Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up amendment No. 825.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from New Hampshire for her work on this amendment with my office. We have successfully completed language that I think moves us forward in the right direction. I also wish to thank my colleague Senator Sanders for his tireless efforts on behalf of veterans, indicated most recently by this amendment, which is fully compatible with the Ayotte amendment. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, it is with great admiration that I wish to recognize the laudable achievements of Protectors of Animals, a wonderful and innovative no-kill rescue and shelter organization based in East Hartford, CT. I am proud to highlight the occasion of their 40th Anniversary, and I wish to convey my deepest congratulations to them on this auspicious occasion. Protectors of Animals was founded in 1975 by a group of dedicated individuals brought together by their shared love for animals and commitment to animal welfare. Two of these individuals, Dru Harder and Phyllis Pavel, truly started off at the grassroots level, knocking on doors in their community in Portland, CT, in order to raise awareness and funds for their local pound. Over the years, Protectors of Animals' passion and tireless fight against animal cruelty has led them to great successes and enabled them to save countless abandoned and abused animals from being euthanized. They have also aided more than 14,000 cats and 7,000 dogs in finding caring homes across our State. The dedicated staff and volunteers at Protectors of Animals not only give animals shelter but help them to heal from past trauma and allow them to recreate caring relationships with humans that are built on trust. It is no surprise that this work has garnered deep and abiding support from animal lovers around Connecticut. This joint effort, backed by genuine values of humaneness and caring, has allowed them to meet the highest standards of accountability, as well as program and cost effectiveness. Protectors of Animals has been recognized by the Independent Charities of America with that organization's ``Best in America'' seal of approval, which is offered to a select few of the highest performing nonprofits in our Nation. Having personally supported Protectors of Animals over the years, I can attest to the devotion, commitment, and enthusiasm of everyone involved with their organization. I know how hard their founders, board of directors, staff, and volunteers have worked to support these goals. For its legacy of safeguarding animals and combating cruelty, I am proud to congratulate and celebrate Protectors of Animals on its 40th anniversary.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If I may have another minute to finish.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Which is what we should be doing here, and I believe we will do it. Loretta Lynch has a stellar record. She served with incredible distinction during her time as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. I suggest to my colleagues that the best way to serve the purpose of stopping trafficking is to confirm her so she can get to work on enforcing that new law.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to follow the distinguished Senator from Florida, and I join him in his observations of the ``60 Minutes'' show, but equally, if not more importantly, in his views on the letter that was sent to the rulers of Iran and its divisive and destructive impact on a matter that should be above partisan politics. To inject a partisan political issue into, literally, a matter of life and death, in my view, is unfortunate, inappropriate, and truly regrettable. Lynch Nomination Equally unfortunate, regrettable, and inappropriate is to inject politics into law enforcement. The nomination of the chief law enforcement officer in our Nation, the Attorney General--that position truly ought to be above politics. In fact, as we know from the structure of our government, it is generally regarded to be above politics. The President of the United States has his or her legal counsel to provide advice to the President, but the Attorney General of the United States enforces laws for this Nation--not for one party, not for one official, not on one issue, but on all issues for all people in the United States. When my colleagues have said on the floor that the President deserves his nominee, really it is the Nation that deserves a nominee to be confirmed. This nominee has been delayed longer than any in recent history. As my colleagues have observed and as this chart illustrates, 129 days have passed since Loretta Lynch's nomination. From announcement to confirmation, her nomination has been delayed longer than any in recent history--in fact, longer than any in modern history, putting aside the Meese nomination, which was delayed because of an ongoing investigation into alleged improprieties. There is no investigation here. There is no question of impropriety. There has been no hint of any reason to reject the Loretta Lynch nomination. The American people could be forgiven for thinking that some of the Members of this body are simply looking for an excuse to delay or deny her nomination. First, it was in our hearing questions about her capacity and qualifications. Those reasons or potential excuses for delaying or denying her nomination were quickly extinguished. Then it was the immigration issue. That too, as an excuse for delaying or denying this nomination, has been dispensed. Now it is the antitrafficking bill. No reason for delay could be more inappropriate, because the fact of the matter is the threat to delay again her nomination is antithetical to the very goal of stopping human trafficking. If my colleagues really want to end sex exploitation and human trafficking, they should confirm the chief law enforcement official who is responsible for fighting it. They should confirm the nominee who has indicated an anathema to this kind of abuse, who has shown her determination to fight it and to use all of the laws and potentially this new law in the war against human trafficking. The Senate is perfectly capable of filling this crucial position--the top law enforcement job in the Nation--even as it debates antitrafficking legislation. In fact, it has shown itself capable of doing so just last week when two nominees to Department of Transportation positions--important transportation positions, as I can say personally, because they involve the safety and reliability of our system--even as it continued to debate the antitrafficking legislation. Holding the Lynch nomination hostage--which is what is happening here--is a disservice to the Department of Justice but even more so to our system of justice. It undermines the integrity and trust in the nonpolitical nature of justice in this Nation. It does so at a time when vigorous and effective leadership is more important and necessary than ever. The Nation could be forgiven for assuming, as increasingly appears to be so, that the Lynch nomination is being held hostage or is simply a cynical excuse to prevent her from getting to work on protecting the American public from human trafficking, which is so important. There are legitimate points of debate between our sides on this issue. Those points of debate and differences need to be resolved, and I hope they will be. I trust they will be. I believe that they are resolvable and that extraneous or irrelevant provisions now in the bill can be removed so that we can focus on stopping modern-day slavery, which is what the--

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on two nominees who are critical to ensuring the safety of our Nation's transportation network: Christopher Hart, to be Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, also known as the NTSB, and Bella Dinh-Zarr to be a member of the Board. Mr. Hart has a distinguished career in aviation safety and has served with distinction as acting chair in recent months. Dr. Dinh-Zarr has a distinguished career in auto safety and will bring an important perspective and background to the board. Right now, the NTSB only has three members, with one--Mr. Hart-- serving as Acting Chairman. Today's vote will add another member and ensure Mr. Hart is Chairman in an official capacity. It is imperative that we have a strong, long-term team at the helm. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I know there is much important work ahead for the agency. The NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States as well as significant accidents in the other modes of transportation--railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline--and issuing safety recommendations to agencies and others in the transportation industry aimed at preventing future accidents. It is not a regulatory or oversight agency; rather, it has a unique task--investigating safety issues and accidents and then making recommendations on how we can save lives. It is independent, and this ensures that agencies that regulate and oversee safety aren't investigating themselves when and if there are potential lapses in their oversight. The NTSB's work is critical--and it has been very busy recently-- especially in my region. Last month, we saw a horrific collision at a railway crossing just outside of New York City on our commuter railroad, Metro-North. The tragic incident killed six, including a resident of Danbury, CT. The NTSB is investigating that crash, and its finding will help us so we don't have to witness similar disasters again. Having a full board helps this important work move forward. This recent investigation comes after the NTSB dedicated tremendous resources and hours into investigating other horrific incidents on Metro-North in 2013 and 2014. At one point, all of the NTSB's rail investigators worked on that one investigation, which resulted in a substantial report last November. The NTSB's conclusions in that report have been a guidepost for reform. At the same time, the NTSB has been busy investigating other major incidents such as rail-grade crossings elsewhere in our country, like in southern California, derailments of trains carrying crude oil, like in West Virginia, plane crashes, major highway disasters, and significant transit incidents. The NTSB is also evaluating other issues, such as the safety of passenger vehicle tires, distracted driving, substance abuse in the transportation sector, and ensuring procedural compliance by transportation providers. It is a long and extensive list of projects. We need these nominees in their posts immediately so they can keep these investigations moving forward and bolster the NTSB's critical work. And I note that here in Congress, we need to do our part as well to advance the NTSB's efforts and findings, which include ensuring railroads install positive train control, or PTC, which was first urged by NTSB after a rail collision in 1969 in Darien; requiring advanced technology like cameras in trains; requiring railroads to have redundant signal protection, which, had it been in place, would have saved the life of one of my constituents; requiring better fatigue management in all modes of transportation; improving the crashworthiness of passenger rail cars; and ensuring labor has a voice in safety investigations, among many key reforms. Thankfully, we have before us today two supremely qualified nominees who will help us advance these key initiatives and make our transportation network safer, more secure, and more reliable. Again, I urge my colleagues to support them.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my distinguished colleague and friend from the State of Wyoming, and I rise to talk about exactly the same issue and to differ with him, respectfully, that the current law is unworkable, unpopular, and unaffordable. In fact, history demonstrates that it is certainly working. In the State of Connecticut we know well that it is working as it was intended because we have a State-run exchange, and we have cut the number of uninsured by one-half, while improving health care quality, lowering Medicaid spending, and making remarkable achievements across a whole range of metrics. That same story is true of our Nation as a whole, whether there are State-run exchanges or Federal supervised exchanges. Today's point, whether it is in the Supreme Court or here, should be extraordinarily encouraging about the Congress's approval of the Affordable Care Act and the fact that it is working across the country. It is succeeding in delivering exactly what was intended, what the Congress promised, what its advocates saw, access for all Americans to affordable health insurance. The ACA is working today to protect Americans from abuses, and I saw them literally day in and day out as attorney general: people who lost health insurance when they got sick, people who were denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, people who were charged more because of their gender, people who were denied the basic care they needed and deserved for themselves, their children, and their families, giving them access not only to health care but also to work and to family stability. I saw every day as attorney general how imperiled and critical health care is in this country and how much we need to do more and do better in this area. The uninsured rate in this country is the lowest it has been in 7 years, and we have lowered it a remarkable 25 percent in just 1 year. Eight million people have gained health insurance through the exchanges who didn't have it before, and I know that States with federally run exchanges have made improvements, just as Connecticut has done, which is fully in accordance with the absolutely crystal-clear intent of this Congress and this law to provide affordable health insurance for all Americans, regardless of where they live, what State, what ZIP Code, whatever their occupation and background. Let's be clear. As with any big law there are kinks that need to be ironed out, there are glitches that need to be resolved, but the Affordable Care Act is working now and working better every month, every year. The legal issue before the Court has been debated today in depth, and I believe with the great persuasiveness--similar to the Presiding Officer, I had the honor to serve as a law clerk to the Supreme Court and watch many arguments. To say that today is historic I think is true, but in my view almost every argument before the Supreme Court is historic in its consequences--some more than others, but every one is consequential because cases don't reach the U.S. Supreme Court unless they are difficult and consequential, and issues of statutory interpretation that are said to be simple often are more complicated than they may seem. But I know, without a doubt, having read this statute, that the text and structure of the Affordable Care Act clearly demonstrate--in fact, they unmistakably demand--that Federal tax credits be available to every eligible taxpayer in every State in this country. I have done arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I had the honor to be attorney general of the State of Connecticut as well as a U.S. attorney. Having looked at this statute as a whole, having read the words that need to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, I have reached this conclusion: Contrary to the argument of partisan opponents, both the act itself and the plainly overwhelming evidence from its consideration and passage demonstrate its nationwide scope. I wasn't here at the time it was passed, but from the legislative history and, most important, from the structure and language of the act itself, there seems to be irrefutably and incontrovertibly an understanding that tax credits would be available regardless of which governmental agency set up an exchange. The act simply would not have worked any other way and courts have an obligation to read statutes in a way that makes the most sense in terms of the overriding intent and purpose of the Congress. The financial support simply, for universal coverage, would not be there without this interpretation, a commonsense interpretation that makes sense of congressional intent, purpose, and the law as a whole. The law has given so many families across the country access to care for the first time. There has been an effort to repeal this act legislatively. There has been an effort to overturn it in the courts. Both have failed because it is working and because it is constitutional. A ruling for the plaintiffs in this case that is now before the Court would not only be contrary to law, it would be catastrophic to millions of families who owe their health insurance to the structure the ACA has established. It would be, in fact, a human tragedy as well as a legal travesty. There is simply no alternative that has been offered by opponents to this law. It is difficult therefore to see how this misguided lawsuit is anything other than one more cynical attempt to repeal or overturn this law--or torpedo it by any means necessary, regardless of the collateral damage to millions of innocent people who would suffer loss of health care insurance and health care. And the tragedy would be not only for them but for our entire Nation because the cost would ripple throughout our society--the cost in lost work; the cost in families suffering from the consequences of bankruptcy, which is caused most frequently by health care-related financial issues; the cost in the ability of our workforce to function at the height of efficiency that we all need; and the cost ultimately in diseases that have to be treated and ailments that have to be addressed and preventable health care consequences for our children. Prevention is one of the most cost- effective goals of the Affordable Care Act. So I will work with my colleagues to support this act and to determine what other efforts can make progress toward the ultimate goal that we all should share--an America that is free from disease or injury that will bankrupt our families, an America that is healthier and better able to afford health care, and quality and timely health treatment. The lack of standing on the part of these plaintiffs seems clear, but putting aside all of the technical issues and the legal debate, the Affordable Care Act has allowed America to make huge, exciting strides in the direction of better health care. So we should be proud of the act passed by this body. Even many of us perhaps who were not here at the time can look forward to how much further we can go, and America has that fundamental obligation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 95, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here for the main purpose of vigorously opposing S.J. Res. 8, and to support the National Labor Relations Board's recent rule to modernize the process that workers use if they decide they want to form a union and bargain collectively. The new NLRB rule makes modest but highly important changes to improve the overall consistency and efficiency of the election process, allowing workers to vote for or against the creation of a union in a fair and timely way. This rule is long overdue, and in Connecticut I have seen--and in my personal experience with the NLRB--how important it is. As I go around Connecticut, I consistently hear of problems when workers seek to gain representation to form a union. It is cumbersome, costly, time consuming, and is prone to needless delays. It involves needless litigation, and it creates uncertainty for all involved. This rule change--this new rule--is not only good for working men and women, it is also good for businesses by reducing--and in some cases eliminating--the cost, time, and uncertainty that are aggravating and expensive. It is a small step toward a level playing field and a guarantee that companies respect workers' rights to organize and gain the benefits of union membership. Very simply, here is what the rule does: It removes obstacles to forming unions and requires businesses to postpone litigation over member eligibility issues until after workers join a union. It cuts down on lengthy litigation that could cause union formation to drag on for a year or more. It modernizes the election process. And, very importantly, it allows for the electronic filing and transmission of petitions for union elections. Believe it or not, previously all of it had been done by fax or mail--not exactly the latest or least expensive technology--and it ensures that unions and employees have enough information about each other so they can communicate in advance of the election. It streamlines the NLRB's procedures, and with all due respect to the NLRB, what is needed there is practices that are uniform throughout the regional offices so that organizers can better interact with the agency. Its effect is not only on unions and businesses but also on the NLRB in speeding and streamlining and improving the way it works. Its effects are seen in other areas too. The opponents of this measure forget to mention that these new rules apply equally to both elections seeking to certify a union and elections to decertify a union. These more efficient procedures will help not only workers who want to choose a union, it will help workers who want to get rid of an existing union. It is a level playing field, fairness, efficiency, less cost, and less time. The rule still gives employers the opportunity to inform workers about the drawbacks of having a union so that workers have a fair opportunity to decide if they want union representation. This is the epitome of fair and balanced and more efficient kinds of rules. The people in this body know that the simple fact is--and folks across America know it--the majority of American workers want representation. Fifty-three percent of workers want a union in their workplace, but because of the broken election process, fewer than 7 percent of workers are represented. That is a stark fact. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' Thirty-five percent of the time that workers file a petition for a union election, they never even get to an election. The current election process is full of delays and costs, and unfortunately in many cases litigation gives way to outright discrimination. According to a 2011 University of California-Berkeley study, the longer the delay between the filing of a petition and the election date, the more likely it is that the NLRB will issue complaints charging employers with illegal activity. In other words, basically the election process is drawn out and leads to growing dissatisfaction and contempt and thereby damages everyone. This rule is a necessity and will have a real impact on real people. In Connecticut, I have spoken to people and heard the stories of individuals who have been deprived or inhibited in exercising their right to vote in the election process. This process is broken. The new NLRB will prevent frivolous litigation from delaying an election. I have spoken to workers who wanted the election to be held on a date that was beyond the allowed waiting period. They told me that they were told if they didn't back down, the employer would ``make sure the process would be lengthy and difficult.'' The new rule will itself push back on intimidation. In the face of these kinds of tactics, some have persevered, but only through tremendous resolve. They triumphed in a seriously flawed and failed NLRB election process. In short, these rules are an important step in the right direction. They provide for free choice that is fair and will protect both sides. They will reduce costs and time and litigation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure as ill-conceived and ill- considered, and I hope we will preserve the NLRB's new rule. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to a Connecticut resident who recently demonstrated extraordinary capability and heroism. Officer Neil Robertson of the Norwalk Police Department was on patrol this past Tuesday, February 24, when he drove by a railroad crossing and noticed a vehicle partially stopped on the tracks. He also saw that a train was approaching. The driver of the vehicle, who may not have been aware of the train, was unable to move forward because of gridlock in the intersection ahead. Officer Robertson quickly and accurately judged the impending danger. He immediately leapt from his car and directed traffic to move forward, allowing the driver of the stuck vehicle to escape the path of the oncoming train just seconds before it passed through the crossing. Officer Robertson is a 4-year veteran of the Norwalk Police Department. He deserves the highest praise not just for his choice to enter a career in public service but for his speedy and decisive actions to avert a potentially disastrous accident. I know that all of Connecticut joins me in honoring and thanking him for his exemplary performance in the line of duty.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Isakson for giving the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act the priority it needs and deserves. I know the Presiding Officer, as a veteran, understands and supports the vital mission of this legislation. I also want to thank the veterans service organizations, particularly the IAVA, for the critical role they have played in heightening awareness and educating the American public about the scourge that veteran suicide reflects in our society, the unacceptable 22 veterans who commit suicide every day in the greatest, strongest Nation in the history of the world. Our veterans all too often succumb to the invisible wounds and inner demons that come home with them. They lack the mental health care they need and deserve because the VA lacks the resources to provide that health care. I know the VA is committed to do better. Senator Isakson and I have just returned from 3 hours at the VA, where we heard the Secretary, as well as his top-ranking staff, commit to using this act as a means of enhancing and increasing the quality and quantity of mental health care our veterans deserve. Far too many of our veterans have succumbed to suicide, including a friend of mine, Justin Eldridge, whose widow Joanna was my guest at the State of the Union. She has struggled in the wake of his death with their children to survive this tragedy. Her courage and strength mirror those same qualities of bravery and fortitude demonstrated by Susan Selke who testified before our committee about her son Clay Hunt, for whom this bill is named. My hope is we can continue this bipartisan work together. I thank Senator McCain, the cosponsor of this bill, and hope we keep faith with all of our veterans and make the VA the pioneer and champion of mental health care so we end the scourge of veteran suicide in this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, and really giving him immeasurable credit for his courage and his fortitude in addressing this bill that he could have allowed to languish on the agenda of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. In fact, he made it the very first agenda item--the very first issue--that we would confront on the Veterans' Affairs Committee at our very first meeting, and it passed unanimously through the Veterans' Affairs Committee because of his leadership--and I really mean his leadership in making it happen. So on behalf of the veterans of America, he deserves due credit, and so do my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Boozman and Senator Sanders, who championed this bill, along with Senator Burr. During the last session I was pleased to argue for it on the floor in the closing days of the session, and unfortunately it failed to pass. There is no reason to look back and try to blame others for that failure. What is important is to look forward and to give credit to both sides of the aisle--most especially to my colleague, Senator McCain, who, of course, dwarfs us in his service to our Nation in the Armed Forces. He literally is a giant in his service and sacrifice for our Nation while serving in the Navy. I have felt very privileged and proud to work with him and to introduce this measure, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act or the Clay Hunt SAV Act, as it is called, that basically provides for suicide prevention services and, even more importantly, pioneers and champions mental health care for our VA. I thank all of our colleagues who have worked on this bill over the past year or so because this measure gives us a tremendous opportunity to set a direction for the VA and for the Senate. If I may be so bold and perhaps presumptuous, I say this measure is truly bipartisan. It provides a template for bipartisan action to help our veterans, our military men and women who serve now, and to set a real lodestar for action by this body. Very fittingly, we are on the floor when the Democratic leader, Senator Reid has returned. I am tremendously heartened by his presence here and by the President's budget today, which provides a proposed increase in health care spending and, most especially, mental health care spending, to $7.4 billion from last year's expenditure of $6.7 billion. It is significant, again, in the context of a bipartisan approach to this issue. This legislation is named for Clay Hunt, a marine, a patriot, a veteran who served bravely in Iraq. His mom, Susan Selke, is a real hero. She came before the Veterans' Affairs Committee during the last session. Her testimony was not only as a patriot and an advocate of veterans but as a family member. There have been too many family members forced to grieve the loss of their loved ones who have succumbed to suicide, as did Clay Hunt in March of 2011, after struggling valiantly and courageously with post-traumatic stress and the inadequate care of his local VA hospital. Far too many of Clay Hunt's fellow veterans, 22 per day, have succumbed to suicide, including a friend of mine, Justin Eldridge of southeastern Connecticut. Justin braved mortar fire and sniper attacks in Afghanistan to return to southeastern Connecticut and to his family, his children, and his wife Joanna. Suffering from post-traumatic brain injury and post- traumatic stress, tragically, like so many others, Justin slipped through the cracks of his local VA facility and eventually succumbed in his fight against those inner demons and invisible wounds when he took his own life. As brave as Justin Eldridge was on the battlefield, he could not win that war at home. How Justin and Clay fell into that black hole of depression and despair I certainly will never understand, but we grieve for them and we hope that their example of courage will inspire us to face this issue. All too often, the response to suicide--whether it is among veterans or others--is denial. It is to turn away, to look in the other direction because sometimes it is too painful or there is stigma or shame in mental health needs. We can conquer that stigma and shame. To its credit the military is doing more every day. The VA has raised awareness and is increasing its commitment. This bill is a tremendous opportunity for the VA to be a pioneer and champion in mental health care, just as it has been in other areas of health care, such as amputee rehabilitation, prosthetics, and traumatic brain injury. This bill is a downpayment. It is the beginning--not the end--of our commitment and our solutions to problems. It is a worthwhile measure to take limited, targeted steps--less than we must eventually do--to keep faith with our veterans and their mental health needs. I hope the committee and this Congress will continue in this great, bipartisan spirit. I look forward to a continuing partnership with my friend Senator Isakson, who is such a leader in this area, as we work on these issues and seek to make progress as quickly as possible. As we do so--remember all of our efforts from all of the years of conflict and war in this country--Senator Isakson is absolutely right that post-traumatic stress and mental health needs are hardly limited to the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have worked hard to help veterans of the Vietnam and Korea eras. In fact, I successfully championed the needs of our veterans of earlier eras when they have been burdened by less-than-honorable discharge resulting from post-traumatic stress, from an era when post-traumatic stress was nonexistent as a diagnosis. Post-traumatic stress was unknown for our Vietnam and Korea veterans. It was not unknown as a condition. It was not nonexistent. It was simply unknown has a diagnosis. It was not called post-traumatic stress. It may have been called shell shock or battle fatigue. But the horror, the nightmares, the cold sweats, the headaches, and the crippling mental issues have plagued many of our veterans over many eras and many wars. Today we take a step to recognize this Nation's obligation to Justin Eldridge, to Clay Hunt, to all of our veterans and to Joanna Eldridge, Susan Selke, and to the countless family members who have struggled and borne that burden side by side when their heroes have awakened at night with the nightmares and the battles they continue to fight against post-traumatic stress, the invisible wounds, and the inner demons that have come back with them from their service. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here today to speak to my colleagues about funding for the Department of Homeland Security and to be followed by one of my most valued colleagues, Senator Menendez, whose leadership on this issue has been extraordinarily important. I am also pleased to work with him on a letter he sent yesterday to the President concerning Iran sanctions, where his statesmanship-like path to a reasonable solution on this very complex and crucial issue will be enormously important to the future. The Department of Homeland Security is one of the most significant departments in the U.S. Government. It has a mandate that is as complex and crucial as any in keeping American citizens and communities and capabilities safe and secure in a dangerous, complex, and threatening world. In my family, when I was growing up, we had a saying: Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Unfortunately, that path is exactly what some of my colleagues are choosing to follow in threatening to stop funding for the Department of Homeland Security. We are reminded of the importance of this Department not only as terrorism raises its ugly head repeatedly abroad but also as perhaps more benign threats exist at home--the most recent of them, the snowstorm that hit the Northeast within the past couple of days. The Department of Homeland Security is not only engaged in a fight against terrorism, not only engaged in keeping America safe from threats abroad but is engaged in a wide variety of other tasks that have to do with the Nation's security. That is the key word in its title--``security.'' Americans fear more deeply than ever before that their security is threatened--economic security by stagnating incomes, foreign security as the world becomes more volatile and unpredictable and more threatening, and domestic security as threats abroad metastasize within our own borders. Many people equate the concept of security at home or homeland security with protection against extreme violence from abroad, violent extremism spawning from abroad and in fact stopping those threats. Finding the wrongdoers and stopping them is one of the major tasks the Department of Homeland Security has, but it has a myriad of additional responsibilities that include aiding the victims of natural disasters and extreme weather, citizenship and immigration, routinely handling matters that involve legitimate applications for visas for entry into the United States, and it fights the scourge of human trafficking. I am privileged to have a Caucus on Human Trafficking with my colleague Senator Rob Portman. So I know it forms a diverse collection of responsibilities that are crucial to security. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities are comprehensive--so much so that it is simply unacceptable to play politics with its crucial mission. It is irresponsible to hold its funding hostage in a dangerous game of fiscal chicken and threaten daily activities that are vital to America's present and future security. That is why we are here, because some of my friends across the aisle believe stopping the President from exercising discretion on certain immigration issues affecting specific individuals in this country is worth hamstringing and undercutting the entire Department of Homeland Security and forcing an enormous amount of its vital work to grind to a halt. That is the game of chicken we have. The President is expected to relent if the Department of Homeland Security is stopped from functioning, but it is a game that has no place in this Chamber or in this government. We can agree or disagree with the President, and I disagree with the Department of Homeland Security on certain of its policies; for example, on detaining children which it has done routinely on a grandiose scale. I have included an amendment in the measure for immigration reform that passed the Senate. It would stop it from detaining children--a practice I consider shameful and unacceptable-- and I have a long list of other changes I would like to see made in DHS policies. But the way to effectuate those changes in my view is not to withhold funding to stop DHS in its tracks of providing security for the American people, it is to amend the laws to persuade our colleagues to undertake the legislative process and to appeal ultimately to the court of public opinion which can render a verdict far more powerful than the tactics involved here. Chipping away at the President's authority by not only undercutting him but stopping one of his departments is reprehensible. So I urge my colleagues to cease this tactic. The President needs discretion. In fact, I know as a prosecutor, as a former attorney general, and as a one-time U.S. attorney for Connecticut that discretion is essential. There is no way any authority can prosecute every crime. So prosecutors need to select cases based on severity of offense and most important the danger to the public because ultimately protecting the public is what security requires. That is true as well for the Department of Homeland Security. The President has exercised his discretion in a way I find laudable. The exigencies of the present immigration system require the exercise of discretion. The President has done it in a way that is responsible and upholds his duties as Commander in Chief. But even if I disagree with the President on that exercise of discretion with respect to immigration, I would never use this tactic of withholding funding for an entire department, affecting all of its activities and implicating and undercutting security in so dangerous a way. My hope is we will debate immigration policy, that we will approve an immigration reform bill, that it will be on a bipartisan basis just as it was during the last session, that there will be a lot of good-faith disagreement on the floor of this Chamber about those policies and about the President's actions but that we will keep the lights on at the Department of Homeland Security, that we will shine the light on threats to our security that need to be exposed and pursued, that we will further the security of this Nation and protect the public by making sure the DHS funding as a clean bill is approved right away and that we move forward to make sure DHS continues its vital service to the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, as the 114th Congress begins, I would like to pay tribute to a Connecticut native who retired at the end of the last session. Sheila Dwyer, who served as Assistant Secretary of the Senate since 2007, will be deeply missed by many. She worked closely with former Majority Leader Harry Reid and with current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had passionate, strong praise for Sheila's dedication and devotion to this institution. Both recognized that she became known as the ``Mayor of Capitol Hill'' for the skill and poise she consistently demonstrated in handling the needs of 100 Senators at a time. Sheila was born in Waterbury, CT, and she has remained very proud of her roots in our great State throughout her career. While still in high school, she served a semester as a Senate Page, and she later returned to spend her career here. After working for such luminaries as Senator Chuck Robb of Virginia, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, she joined Senator Reid's office. Along the way, Sheila amassed an impressive record of accomplishments that included overseeing logistics for two national Democratic conventions, assisting in Presidential inaugurations and countless ceremonial events, and coordinating the myriad departments and behind- the-scenes operations that keep the Senate running. Throughout, she has built and maintained friendships with Senators and staff from all corners of the Capitol and the country. Leader Reid spoke quite movingly about how, in addition to her professional achievements, she has been a strong source of personal support for his family and others. My wife Cynthia and I are honored to know Sheila, and we wish her all the best as she begins the next chapter of her life. I know that all of Connecticut joins me in congratulating her on her exemplary achievements here in the Senate.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here today to speak on behalf of President Obama's eminently qualified nominee to be Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy. I request that I be permitted to yield to my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored and proud to follow the majority leader, and I thank him for his remarks. I will make my remarks in support of my request for unanimous consent. If there is an objection, in deference to the Senator from Oklahoma, I will withhold the body of my remarks until after there is an objection. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5059, the Clay Hunt SAV Act, which was received from House and is at the desk; and further, that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. I will proceed at the conclusion of any remarks by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Oklahoma by, first of all, expressing my deep respect and appreciation for the work he has done to hold accountable the Veterans' Administration and many other agencies of our U.S. Government. In fact, he leaves a legacy of oversight that I will be honored to continue and I hope will continue through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. The efforts of the Senator from Oklahoma to scrutinize government spending through individual and independent assessments, in fact, are addressed in this bill in section 2, which requires, in fact, an independent third party to annually evaluate the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish metrics, to identify the cost-effectiveness of programs, and to propose best practices. Holding the VA accountable is one of the core purposes of this bill. I am asking that the Senate take up a bill that was passed unanimously in the House of Representatives and that is supported on a bipartisan basis by 21 of our colleagues, that is blocked by a single Member, and that will make an impact on the spreading scourge of suicides among some of our very bravest and best warriors. We don't know--it remains a mystery--how some of our most courageous and steadfast warfighters can stare down death on the battlefield and succumb to it at home by their own hand. Those demons, those inner doubts, the invisible wounds of war, post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury are taking their toll at the rate of 22 a day. This measure is actually scaled back. It is targeted and focused to provide incremental benefits to those veterans who are at risk by providing additional resources--psychiatrists and counselors--by mandating accountability in the use of those resources. That is more than we did 3\1/2\ months ago in another measure I strongly supported. I express my appreciation to our 21 colleagues who have supported this measure but also to the IAVA and the VFW, to the survivors of veterans' suicides across the country and their families, and the families who came before us in the committee such as Susan Selke's, whose son, Clay Hunt, is in the name of this bill. Susan Selke urged us to pass this legislation that will provide for an independent and strong source of accountability, because she believes it is necessary to help others such as her son before they succumb, as her son did. That kind of outside review to impose discipline on the VA is, as my colleague has said, absolutely necessary not only for the VA but for VA clinics and hospitals around the country. But we need more psychiatrists in those VA clinics and hospitals, and this measure will provide those resources, along with accountability. In one of his most recent reports, my colleague from Oklahoma highlighted the appalling case of Dr. Margaret Moxness, and I thank him for that report and others he has authored. Dr. Margaret Moxness, a former physician at the Huntington VA Medical Center in Charleston, West Virginia, said that when she reported patients who needed immediate mental health treatment, supervisors instructed her to delay care anyway. She saw at least two patients commit suicide while waiting for treatment between psychological appointments. I share my colleagues' view that we cannot simply hire our way out of this problem. We have a nationwide shortage of mental health care professionals, and that is why this legislation, in section 4, grows a pool of psychiatrists through tuition assistance, and that is why in section 6 it requires the VA to collaborate with outside nonprofit mental health organizations to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of suicide prevention efforts. This scaled-back bill is a down payment. It is not the end of solutions to this problem. It is a worthwhile measure that takes limited, targeted steps. Much more can and should be done. It has been championed by Chairman Sanders, and I thank him and Ranking Member Burr for their efforts in the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. This job will not be done until we end every suicide--not just the 22 every day, but every one of those 22 every day in this country. Every single one of us, if we are honest with ourselves, knows a family that has been touched by this problem--every single Member of this body. I know it all too well because a friend of mine, Justin Eldridge of southeastern Connecticut succumbed to suicide as well. He was deployed in combat in Afghanistan where he braved mortar fire and sniper fire, and he returned to his family, his children, and his wife--his very young family--suffering from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. As brave as he had been on the battlefield, he could not win that war at home. He sought mental health care at the Connecticut VA facility. He had gone through a long battle for benefits. I helped him with it. But there was a significant gap in the continuity of his medical care. Basically, he slipped through the cracks and eventually took his life. I knew him as the founder of the Marine Corps League in southeastern Connecticut, which I was proud to join as a member. How he fell into that black hole of depression and despair I certainly will never understand. But I hope someone could have understood it if we had provided the kinds of resources that are necessary in Connecticut and around the country. We have an obligation to leave none of these veterans behind, to hold the VA accountable, to make sure the resources are well spent, to avoid duplication, but to reach out to those brave and fearless warriors who fight on our battlefields and defend our Nation, and then are threatened and sometimes lose the war at home to post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries--medical conditions that can be overcome with the right care as soon as possible. I hope my colleague from Oklahoma will withdraw his objection. I thank my colleagues for supporting this measure. If it fails this time, we will bring it back and we will win and leave no one behind. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. The Surgeon General of the United States is a person of public trust in this country who has a long and eminent record of informing the Nation and fighting on behalf of the public health of Americans. He has addressed some of the Nation's most pressing public health problems. Over time, there have been a variety of people in that position of public trust to address some of the most pressing public health problems in this Nation. Those challenges have included nicotine addiction, the menaces of Big Tobacco, AIDS, and other emerging diseases, nutrition and food labeling. These challenges require someone of courage and expertise, indeed eminence as a public health warrior. In just a few months, the Nation has faced a public health crisis that caused many to question who would be that warrior, that fighter, that eminent and expert physician, and who would defend this Nation at a time of public health crisis. Many decried President Obama's appointment of an Ebola czar to fill that position when no one could step forward as Surgeon General, and the reason is that there was no Surgeon General. We lacked someone who could fulfill that role because of a misplaced and misguided opposition. That position has been vacant for far too long. Hopefully today we will confirm Dr. Murthy and allow him to get on the job and get to work on this and other pressing problems facing our country. Ebola cases continue to present a dire threat to our Nation because in parts of Africa they are still spreading. Just last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that there are serious doubts about whether the Nation's supply of flu vaccine will be effective against the strain of flu that is circulating this winter. We need a Surgeon General to handle that potential public health crisis as well. We are not out of the woods, to quote what Dr. Frieden told me in a conversation just last week on Ebola. We are about to go into the woods in the flu season, and the Surgeon General, as a leader, is needed right now. The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, under the leadership of the Attorney General, was deployed to field hospitals and emergency clinics in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. They are fighters and warriors for public health as well. Dr. Murthy's credentials are without question. They are impeccable, unquestionable, and indisputable. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale School of Medicine. He completed his residency at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. He is one of our country's most respected medical professionals. He now works and teaches at the Brigham and Women's Hospital. He also earned an MBA, also from Yale. He has been a leader of business and nonprofit organizations that work on many aspects of medical practice, biotechnology and domestic and international public health issues. If the question were only about his qualifications, he would be in that position right now, confirmed by the Senate, but unfortunately he has been blocked. The only point raised against him, unconscionably and unnecessarily, is a political smokescreen, essentially, going to comments he has made about gun violence as a public health issue. The simple fact is gun violence impacts far too many people. It destroys far too many lives. It is the second leading cause of death in this country after car crashes. Gun violence kills twice as many children as cancer, 5 times as many children as heart disease, and 15 times as many children as infection. Between 2000 and 2010, more than 335,000 people died as a result of gun violence. Pointing out these facts and asking whether there are strategies we could apply to bring that number down is exactly what a person tasked to keep Americans healthy ought to be doing. But he has said he is going to focus on issues that concern the American public health and will be a fighter for American children, for Americans, against heart disease and cancer and other kinds of issues that affect public health, especially of children, and that is to be valued. That smokescreen about gun violence should not have blocked him and should not impede this body voting for him today, approving him as Surgeon General because of his qualifications and because he will contribute enormously to make Americans healthier and safer in this country. I am enthusiastically and proudly a supporter of him, and I ask my colleagues to approve him as Surgeon General of the United States to make America safer and healthier and to reject the slick smokescreen that has tried to stop him. I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to inform my colleagues, although the hour is late, that the Clay Hunt bill, H.R. 5059, has been cleared on the Democratic side and I hope we will have unanimous consent to move it tomorrow in the session that we have on Friday. This bill is of tremendous importance to not only me as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and my colleagues--many of them including, I believe, Senator McCain, who introduced an updated and improved version of the Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, but also to the families who have been affected, I want to say in particular to Susan Selke, who testified before the Veterans' Affairs Committee--and I was there for her testimony, speaking on behalf of herself and her husband, Richard, as the mother of Clay Hunt, a marine combat victim who died by suicide in March of 2011 at the age of 28. I am not going to speak at length about the reasons of why we need more assistance and support to prevent more wonderful young men and women like Clay Hunt, who served and sacrificed for our Nation, the kind of resources and support that are necessary to prevent them from becoming victims at this time of tragic circumstances. We owe it to Susan Selke, Clay Hunt's mom, and all the families who lose loved ones to suicide, to do better, to do more, and do it now. The reforms and programs directed by this legislation hopefully will enable the VA to better serve and treat veterans suffering from the hidden or invisible injuries of war, and the mental health and other conditions that ought to be addressed to save young men and women such as Clay Hunt. I will seek to move this bill tomorrow by unanimous consent, and I hope my colleagues will enable me to do so. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, at this time of year, Thanksgiving and the holidays that are upcoming, a lot of Americans are on our roads. A lot of us know that Americans are on the roads because my colleagues and I travel using the highways of our States so frequently. We know as parents, as family members, that in the back of our minds when a son or daughter is driving, there is a tiny bit of apprehension and anxiety about safety. It is safety not only concerning people on our roads but also on our railways. As a member of the commerce committee, where the Presiding Officer served, I know he has young children and he probably has the same apprehensions and anxieties that all of us share when our family members are driving, particularly late at night, early in the morning, hours when weariness, fatigue, and tiredness are one of the main enemies--particularly when the weather is bad. The omnibus funding measure, soon to be under debate, has many good provisions, but it also has a provision that is antithetical and deeply destructive to the principle of road safety because it affects truck drivers who are on the roads for long periods of time. I am referring to section 133 of division K, one paragraph. I am here to talk about it, to ask that my colleagues oppose it. If there is any way to strip it from the bill, I urge that it be done. It is a provision that is virtually incomprehensible to the average American on the roads or in their homes as to what it means and what its ramifications are and what its consequences may be to their safety and the safety of others in their families on the road. The fact is that nearly 4,000 people who are killed each year in truck crashes and the nearly 100,000 each year who are injured show the toll of fatigue and weariness of our truck drivers. According to NHTSA, truck crash injuries in fact increased by 40 percent between 2009 to 2012. We all have seen the consequences of fatigue on the roads when we drive--the truck driver who may pull his rig in front of us or slide over into our side of the road, not because he is not well trained, experienced, able. In fact, the vast majority of truck drivers are experienced and able and well trained and extraordinarily prudent in the way they drive. But fatigue is an enemy to them as it is to all of us who drive. Many of the headlines we have seen recently have concerned hours of service regulations governing truck drivers, as many truck crashes involve tired truck drivers. There are rules that have been enacted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, rules that have been implemented to curb the number of fatigued truck drivers on our roads, implemented after years of rulemaking and analysis and study and even litigation. They are fact-based rules. They are supported by science. They are rules that move American roads and drivers in the right direction, truly, literally on the right path. I am not the only one who supports these rules. They are supported by the Secretary of Transportation. Secretary Foxx is to be commended for his steadfast, strong, courageous defense of these rules. His integrity and intellect in support of these rules I greatly appreciate. But he is not alone any more than I am alone. The folks who are most adamant and passionate about it are the truck drivers themselves. The Teamsters and the United Transportation Union, they have inspired me to be as passionate and steadfast as I am on these rules. They are not alone either. Law enforcement, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Troopers Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association all support these rules. They are also supported by consumer and public health groups and safety groups such as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association, the John Lindsay Foundation, the Truck Safety Coalition, KidsAndCars.org, the Trauma Foundation, and Public Citizen. These are the preeminent public and safety consumer advocacy groups in this country. They all support these rules. Tragically and unfortunately, there are organizations representing victims such as Parents Against Tired Truckers and Roadsafe America which also have been inspired to support these rules. I say tragically and unfortunately, because none of us welcome the fact that there are victims of crashes resulting from tired truckers. Most regretful are the truckers themselves, which is why they are supporting these rules. But the families and loved ones of victims of these crashes support the rules, and even many trucking companies like those represented by the Trucking Alliance support these rules. The fact is there is good reason for the rules and there is good reason to strip the bill of a provision that negates, in effect, undercuts, and eviscerates these rules, section 133 of Division K. There is good reason. The 2005 study conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration demonstrated that before the current rules were implemented, 65 percent of drivers reported feeling drowsy while driving and 48 percent admitted to falling asleep while driving at some point the previous year. But under the current rules, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration says that it will save 19 lives, prevent about 1,400 crashes, 560 injuries each year, see an estimated $280 million in savings from fewer large truck crashes, and see $470 million in savings from improved driver health. These are dry, abstract statistics, but they measure compelling losses in human lives and in dollars. Unfortunately, the folks who want to stop these rules have found a home in the omnibus appropriations bill that may be coming over from the House later today. In addition, while the rules are blocked, the language in the House bill would also require that this issue be studied further. The rules have been studied a lot. If there is a need for further study, fine. I am completely on board with study and factfinding. But in the meantime, let's keep the rules as they are, as prescribed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. They are in the business of safety. They have said these rules are necessary. Let's keep the rules implemented, but we can study them. If we are going to make any changes, it should be done with proper analysis and debate--not in a spending bill. It ought to be in the committee with jurisdiction, the commerce committee, where I serve. That is why in late July my subcommittee held a hearing on truck safety and this issue featured prominently. We gave everyone a chance to testify, to debate all points of view. Until then, the only discussion was in the context of appropriations and spending bills, not in the context of real policy. The hearing I held highlighted some real issues. First, with these changes, drivers will be able to drive nearly 80 hours a week. In other words, if this provision is adopted, if the rules are rolled back, drivers will be able to drive nearly 80 hours a week and hundreds more a year. It is more likely that trucking companies will push their drivers to drive the maximum limit, which is about twice the average American workweek. That is exactly what the rules are designed to prevent, truck drivers being forced to work too many hours, getting exhausted, and then endangering themselves and other drivers on the road. All we are trying to do with the rules is take tired truckers off the roads--not tell them when they must sleep or what they must do while they are off the roads. It is about taking tired trucker drivers off the road. The changes in the omnibus would enable drivers to drive nearly 80 hours a week and hundreds more hours a year and would really impede truck drivers' resting, which they should be doing instead of driving more. The rules implemented by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration were the result of compromise. To roll them back further undermines that compromise. If anything, we ought to be instituting greater safeguards. If there is factfinding that justifies stronger precaution and protection, we welcome that study. But in the meantime, allow the rules to work and protect drivers, truck drivers and other drivers on the road. Americans are in favor of these rules. They are in favor of truck safety. Polling data released in October shows why so many Americans are concerned about allowing drivers to be on the roads while they are fatigued. Americans simply don't want these large trucks, which in many respects operate like missiles zooming down the road. A missile out of control can do huge, humongous, enduring damage to life and limb and to the futures of people whose lives may be transformed by a fatal or serious crash. Let's make sure we have a real conversation about this issue in the commerce committee. Let's make sure we do the factfinding and have the rules in place while that factfinding takes place. Let's make sure that Americans are protected against weary and tired truckdrivers. Let's give them the same attention and care as we would want for our families during this season, on the roads, while they are driving late at night, maybe in bad weather, because there are going to be storms as there are, inevitably, in December, January, and February. But every day, every season, these rules deserve to be in place. That is why this provision, which would roll back those rules--making changes endangering the lives of ordinary Americans on the road--is so antithetical to safety and such an anathema to the values of saving and preserving life and increasing the safety of our drivers on the road. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.