perkins loans to close the gaps between what financial aid they are receiving and what they need to continue their education. This year, they are telling students: Sorry, no help available. These students are the future of our country. They are the ones who are going to be doing the computer science that is necessary for our cyber security. They are the intellectual infrastructure of this country. Our failure to invest in them--and this expiration is only one reflection of that failure to invest--is a failure for the entire country. I received a note from Nicole Deck--a sophomore at the University of New Haven--telling me how she benefitted from the Perkins program. She is pursuing a double major in marine biology and environmental science. She wrote to me saying: ``I appreciate every day that I spend at the University of New Haven thanks to the aid of the Federal Perkins loans.'' She said: ``Receiving money from the Federal Perkins Loan has allowed me to achieve many of my goals and has opened many doors of opportunity.'' The doors of opportunity for Nicole in marine biology and environmental science on the shores of Long Island Sound, where she can put that science to work to help to save Long Island Sound and to help us nationally to preserve our environment, are not only doors of opportunity for her, they are doors of opportunity for our whole country. The failure to extend the Perkins loan program closes those doors. I met recently with seniors at the New Britain High School. At New Britain High School, these seniors are thinking about where they will be going to school. They are making life-changing and transformative decisions about their futures based on their financial alternatives. When I asked them ``How many of you have, in effect, abandoned the school of your first choice because you couldn't afford it and Federal aid was not available and no scholarships were accessible?'' about half of them raised their hands. I thought to myself, well, things often work out for the better but sometimes not. Sometimes futures are constrained and warped and distorted because a young person with great potential is unable to develop it because of an avenue of education blocked by financial unaffordability. My colleagues have stated very powerfully and eloquently and it has been a bipartisan debate about what the Perkins Loan Program means to so many students. I will close by saying that this program involves an example of real institutional skin in the game. It requires institutional capital contributions as a requirement for a school's participation. It fills the gap of affordability that affects our very neediest and often most deserving students. Our constituents will rightly ask us: Did you reject the student loan program? No, we did not reject it. Did you renew it? No. We simply allowed it to die. This program has gone into the cloud. We have allowed this to expire when we could extend it for 1 year without really damaging the reform effort underway. I want to repeat that I respect the HELP Committee chairman's intention and goal to reform all student loan programs, but in the meantime, futures of American students are affected unfairly and unwisely by the inaction by this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I respect deeply and in fact support the arguments made by my colleague from Florida. There are goals here to be served, and I strongly support them as well. Accountability has been lacking for too long in the Department of Veterans Affairs. That is a simple fact on which we can all agree. In fact, we took a major step in the right direction with the passage of the access and accountability act during the last session with bipartisan support. I would support this measure if a number of simple changes were made to it to comply with the Constitution. This measure lacks some of the basic constitutional guarantees that again and again the Supreme Court of the United States has said are absolutely mandatory. This bill, unfortunately, fails to provide sufficient notice in advance of any firing or disciplinary action, a statement of cause, a right to be heard, and an opportunity for basic administrative constitutional guarantees. I commit to work with my colleague from Florida on seeking to improve this bill. In fact, I have proposed a measure that is now pending in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, S. 1856, which will improve the management of the VA in many of the same ways, but it avoids these constitutional pitfalls. As a former attorney general, I care deeply about enforcement, which is to say effective enforcement. A disciplinary action now under appeal in the Federal circuit will decide the constitutionality of exactly these procedures. In the meantime, we ought to avoid creating unnecessary litigation and challenge to a law that should be enforced effectively. This one, unfortunately, cannot be. I believe strongly there are measures and ways to achieve greater accountability. It isn't a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity that the VA is held accountable. The more effective way to hold the VA accountable is to pass a measure that is fully constitutional and, in addition, provides more effective protection for whistleblowers. They are the ones who come forward speaking truth to power. They are the ones with critical facts necessary for accountability. This measure, unfortunately, fails to afford sufficient protection for those whistleblowers. Therefore, I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, one last word. I want to simply concur in the very powerful and eloquent statements made by my colleague from Florida. I think we all share those sentiments in this body that--and I am quoting now from legislation: Any employee who engages in malfeasance, overprescription of medication, insubordination, violation of any duty of care should be disciplined and very possibly fired. We are talking about the process to achieve that end. I can commit that I will work with my colleague from Florida to make sure this body approves a measure that is effective as a deterrent to those kinds of violations of basic duty. To be effective as a deterrent, it has to be enforceable, and that is our common goal here.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would be more than willing--indeed, happy--to work with my colleague from Florida on specific language that improves the whistleblower protection language. I think his bill takes a step in the right direction by providing that the Office of Special Counsel provide approval for any disciplinary action. That is a good step, but I believe it could be made more effective. I think the opportunity to be heard with notice for cause or discipline or firing is essential to effective enforcement. I share the goal--strongly share it--of making sure that accountability is enforced.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are saying today not only enough is enough but also: Rise up, America, and demand action from this Congress, which for too long has been complicit--in fact, an aider and abettor in the mass killings that have taken place at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Charleston, Sandy Hook, and now Roseburg. If America rises up, Congress will hear and heed that message, just as it would in any public health crisis, and today we face a public health crisis as real and urgent as a contagion of flu or tuberculosis or, yes, Ebola. The same kind of urgency and immediacy in response is necessary--commonsense, sensible measures to fill gaps, close loopholes, and expand existing law to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. One of those principles should be this: no background check, no gun; no check, no sale. Let us close the gap that permits countless criminals to buy guns because the background check isn't complete within the required 72 hours. One of the 15,729 ineligible purchasers over the last 5 years-- people who were barred by law from buying guns--was Dylann Roof in Charleston. He used his gun to kill nine people in a church in Charleston. He was ineligible to buy a gun, but the background check was not completed within 72 hours. We are igniting and activating a silent majority in America. More than 90 percent of the American people want background checks on every gun buyer, along with other commonsense measures, such as a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases and a mental health initiative in school safety. Let us give America its say, and this moment is one we should seize to say: Rise up, America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, what we saw in Roseburg last week was a repeat of the evil we have seen in countless places across the country, causing tens of thousands of deaths in towns and cities and suburbs and rural areas across this country. Evil visited Roseburg. We saw the worst of human character in those moments of mass killing. We saw also the best in human character in the response from the firemen, police, and emergency responders who risked their lives and saved lives. When the sound of gunshots rang out that morning, my own recollection was triggered of a morning just a few years earlier when I stood with the parents and loved ones on that day of the mass slaughter in Sandy Hook in Newtown. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Roseburg, with the victims and their loved ones. I know that nothing said here--certainly nothing I can say--will help mend those wounds and ease the grief and pain of those loved ones for the great lives lost and the many left behind. I am frustrated and angry coming here today because the places of those mass killings have become shorthand for a deep disease, an epidemic of violence in America today--Virginia Tech, Columbine, Charleston, Sandy Hook, Newtown, and now Roseburg. They are shorthand for mass slaughters which have occurred at the rate of about one a week while President Obama has been in office. There have been 142 school shootings since Newtown alone. There are 30,000 deaths per year in America, the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. The mass killings are not even the source of the largest numbers. They are individual deaths, such as that of Javier Martinez, a young man from New Haven with an enormously bright and promising future. When I visited his school after he was killed by a gun because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, his classmates asked me to talk about gun violence--not as an abstract notion but as a real threat to them and their community. It is a phenomenon that faces every community every day, everywhere, and everyone. All of us are touched by it if we think about it, if we put aside the denial that all too often affects us, a denial that causes people to minimize the threat. We all are victims or we know victims or we know of the tragic consequences of real stories in our community as a result of gun violence. The deaths in Roseburg are tragic, but no less tragic was Javier Martinez' death, nor are the gun deaths that occur in situations that involve domestic violence, gangs, fights between individuals, accidents, and suicides--a major source of death by gun violence--and countless other circumstances where people who are dangerous or who lack the mental health or the maturity to responsibly use guns nonetheless have access to them and use them for deadly purposes. Let's be very clear. The Second Amendment is a guarantee under our Constitution to law-abiding citizens that they can use guns for lawful purposes, whether recreational or hunting, that they can possess as many as they please, and the vast majority of them support measures that will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people is the reason we have advanced commonsense, sensible measures to stop gun violence, and the failure to adopt them has made Congress complicit--in effect an aider and abettor to those deaths--because Congress has enabled the continuation of death and destruction that has become a fact of life in America, a disgraceful and shameful emblem of Congress's failure to act. There is a point when inaction causes culpability, when it becomes, in effect, aiding and abetting and complicity. Congress in some ways might just as well be standing at the elbows of those shooters, whether in Charleston or Roseburg or Sandy Hook or elsewhere. Regret and grief are appropriate, but they are no solution. They are no excuse for inaction. Inaction is reprehensible when it comes to gun violence--an epidemic and disease spreading in this country just as surely as a contagion or infection. The inaction of this body speaks louder than words. My simple reaction is, enough--enough of inaction. The time for action is now on universal background checks, a ban on illegal trafficking and straw purchases, a prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, as well as mental health initiatives and school safety measures. This kind of comprehensive package of reforms has been proposed. This body failed to adopt it, but that is no excuse for inaction now. There is no one measure, no single solution, no panacea, no simple fix to this problem, but we must begin because laws have consequences. I refuse to adopt the defeatist or denial approach of many of our colleagues who say the laws simply will not work, cannot do anything, will not solve the problem. We are here because we believe laws can improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no less so when it comes to gun violence or any other problem we face. In fact, we ought to approach this issue of gun violence with the same urgency and immediacy that America would in attempting to solve any public health crisis because surely we face a public health crisis and emergency in gun violence. When there is a spread of a contagious disease, whether it is flu, tuberculosis, or Ebola, we track the source, hospitalize the victims, take remedial action, admit them to treatment, and take preventive measures to prevent that kind of disease from recurring. When there is a spread of food poisoning, we don't throw up our arms and say there is nothing laws can do. In fact, law enforcement and health authorities track down the packages that are contaminated and provide relief for the people who suffer from that kind of occurrence and take preventive measures to stop it from recurring by imposing sanitary conditions and rules and regulations on the food producer. Infections, contagion, and spread of disease can be deadly and crippling; they can threaten fear and harm and cause panic. Gun violence is exactly the same. It is equally insidious and pernicious, and its impact is greater than any of those single epidemics. The spread of stolen guns--guns that are stolen or illegally purchased--is much like a disease in America today, and the ones who will testify to that fact are our law enforcement authorities who see it firsthand and are on our side in urging responsible, commonsense measures and reform. When this Nation faced, in effect, an epidemic of car deaths and injuries, we didn't stop everyone from driving, but we did put in place reasonable safeguards--seatbelt laws, drunk driving measures, and speed limits--and we enforced them. They were resisted at the time. Drunk driving measures caused outrage among some civil libertarians, but now they are part of our everyday expectations about how life will work in America, and they have drastically reduced auto fatalities and injuries. The recognition of the damage and destruction that has been caused by automobiles means that we educate and we take commonsense, responsible measures. Much of the knowledge that led to those commonsense, sensible measures came from research--yes, knowledge. It was fact-based, evidence-driven research done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Like many of my colleagues, I am dismayed by the fact that similar, incredibly valuable public health data about gun control from this world-class institution is unavailable to us because of the restrictive, politically motivated budget riders forbidding it. It is unconscionable that Congress's response to this problem is denial, shutting out research and responsible, fact-based evidence involving the provision of information. This country knows how to respond to a public health crisis. We are America. We face the challenges; we don't deny or disparage the truth tellers. After the Stockton schoolyard shooting in California where 34 children were shot and 5 killed, President George H.W. Bush issued an Executive order in 1989 banning the import of semiautomatic assault rifles. There were repeated circumventions of that order. Part of the response was, in 1994, a measure authored by Senator Feinstein--our great colleague--banning the manufacture and transfer of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That measure expired, but it shows how we can act and how we can face challenges. Ronald Reagan was almost killed by an assassin's bullet--a would-be assassin's bullet--in 1981. Ten years after the event, he wrote in the New York Times that if the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act reduced gun deaths by as little as 10 percent, it would be ``well worth making it the law of the land because there would be a lot fewer families facing anniversaries such as the Bradys and the Reagan's faced every March 30th.'' That bill, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, became law in 1993 with his support 12 years after that near assassination. Both Stockton and the Reagan near assassination show that these measures are possible. It may look like a marathon. It is never a sprint. It is not only possible, it is obligatory. I look forward to a number of my colleagues and myself--and I note that a partner in this effort has been my colleague Senator Murphy, who will follow me shortly--I look forward to all of us coming together and spearheading and championing again a set of reforms that will help make America safer and better. The time for action is truly now. This public health emergency cannot go unaddressed. The gap in our current laws can be remedied. I have already offered the Lori Jackson Violence Survivor Protection Act, a bill named for a brave Connecticut mother of two children who was estranged from her husband, fled her home for her life, obtained a temporary restraining order for her and her children's protection, and then was gunned down by her estranged husband because the temporary protective order did not require him to surrender his weapon--a gap in the law that must be remedied. That bill would do so. This bill is modest. My bill would close this loophole requiring protective orders, whether temporary or permanent, to require the surrendering of weapons. Women who are victims of domestic violence are at the greatest risk. Women who are victims of this insidious peril are most in danger when they first leave or try to leave. That is when the temporary order is, in effect, most necessary, the danger at its greatest but the law at its weakest in stopping gun violence. We are on the right side of history. We are on the right side of law enforcement. We are on the right side of public opinion. The overwhelming majority of Americans clearly favor these kinds of measures and the overwhelming majority of gun owners too. If history is on our side, we must be on the right side of this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to keep faith with the victims of Newtown and Sandy Hook, to demonstrate that our grief and regret is more than just words, that it will lead to action. The time for action is now. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding and giving me this opportunity to discuss two measures that ought to be beyond debate or discussion on this floor as well as in America--two issues where Americans ought to unite and be together without controversy or contention. The first relates to the emergency responders who rushed to the rubble of the World Trade Center in New York in the wake of that horrific attack on America on September 11. I want to join and thank my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, who just spoke on the floor, and associate myself completely with his very eloquent and powerful explanation for why this Nation must meet its obligation to provide critical health care for those emergency responders, firemen, police, and medical personnel who went to that site, even as it continued to smolder with poisonous chemicals and fumes, risking their lives in the face of peril that they little understood and could not know. They never asked whether that place was dangerous, but, in fact, as we now know, it has caused countless cancers, blood diseases, and lung problems, which have manifested themselves in the years after. Yet at midnight last night, the beginning of this day, the programs designed to provide critical medical care and compensation to the victims were permitted to expire. That is unconscionable and unacceptable. I join my colleagues from New York and New Jersey as a leading cosponsor in urging this Congress to act--and to act immediately and urgently--to make sure that we do what is right for those emergency responders who served and sacrificed in the wake of 9/11. Failure to do so is absolutely outrageous. The fund still has some money, and it will continue to function. But this Congress should act to pass the Zadroga 9/11 bill immediately. Madam President, the second area where I think we ought to be all agreeing relates to doing what is right for our veterans, and that means restoring the $857 million that has been deleted from the President's request for veterans in the Military Construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. This bill essentially shortchanges our veterans and straitjackets the Veterans' Administration. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the American Legion.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. This letter emphasizes the challenges that the VA faces in meeting the unprecedented and increasing demand for services that our veterans need and deserve. This obligation for our country is not a matter of discretion or convenience, it is a promise that we have made and we must fulfill to provide medical care, skills training, job opportunity, and, most especially, the mental health care that our veterans need so that we can stop the 22 suicides every day in this country--the greatest, strongest, country in history of our world, where 22 of our Nation's heroes commit suicide every day. They suffer from the invisible wounds of war, post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. Many of our veterans suffer the more visible wounds, and they need care as well. Many of our veterans in increasing numbers will be coming out of the service needing jobs and skills training, not only through the VA but the Department of Labor. Just yesterday, the nominee for the Veterans Employment and Training Services position in the Department of Labor testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee as to the importance of services provided by the Department of Labor, and yet they too will be shortchanged by this budget. So I urge my colleagues to provide sufficient funding to restore that $857 million and to make sure that we meet those needs of our veterans. Failing to do so is as unacceptable as failing to meet the needs of the emergency responders who went to the 9/11 site. This bill underfunds the VA's medical facilities by $100 million, reducing the VA's ability to keep pace with the need for critical facility maintenance. This is upkeep that is vital for basic repair and maintenance. Facilities will decay and downgrade without that funding. It is an investment in basic infrastructure. We ought to be investing in the personnel of the VA--the doctors and nurses and other professionals--so that we recruit and retain the men and women who will really do the work on the ground in the trenches to make sure that the VA provides the best care possible--world-class care to our veterans. They deserve no less. Fully funding the VA honors the service and sacrifice of men and women who have risked their lives to keep our great Nation free. Freedom is never free, and this Nation ought to be keeping its promise to those veterans, which, unfortunately, sadly, reprehensibly, this measure fails to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I note that my colleague from South Carolina has arrived on the floor, and I would happily yield to him if he wishes to go. Otherwise, I will be very brief.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I want to second the very powerful remarks made by my colleague from Indiana. In Connecticut, what I hear again and again is the need for this body to address jobs and the economy. They are talking about putting people back to work and moving our economy forward. That is what I have sought to do from day one in the U.S. Senate and what I will continue to fight to do. That is what we should be doing through reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, creating more jobs in an infrastructure program worthy of the name, and repairing and reinvigorating our roads, bridges, ports, airports, and our railroads which need to be made more safe and reliable. That is what we should be doing in programs for veterans--particularly in veterans health care--putting our veterans to work, programs that provide for skill training and job opportunities for them. There are so many momentous issues facing our Nation today, and that is the challenge we should be facing in the U.S. Senate. Yet tomorrow we will be voting on a bill that is divisive, dangerous, and doomed to failure. Even today, we are spending valuable time debating it. The bill before us is both unconscionable and unconstitutional. It is a waste of time because tomorrow it will be defeated, in effect. We are engaged in a political charade here. The timing may not be accidental, but there is no good time for a blatantly and plainly unconstitutional proposal. Sadly, it is only the latest in a long line of unconstitutional proposals since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade which enshrined a woman's constitutionally protected right to make her own reproductive decisions. There have been incessant and constant attempts by politicians to substitute their own judgment for hers, for her doctor's, her family's, and for her religious advisers. These decisions should be a woman's to make. The onslaught on women's health care, unfortunately, has been a fact of life in this Nation. The bill before us now will ban abortion care after 20 weeks of pregnancy except for so-called exceptions. The inadequacy of those exceptions alone doom this bill to unconstitutional status. The legislation represents an unconstitutional interference as a matter of policy and law with the woman's right to choose the care that is best for her and the failure to recognize the many complex factors that may be involved in that decision, medical complications that often lead to a woman's decision to seek a late-term abortion. The bill would place in her way a host of unnecessary, unwise, and burdensome requirements. In effect, this bill would force women--including all who have been through the traumatic experience of rape or incest--to meet a combination of a myriad of reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In many cases, the bill would require survivors of heinous crimes to make multiple appointments with multiple providers before having the right to reproductive care and force her to relive her traumatic experiences before having the benefit of those services. It would place numerous nonmedical requirements on doctors, such as forcing them to determine whether survivors of rape or incest have reported their experience to appropriate law enforcement entities, essentially forcing doctors to choose between criminal penalties and doing what is best for patients' health, which is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose this measure. None of these requirements placed on women or their doctors are rooted in science, health, or safety. None of these requirements are consistent with the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive care and abortion. Simply put, women's health care decisions should be left to women, their families, themselves, their doctors, and themselves. That is the essence of the constitutionally protected right of privacy that underlies all of these rights. It is the right to be left alone from men and women in this Chamber who would intrude and invade that right. This measure also implicitly encourages an ongoing and indeed intensifying assault on women's health care among the States. Many other unconstitutional and unconscionable attacks on women's health care are increasing at the State level and making it harder for women to access reproductive health care in general. There is an increasing drumbeat of regulations and restrictions that attack women's health care and make it harder to access as State governments pass more regulations. Those regulations number now 230 in the past 5 years. They are nothing more than embarrassing attempts to deny women's health care in the guise of invasive and unnecessary medical tests, arbitrary building regulations, and financially unsustainable procedures. That is why Senator Baldwin and I have proposed the Women's Health Protection Act, joined by 31 of our colleagues, to make sure that those State laws are stopped before they cause the costs, fear, and uncertainty, as they are bound to do and as they have done in many States around the country. These State laws are beyond wrong. They are dangerous to women's health care. My hope is that we will be proactive in protecting a woman's right to care, not encourage the worst of State practices that are embodied in these restrictive State laws. Finally, I am dismayed that the House of Representatives actually has taken a step toward gutting a measure designed to help veterans. The Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015--a bipartisan measure that I cosponsored with my colleague Senator Flake designed to do just what the title says: to utilize the skills and expertise of our veterans to help fill vacancies at our borders, to use veterans to stop illegal immigration--that bill has been gutted and unfortunately has been made a vehicle to deny health care to women. The provisions of this transformed legislation are a disservice to our veterans. I thought veterans legislation would be out of bounds for this fight. Sadly, apparently not. I urge my colleagues to find more productive ways to use our time, to address the needs, to expand job opportunities, to move our economy forward, and to drive economic growth. A bipartisan goal we should all share is to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and to make sure we serve the best instincts of this Nation and preserve our Constitution from these unwarranted attacks. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am always a little more than awed and inspired to be here on the floor of the United States Senate, a place that my father never could have predicted that I would be when he came here in 1935, an immigrant, fleeing persecution in Germany at 17 years old with not much more than the shirt on his back, speaking no English, and knowing virtually no one. This country gave him a chance to succeed. This great country opened its arms to him, much as the Statue of Liberty did, when he entered this country through Ellis Island. We are a nation of immigrants and of refugees. It has given us strength. Our diversity is what makes America the greatest, strongest country in the history of the world. Sadly, the kind of displacement that caused him to come to this country is far from unprecedented. This country has opened its arms again and again and again, generation after generation, to provide for refugees displaced by war and oppression. Inhumane dictators, territorial disputes, environmental degradation, all are contributing now more than ever to the largest refugee crisis since World War II. We are going through a humanitarian crisis in this country. Part of it is due to the brutality and inhumanity of the Assad regime in Syria, the horrors unleashed by ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Neighboring countries have been overwhelmed by fleeing refugees. During my Middle East trip in July 2013 with Senator McCain and others, I visited a refugee camp in Jordan that houses many of these refugees and, since my visit, the situation has only worsened significantly. Syria alone has produced an estimated 4 million registered refugees-- those are the individual ones counted--in addition to the 7.6 million internally displaced people. Turkey bears the brunt of this refugee crisis, housing nearly 2 million of them. Lebanon shelters over 1.1 million refugees, while Jordan has taken 600,000 or more, and Egypt recently exceeded the 130,000 mark. These numbers are abstract. For every one of them, there is a human voice and a face. Many are children barely able to comprehend the fate that has befallen them. This year alone, Germany is expecting 800,000 asylum seekers, a marked increase from 626,000 in 2014 and 431,000 in 2013. Again, these numbers have impact on those countries, on their populations. We met this morning with the Ambassadors of the European countries to hear about that impact on them and about their plans to do even more. The Atlantic Ocean separates us from this crisis physically, but morally we have no separation at all. The destabilizing effect of that massive displacement ultimately affects us as well, our national security, and the stability of regions where we have a vital economic stake and a moral obligation. I strongly support a policy of American generosity and humanitarian relief toward those refugees seeking to escape the untenable and unlivable conditions in Syria and Iraq. Exactly what steps this Nation should take will be a matter of contention and continuing debate, but clearly, we have obligations--moral obligations, self-interested obligations, economic obligations--to the men, women, and children who have walked hundreds of miles in search of safety and security and to the countries currently searching for ways to accommodate them. Our obligation is multifaceted. First, we have provided $4 billion in aid--which is real money--to countries where those refugees now live temporarily in camps. But humanitarian aid is desperately needed in greater amounts and rising magnitude in countries where refugees are flowing fast. Regional countries, including Turkey and Jordan, as well as the European Union, must be able to provide refugee camps that provide basic necessities for people to live, with adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, education, and other elements of a safe and stable life for adults but also for children who can be seen running, laughing, playing in these camps in the most rudimentary of conditions. The United States must show international leadership as well in ensuring the availability of resources from other nations that, frankly, have failed to meet the test of moral and political obligation. Saudi Arabia is one. The Gulf States are others. Our allies in this region must fulfill their obligation to do more and to do their part in assisting those fleeing war and bringing about a diplomatic resolution to the crisis. The absence of these nations from this challenge is reprehensible and regrettable. Ultimately, Syria must seek and achieve a resolution internally but, in the meantime, its neighbors have an obligation to do more. I applaud the President's announcement that the United States will resettle approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees within our borders next year. As my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has said this step is certainly in the right direction. But increasing the number of refugees coming here is an insufficient response alone if we fail to provide the expanded capacity and services that are necessary to effectively resettle and bring to this country refugees fleeing their homeland. Our focus should be on devising an effective program so that candidates for resettlement can have that hope without waiting years for assistance. Now, under the present system, they are waiting here. In particular, I wish to cite a group of refugees that merits the special conscience and conviction of this Nation. They are the refugees--mostly women and young girls--who are victims of what the New York Times, in an extraordinary report, has called enshrining the theology of rape. These girls and women have been enslaved. They are members of the Yazidi community. This New York Times report shows the systematic enslavement and rape of women and children held in the territory that ISIL controls. Approximately 5,000 Yazidis have been abducted by ISIL and 2,700 remain in captivity. These reports, which are shocking and horrifying, challenge our conscience to do more. Nobody reading them can think of our daughters, the women in our family, without revulsion and shock. At the end of this week, several of my colleagues and I will be sending a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry urging him to take further action to help the Yazidis, the Christians, and other religious minorities who have been systematically kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, raped, and brutalized by ISIL simply because of their faith. We talk a great deal on the floor in this body, in this building, and in this country about faith. The horror of this persecution calls to our conscience. I am calling on the State Department to declare religious minorities as protected, priority groups, able to seek refugee assistance within Iraq's borders. As of now, the only Iraqis allowed to leave the country with assistance in this way are the people who have been affiliated with the U.S. Government during the war. That category should be expanded to include these refugees. Second, I am calling on Secretary Kerry to improve the in-country processing for refugee claims in Iraq, specifically, the time required for that processing. The estimated time for Iraqis who served alongside U.S. military personnel is at the unacceptably high rate of 5 years to 8 years. This issue has been brought to me by numerous veterans--Iraq and Afghanistan veterans--who owe their lives, in some cases, to the service of these Iraqi and Afghan colleagues. Yet they wait there 5 to 10 years simply to be processed to come here. We must assure timely access to refugee assistance for both Iraqis affiliated with the U.S. Government and Iraqis within persecuted religious minorities such as the Yazidis and Christians. There is mounting, irrefutable evidence of that persecution on a scale that sometimes defies imagination and comprehension. There are many ways the State Department can accelerate processing times: Double the number from 10 to 20 of in-country State Department personnel processing Iraqi refugees; consult with the Department of Homeland Security on the use of video interviews, consistent with security requirements, to be conducted in addition to the in-person interviews currently required; identify a nongovernmental organization to work with the U.S. Embassy to identify and screen religious minorities seeking refugee assistance in Erbil; and establish a facility in Erbil where the U.S. Government can conduct refugee processing. These steps are not particularly complicated or ingenuous; they are common sense. The United States has a proud, moral tradition and heritage of aiding refugees. That tradition and heritage are epitomized by the Statue of Liberty and by Ellis Island. The Nation has not always lived up to the high standards that have been set for it by us. We are still very much a work in progress, and there are times in our history when we have failed the high test of morality. But the Statue of Liberty stands tall at our harbor and embodies what is best about our Nation. We are a nation of immigrants truly because we welcome the tired and hungry, yearning to be free. We need to demonstrate the international leadership that has made us proud in the past to establish a new, inconclusive vision for Syria; to abate this refugee crisis; to provide a path for them to come here; and to provide them, consistent with our security, the opportunities that fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers had--going back in history, all of us have come here from somewhere else, or almost all of us--and humane and effective policies that help us to keep alive that great tradition and heritage, serving millions of people who are tired, weary, yearning to be free and seek that lamp beside the golden door. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my friend and colleague from Rhode Island in his very eloquent and powerful remarks, and I wish to add my own on the same topic. The question of whether the Senate should accept the agreement between the P5+1 and Iran to end their illicit and treacherous nuclear program is one of the most difficult and critical matters of national security that I have confronted since my election to the Senate. I am deeply grateful to many in my State of Connecticut, here in Washington, DC, and around the country who have offered me their insight, interest, and involvement--most especially the people of Connecticut who have given me their thoughts in letters, in emails, phone calls, and in one-on-one conversations across our State in a vast variety of settings, whether at parades or fairs or in one-on-one meetings or meetings in groups. I have made my decision based on conscience and conviction. I will vote to accept the proposed agreement concerning Iran's nuclear program and against the resolution of disapproval before the Senate. My two paramount goals have been consistently and constantly to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to do so by peaceful means. I believe this agreement, using diplomacy, not military force, is the most viable remaining path now available--now available--to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. This agreement is not the one I would have negotiated or accepted, but it is better than no deal. This agreement is an opportunity for us to push back and deter Iran, and it brings on us a special obligation of vigilance and vigorous enforcement. It can be made better. It can be improved and strengthened through unilateral action by the United States and through consultation and collaboration with our allies, not resuming or reopening the negotiations but acting in collaboration with our allies, as well as through actions we can take as a nation alone and working closely with our ally, our friend, our critical partner in the Middle East, the State of Israel. The administration set forth a case that the current agreement immediately reduces Iran's nuclear program and places it under a series of overlapping safeguards. Together these measures push a threshold nuclear power back from the brink. The agreement imposes an intrusive inspection and surveillance regime relying on international certification and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Future U.S. Presidents have the authority immediately and through Executive order to reimpose our sanctions if Iranian actions are inconsistent with our national security. Rejecting this agreement is fraught with unacceptable risk. Our formal negotiation partners and allies have signaled clearly they are simply not coming back to the table--a point confirmed in my direct conversations and meetings. There is no better deal available now. The present sanctions will soon become unenforceable, producing an economic windfall for Iran whether or not the United States accepts this agreement. The United States, instead of Iran, would be isolated, and Iran's nuclear program would be unconstrained. Rejection would fracture our unified efforts with our allies and greatly weaken international pressure on Iran and undermine American leadership on this issue and others, especially if economic sanctions are needed in the event of a violation. This agreement has shortcomings, no doubt, and they are serious. I have listened to my colleagues, including Chairman Corker, whom I deeply respect, and others here today, enumerate a number of them. Yet I remain convinced the most constructive and clear-eyed role for Congress is to support specific steps to make implementation and enforcement of this agreement stronger and more effective. In fact, in my view, the day after this agreement is approved and accepted is as important as the agreement itself--the day after, the months after, and the years after because that is when this agreement must be enforced vigorously and strenuously and unyieldingly. I have taken additional time to look beyond this agreement to create a blueprint for diplomatic steps to strengthen it. Specifically, I am working with the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, to craft new legislation. Congress must act to encourage and enable diplomacy with Iran, which is not only possible but critically important. Now we must begin the process of addressing those shortfalls and shortcomings, unwanted impacts and consequences revealed during congressional review of the agreement. No. 1, countering Iranian terror with dollar-for-dollar sanctions. To counter Iran's role as a leading state sponsor of terrorism, Congress must sustain and expand existing sanctions that crack down on terror financing and demand their full enforcement by both the United States and the European Union. I will continue--indeed, I will increase--pressing Secretary of State John Kerry to take long overdue, aggressive steps to interdict arms to Hezbollah, and I will work to block Hezbollah's financing and logistical support from Iran, applying tools and techniques available through our banking and financial system. No. 2, empowering our allies to counter Iran and terror proxies. We must renew and reinvigorate our efforts to protect our allies, especially Israel--our major strategic partner in the Middle East--from the threat of Iran and its terror proxies. We need a new framework of defense cooperation that takes into account how this agreement will affect the changing threat from Iran. Congress must work to expand Israel's qualitative military edge and bolster intelligence cooperation. The Pentagon must establish new joint training exercises that involve strategic air assets and invite Israeli pilots to train flying long-range bombers. Now is the time to aid Israel with extra F-35 Joint Strike Fighter squadrons and the tankers they need to cut off any threat to Israel--well before it reaches their borders. No equipment should be precluded if needed for Israel's self- defense. As a member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, I will work to establish such a parallel agreement with Israel to cover threats, both nuclear and conventional, along with an ongoing joint review forum, bringing together the United States, Israel, and NATO members to enhance our deterrent capabilities. No. 3, preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. The United States must reaffirm unequivocally that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and that all available options will be used to stop it from ever accumulating enough highly enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium to produce one. Such a policy is consistent with this agreement. Congress must articulate in statute that that policy is unchallengeable and that Iranian violations both during this agreement and afterward will be met with strong, unquestionable action. It must be clear we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf region, and those vital interests include preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. It is a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy. As a member of the agreement, the United States is in a stronger position to deter and remedy violations, whether through economic sanctions or military action as a last resort. If the agreement is rejected and economic sanctions or military actions are ever necessary, we would act alone. That is a simple fact about our rejection. If the agreement is accepted, we act with a coalition of allies and partners with the legitimacy and credibility of diplomacy having run its course and with the intelligence produced by inspections that will help to guide any military action necessary as a last resort. There will be popular support at home, which is absolutely necessary for such action. That support is essential because acting without it will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the President to in effect seek to enforce the very terms of an agreement this Nation has rejected, if that is the result. Most importantly, this agreement cannot be based on hope or trust. History belies both in our experience with Iran. This deal is not an agreement I have long sought, it is not the agreement I would have preferred, but it makes the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran less imminent. It requires the United States and the international community to sustain their commitment to verify and enforce its provisions over many years, and I am ready to join in the hard work of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran on this difficult diplomatic path. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am tempted to say there they go again, because we have seen this attack on women's health care again and again and again. It is a very weak excuse to defund Planned Parenthood. We know 97 percent of Planned Parenthood's activities have nothing to do with abortion. Let's stand strong for women's health care to protect women against cancer, against hepatitis, against sexually transmitted diseases. Eighty percent of Planned Parenthood's clients have nowhere else to go for those vital services. We will not tolerate this attack on women's health care under the guise of stopping abortion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, even in the greatest deliberative body in this Nation and likely the world, there are moments of profound sadness and regret, and this moment is one for me. I am deeply dismayed that the Republican leadership is engaging in an effort--an effort doomed to fail in just a couple of hours--to defund probably the most trusted provider of health care for women in the United States of America. It is misguided because there are so many significant issues that should be front and center for this body: making sure that we invest in our roads and bridges, making sure that we improve our education system, making sure that we keep faith with our veterans. So many of them are going nowhere because of this partisan paralysis and gridlock. Dismayingly to the American people, that has prevented real action. I regret that we are, in effect, distracted from those goals and those missions that the American people expect us to fulfill. Once again, many of my colleagues across the aisle have aligned themselves with the most extreme of the anti-choice movement to undermine access to critical health care services for women--for millions of women in this country and thousands in Connecticut who depend on Planned Parenthood for basic health care screenings, cancer diagnosis, family planning, and contraception services, which distinguish it as one of the most trusted health care providers in the United States. It is the Republican leadership--not just a few Senators but the Republican leadership--that has set up this vote to defund Planned Parenthood. So instead of the Senate moving forward to provide additional health care services to women, it has engaged in this onslaught and assault on women's health care, taking a step back with legislation that is really--let me say bluntly--a political charade, a stunt, a bill or legislative measure that will go nowhere and is as much a sham for the supporters as it is for opponents. The fact is Planned Parenthood provides health care services to women across this country. Only 3 percent of its activity relates to abortion. So 97 percent of what it does is to provide screenings, diagnosis, and family planning. If this measure goes through, millions of women will be undiagnosed with cervical and breast cancer, millions of women will be denied access to contraception and family planning, and millions of young women will be denied the kind of education they need to prevent pregnancy. It is in preventing pregnancy that so often Planned Parenthood is engaged, and to make it safe, legal, and rare. Eliminating $528 million from the largest women's health care provider in the country would create a public health crisis. Pure and simple, a public health crisis would be the inevitable consequence of this measure to defund Planned Parenthood. Of the 2.7 million women Planned Parenthood serves every year, 78 percent are low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, testing for sexually transmitted infections, hepatitis B vaccines, family planning counseling, education on how to recognize and leave abusive relationships, domestic violence, referrals to other medical specialists, and many other essential services that would be unaffordable and inaccessible without Planned Parenthood. Over half of Planned Parenthood's clinics serve women in medically underserved areas or in health provider shortage areas. So 13 of Connecticut's 17 women's health centers serve women in rural or medically underserved parts of my State. Defunding Planned Parenthood would mean 64,000 of my constituents could lose access to quality health services. Because there is no network of health care providers with the capacity to serve this population if Planned Parenthood is denied funding, millions of women--particularly Medicaid recipients--would lose access to quality health services, and the result would be a public health crisis. That is the stark reality of these numbers and statistics. Dry and abstract as they are, they stand for real-life consequences--real women whose lives will be inevitably transformed for the worse if this measure were to pass. Beyond the din of this place that so often consumes us--the confusion and the noise--there are real people whose lives will be affected by these kinds of measures and whose lives are affected even by the effort to defund Planned Parenthood because of the uncertainty and doubt that it creates. These real people are women such as Elizabeth A., who said: When I didn't have health insurance 3 years ago, I went to Planned Parenthood where I had access to safe, affordable, reproductive health care. I still go there for my health needs! I was able to get STD testing and birth control when I couldn't afford it anywhere else. Rachel S. of Naugatuck, CT: Birth control helped my husband and me put off having a family until we were financially ready to care for a child. The effects of pregnancy, both physically and financially, mean that free or low-cost birth control is an important factor in a successful future for both the woman and her family. And Nicole B. of West Haven, CT: I come to Planned Parenthood because it is a safe place to get birth control and exams. Everyone is helpful and non- judgmental. The city needs a place like this and many women benefit from Planned Parenthood services. These stories are from real people whose lives we in the Senate are supposed to care about. I care about them because I know so many women whose lives have been affected by Planned Parenthood. I know so many of the staff and dedicated professionals who work at Planned Parenthood clinics. One spoke to me on Saturday afternoon--one of the low points last week during the controversy that has enveloped Planned Parenthood-- about how she was inspired and revived by simply passing by a room where one of the counselors was talking to a group of young people, both men and women, about the education that was important to them as far as preventing unwanted pregnancy and how seeing Planned Parenthood at work in that setting--the real work of providing health care and education--inspired her to keep going despite those difficulties. The fact is that over and over my constituents, the people of Connecticut, have told me they choose Planned Parenthood because of the professionalism, dedication, and nonjudgmental approach to their patients. Many view Planned Parenthood as a safe space to come when they need advice, when they need medical examinations. If Republicans succeed in defunding it, women will be without their most trusted health care provider. So many of them are relying on it because it is trustworthy, professional, and dedicated to them--first and foremost to them. Today I stand with Planned Parenthood and the thousands and thousands of women in Connecticut and around the country who benefited from their services. I will vehemently oppose these efforts to allow a secretive and dishonest group to discredit and to dismay so many. They have manipulated the facts, put employees and volunteers in danger, and have eliminated the organization's ability to provide essential services. But the important point is that we resist this effort today to defund an organization that has provided so many services to so many people in need and has enabled this Nation to avert a public health crisis that will ensue if we follow this misguided effort, and that we follow our better instincts and make sure that we keep the faith with women who need health care in this Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, yesterday, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I introduced S. 1885, the Veteran Housing Stability Act of 2015. I would like to thank Senators Sanders, Brown, and Hirono for joining me to introduce this bill, and the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and the National Alliance to End Homelessness for their support of this legislation. At a time when the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has taken on an aggressive initiative to end homelessness among veterans by the end of 2015, much progress has been made yet there is still more progress needed. The VA initiative has led to a 33 percent decrease in the homeless veteran population since 2010. These declining numbers are a reflection of the combined efforts of VA and its Federal, State, local, tribal, and community partners as they continue aggressive efforts to decrease veteran homelessness and implement a system through which veterans who become homeless can be rapidly placed in appropriate housing situations that meet their needs. The statistics are staggering--49,000 veterans are homeless in America today, 1 in 10 of all homeless men and women--a searing failure in the greatest, strongest Nation in the world's history. It reflects a failure to keep faith that this legislation will help correct. We cannot allow another veteran to slip through the cracks. We must give communities the flexibility and tools they need to create housing systems that can maximize existing resources collaboratively in order to identify and sustain appropriate housing placements for vulnerable veterans. The legislation would reaffirm this Nation's commitment to safe and affordable housing for veterans by improving and expanding upon VA's programs to prevent and end homelessness among veterans. VA's housing programs for homeless and at-risk veterans must modernize to ensure that they are meeting the needs of the very veterans they are intended to serve. One of the challenges many identify as causing difficulty is one that mainstream housing programs also struggle with--insufficient availability of safe, affordable, permanent housing options. This measure will address the egregious, abhorrent problem of veteran homelessness with several common-sense, effective steps to increase housing for homeless and at-risk veterans. The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2015 would expand access to housing by requiring VA to collaborate with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other entities to conduct more robust landlord outreach and encourage more landlords to rent to veterans. Further, this bill would modify a VA program that provides critical savings to transitional housing providers, allowing these groups to spend limited funding to provide high-quality services rather than to retire the debt they would take on to acquire a facility in which to operate. VBA's Acquired Property Sales for Homeless Providers Program sells homes from VA's foreclosure inventory at a discount to nonprofit organizations for use as transitional housing for homeless veterans. As VA continues to shift its homeless programs into an approach that meets veterans at their point of need, rather than choosing a one-size-fits- all solution, more services are being provided under the housing-first model, which pairs housing with appropriate levels of case management. This pairing allows veterans to deal with the underlying issues that caused homelessness, rather than attempting to work through them while simultaneously looking for housing. It is critical that programs that offer more than transitional housing be allowed to benefit from this discount as well. As VA focuses on resolving homelessness, instead of just managing it, housing stability is increasingly a focus across the continuum of programs VA offers to eligible veterans. This bill will also modify VA's Grant and Per Diem Program, its largest transitional housing program, to allow VA to incentivize grantees to increase their focus on permanent housing and housing stability in support of the transitional housing program. More specifically, this bill provides VA with much needed authority to allow transitional housing providers to utilize their facility for permanent housing, and to receive a reduced per diem payment to provide case management for participating veterans. This would allow communities that are reaching critical junctures in the fight to end homelessness to repurpose existing transitional housing capacity for more pressing needs, such as permanent housing opportunities for veterans. As many initiatives across VA have faced performance challenges, it is paramount that we continue to examine all VA initiatives and identify metrics that can be tracked to keep the Department accountable. This legislation includes a provision that would require VA to set national performance targets for entities that receive per diem funding for transitional housing and examine them to determine whether the grantee's performance merits continued funding. Further, this bill also contains a provision that would prompt VA to utilize the data it collects to better target interventions offered by its assertive community teams engaging homeless veterans on the street. Requiring a more targeted effort focused on homeless veterans who are health care ``super-utilizers'' will reduce unnecessary utilization of health care and, subsequently the costs for care. Research has indicated that housing can be an effective health care intervention when paired with appropriate services and resources. At its very simplest, homelessness among veterans is preventable when there is coordination among the many services and resources available to lift a veteran up. We cannot sit by idly and allow another veteran to slip through the cracks. We must reach out and let them know when, where, and how to get the help that they need and that they have earned. This is not a full recitation of all the provisions within this legislation. However, I hope that I have provided an appropriate overview of the major benefits this legislation would provide.