Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to follow those eloquent and powerful remarks by my friend and colleague from Illinois, and I am particularly impressed and moved by his comments on young people coming across the border that deserve better from this Nation--better in the care they receive when they are here, better in the due process and the justice this country gives them once they have arrived. But I am here to talk about the Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court and to second in every single respect the remarks that Senator Durbin has just made. I went to the site of a new Hobby Lobby store in the State of Connecticut, being built in Manchester--the second in Connecticut-- where its goods and services will be available to consumers in Connecticut. It is an impressive new structure. But it was not a groundbreaking or ribbon cutting. I went there to call on Hobby Lobby to do right for its employees and for its customers in the State of Connecticut. I went there to make public a letter that I have written to the chief executive of Hobby Lobby, asking that he and his company respect the law, history, and policy of our State and also of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has made its decision interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in giving this corporation--a for-profit entity--the right to tell its women employees that they have no access to certain kinds of contraceptive care approved by the FDA. That is a legal decision that cannot be overturned by my speaking on the floor of the Senate or in my writing to the CEO of Hobby Lobby. But it can be overturned by a law that changes that opinion--changes the opinion, in effect, by overruling it. That is the purpose of the Not My Boss's Business Act, as well as the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act, and that is the reason I am going to vote for it because I feel that women should be making these decisions with their doctors, and that neither politicians nor business executives nor their corporate entities should be interfering and intruding in that decision. We can debate whether corporations ought to have these rights under the law, whether they are entitled to use the law, in effect, to assert legal claims, whether to the First Amendment or to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This decision was a statutory one. We can disagree with it all we want. But the way to overturn it is to legally adopt a new statute here. That is why I am so strongly supporting this change in the law that I hope will be adopted on a bipartisan basis, because there ought to be nothing partisan about women's health care, about preventing unnecessary abortion, as Senator Durbin has said so well, and about providing a form of health care that really is in the interests of families as well as women. It is in all of our interests. I called on Hobby Lobby to put aside the technical distinctions that it can assert and the legal principles that it may invoke because it is a self-funded plan under the law, but simply do the right thing and follow Connecticut's law, policy, and history. Connecticut has a law. It is a State statute that was adopted in 1999. I vigorously advocated for it. It requires that contraceptive care be covered by insurance plans--any contraceptive method approved by the FDA. That is the law of Connecticut--well established, long accepted, and strongly supported, and Hobby Lobby is flouting it. Maybe in letter it has a leg to stand on, but in spirit it is thumbing its nose at the people of the State of Connecticut. My message to Hobby Lobby is, if you want Connecticut customers, respect Connecticut's law. Now, this principle of privacy--of women following their conscience and their conviction, making these decisions on their own, one way or the other, to use contraceptives or not, after consulting with their doctor or other medical experts and their family, their clergy, personal advisors--this principle of personal privacy is enshrined not only in Connecticut law but in our history. In fact, Connecticut has led the Nation in asserting and respecting the right of privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a prohibition on the sale of contraceptives, arose in Connecticut, argued by a great renowned Connecticut lawyer Catherine Roraback. The right of privacy, as one of our Supreme Court Justices said, is essentially and fundamentally the right to be let alone. It is the right to be let alone from unwarranted government interference and intrusion. This interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by the Supreme Court contravenes that basic principle embodied and enshrined in Connecticut history as well as law. I call on Hobby Lobby to respect that law and our policy of respecting that right of privacy that is embedded and respected in the way that law enforcement as well as our statutes and our courts interpret their role in Connecticut, and their authorities and their powers. The fundamental principle here is that religious liberty should be respected. It is the religious liberty of those executives at Hobby Lobby, its owners and private corporation shareholders, for-profit entity owners. They deserve respect for their religious liberty. But religious liberty is about the right to practice your religion; it is not the right to impose your religion on someone else. This country was founded on that fundamental principle of religious liberty and the right of privacy, the right to be let alone from unnecessary and unwarranted interference. It is the right of privacy and religious liberty that is at stake here in this activist, erroneous Supreme Court decision, which we have the power to overturn here, and to restore religious freedom, truly restore the liberty of conscience and conviction that is so fundamental to American life and American exceptionalism. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this agreement sets up as many as three rollcall votes tomorrow: at 10:15 a.m. a cloture vote on the White nomination; at 12:20 p.m. a vote on confirmation of the White nomination, if cloture is invoked; and at 2:10 p.m. a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2578, Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 850 with the time until 10:15 a.m. controlled as follows: 10 minutes for Senator Grassley, 10 minutes for Senator Cornyn, 10 minutes for Senator Shaheen, and any remaining time under the control of Senator McCaskill; further, that at 10:15 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination; and that if cloture is invoked, the time until 12:20 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; and at 12:20 p.m., all postcloture time be expired, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; further, that upon disposition of the White nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 459, S. 2578, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the time from 2 p.m. until 2:10 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; finally, that at 2:10 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2578.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I now ask for a second reading en bloc and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the matter before this Chamber is the sportsmen's bill. Most of us, including myself, support and encourage sportsmen and sportsmanship. This bill has many laudable provisions. Among other provisions, it expands opportunities for sportsmen to use guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law. I voted in favor of this bill, in effect, when the issue was clotured almost 2 years ago because I support sportsmen and think that Federal law should, in fact, encourage them. I voted against cloture just a few days ago and I oppose this bill now because since that first vote, this Nation has experienced the horrific and unspeakable horror of Sandy Hook, coming after decades of horror and unspeakable violence resulting from the illegal use of guns and the illegal purchase of guns in this Nation. There are too many guns illegally in the possession of criminals and other people dangerous to themselves or others. I have worked on this issue for decades, first as attorney general and now as a Senator. I cannot vote for this bill expanding the use of guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law, so long as this great institution has done nothing--absolutely nothing--to make America safer from the kind of carnage and killing that is epitomized by the terrible and unspeakable tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook. I have spoken often about that tragedy. I have continued to meet with the loved ones of those 20 wonderful and beautiful children and 6 great educators. They are with me, as is the terrible tragedy of that day when I went to the firehouse where they learned for the first time that their loved ones would not be coming home. But I have stood also with loved ones from urban areas of Hartford, New Haven, and elsewhere from all other the country--victims of gun violence who perished unnecessarily and avoidably. They are the survivors of this continuing carnage that just this past weekend took tens of victims from around the country, including many in Chicago--as has been described so eloquently by Senator Durbin--and two alone in the east side of Bridgeport, CT, just this past weekend. I have stood with the family of Lori Jackson, her mom and dad. She was a young woman with two small children--twins--murdered by her estranged husband when he was under a restraining order, a temporary restraining order, literally the day before a permanent one would go into effect and he would have been barred under current law from possessing or buying a firearm of exactly the kind he used to kill her. Lori Jackson's mom was almost killed. A bullet went through her jaw and part of her head. Another went through her arm. As she stood with me, she was still bandaged from that wound. They stood with me because they want to save others from the terrible tragic fate that befell her that early morning as she sought refuge in their home--her parent's home--knowing her estranged husband was treacherously, dangerously, perilously, searching for her. But the law could not protect her. Federal law was powerless to do it because of a loophole that, in effect, exempted temporary restraining orders from the same protection that is provided to permanent restraining orders. Yet we know from her experience and from so many others that the initial period--those 10 days to 2 weeks when there is a temporary order--are the most dangerous and perilous times to women and others who are threatened by their intimate partners, spouses or former spouses. It is the most dangerous time because it is when the intimate partner, often the estranged husband, learns that she is leaving. It is over. She is seeking a divorce. She is taking the kids because it has become too dangerous. The threats have become too real and immediate. That was Lori Jackson's situation. I have offered a bill to close the loophole that rendered Federal law useless to her. I called it the Lori Jackson bill. I am offering an amendment that is identical to that legislation I introduced with my great colleague and friend Senator Murphy, who has been a teammate in this effort against gun violence. The Lori Jackson bill has nine other cosponsors: Senators Durbin, Murray, Boxer, Hirono, Warren, Markey, Baldwin, Menendez, and Kaine. The identical amendment that I propose today is supported by Senators Murphy, Durbin, Markey, Warren, Markey, Feinstein, Hirono, and Boxer. Lori Jackson was so brave. There is really no other word for it. She was brave, courageous, resolute, and strong--trying to escape the cycle of domestic violence which is a scourge across this country. We must continue the effort to fight domestic violence. But we know that a woman who is a victim of domestic violence is five times more likely to die if there is a gun in the house. In her name and her memory, so that her legacy will be one of hope and courage, I offer this amendment to the sportsmen's bill. Let us do something to make the Lori Jacksons of America safer from gun violence, if we are going to expand the use and opportunity for guns on Federal property or under Federal law. Because it is Federal law that failed to protect them now--a simple loophole, that a modest change can close. Let's do it in her name and in the name of Jasmine Leonard, who also had a temporary protection order against her husband and who died at his hand; Chyna Joy Young, who celebrated her 18th birthday just days before she was shot and killed by her estranged boyfriend; Barbara Diane Dye, who was granted a temporary restraining order and then fled to safety in Texas, returning only for a hearing on the permanent restraining order when her husband cornered her in a parking lot, and shot her repeatedly with a .357 Magnum revolver, killing her--and in the name of all of the other victims of domestic violence whom we can protect with this sensible, commonsense, modest measure that offers them some protection. I know that this amendment and the others that I supported offered by my colleagues such as that of Senator Durbin, who has been such a steadfast champion, and Senator Feinstein, who likewise spearheaded this cause well before I came here, while I was attorney general working in the State of Connecticut on this cause. I know that this measure will not alone solve the problems of gun violence in this country. But it is a step. It will save some women and men who may be victims of domestic violence. It is to be regarded as a companion to legislation proposed by Senator Klobuchar--very important legislation that I support as well, to prevent stalkers from accessing firearms. These kinds of measures are steps in the right direction. We should take those steps, put them first, and give safety the priority it deserves before we create more opportunities, and expand more access to Federal land for the use of guns. Gun safety should come first. We can send that message but also very practically and really help save lives, injuries, and dollars. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, for his very eloquent and powerful remarks on the need to address gun violence in this country and to do it as part of our consideration of the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act. I look forward to joining with him in the coming days--in fact, perhaps in the coming hours--in offering commonsense, sensible measures that will give us the opportunity to help stop gun violence in this country, addressing domestic violence as well, which so often leads to gun violence. Women are five times more likely to be killed in domestic violence when there is a gun in the home. The Senator from Illinois also addressed straw purchases and issues relating to drug trafficking. We have raised those and other issues in the past but have not yet successfully passed legislation in the Senate, not even addressed it in depth. So I hope we will have the opportunity in these next couple of days to consider these kinds of measures, because the scourge of gun violence is continuing in our neighborhoods and on our streets, just as it took the lives of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators in Newtown, CT, almost a year and a half ago, and 2 more people on Sunday on the east side of Bridgeport alone, and tens of thousands of others. It continues to cause death and injury and costs in lost lives and dollars throughout this country. We have an obligation as part of this measure to do better than we have in dealing with this tremendous, horrific, and unspeakable problem. It affects so many innocent children, particularly the children who are affected in urban neighborhoods where there are driveby shootings; in rural neighborhoods all across the country; in our cities and on our streets and in our schools. We have an obligation to do better and to put priorities first when it comes to the use of guns. I understand the reasons for expanding or providing more opportunities in this bill that may involve firearms, but first things first. Let's cure the safety of the country. Let's consider commonsense, sensible measures on gun control before we expand the use of guns and firearms in this country. Veterans' Health Care I am here as well to address the separate, unrelated issue of doing better to care for our veterans. The Veterans Access to Care Through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 is now in conference. I am on that conference committee. This body passed that bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 93 to 3 on June 11. It is a comprehensive bill to start addressing the problems that came to our attention so dramatically. There were reports of deadly delays, destruction of documents, manipulation of data, and falsification of records, as well as tragic reports of unacceptable wait times that were concealed at VA health care facilities. Books were cooked and criminal wrongdoing was covered up. That is the reason I have called for a criminal investigation, and one has now begun. I hope it will produce accountability from the health care system of the VA. More fundamentally, we have an obligation in the Senate and in the Congress to address the underlying issues that led to those deadly wait times and delays, the cooking of books and covering it up that has so dramatically undermined trust and confidence in the VA health care system. If anything, since June 11, the problem seems to have worsened. In fact, comparing May to July, the recently released figures of July 3--just last week--the numbers of medical appointments delayed for longer than 30 days has tripled in Connecticut and doubled nationwide. Nationwide, that number has gone from 242,069--roughly a quarter of a million veterans whose appointments were postponed by 30 days or more-- to 636,436. That is the number of veterans waiting longer than 30 days for an appointment. In Connecticut, the comparable numbers are 998 to 2,727--a tripling of the appointments delayed for longer than 30 days. In other parts of the country at other clinics and facilities, those numbers quadrupled. The possible good news is that maybe--just maybe--the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of those numbers of appointments longer than 30 days delayed means the numbers are more accurate and truthful. We don't know. I have demanded an explanation. I have written to the Acting Secretary of the VA, Sloan Gibson, calling for a public explanation for these numbers and the very alarming and astonishing trends, drastic and dramatic increases in those numbers of appointments suffering from delays. Justice Brandeis once said: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. These chronic failings at the VA demand a better explanation. Veterans deserve to know if things have gotten worse or is the reporting just better. All of us--the public whose taxpayer monies fund the VA--deserve the same kind of explanation. There should be a criminal investigation if there has been obstruction of justice and destruction of documents and falsification of records which involve Federal criminal wrongdoing. The act we now have in conference committee will help address many of these problems looking forward, moving ahead, by providing more access to private doctors and private hospitals outside the VA system to minimize and reduce and perhaps even eliminate those unacceptable waiting times of longer than 30 days for an appointment. It will provide more doctors--more than $500 million for that purpose alone. It will impose accountability by enabling easier firing and seeking to, in effect, claw back, or at best stop, some of the financial incentives that may have driven the false reporting. In those ways and a variety of others, this bill will help us move forward and achieve progress. No one should be under any illusion that this bill alone will solve all the problems. It is not a panacea. It is not a permanent solution to the VA's problems. We need, for starters, a new leader. The VA has no permanent Secretary. The confirmation of a new one is imperative. But tough questions are absolutely essential to determine whether the President's nominee should be the one to lead this agency, and I am certainly hoping he will be. The Veterans' Affairs conference committee met on June 24. I emphasized the importance at that hearing of honoring the commitment of our men and women in uniform by addressing the VA challenges with adequate funding and essential legislation. I am hopeful we will move quickly and effectively after that first June 24 meeting now to present to both Houses a final version of this bill so we can truly address the problems our veterans deserve to have solved and the VA has an obligation to eliminate. We need to assure that the differences between the two bodies are resolved and send this bill to the President for his signature. A country that really values its veterans, truly honors their service, should not subject them to waiting delays, secret waiting lists, and false records. This broad, bipartisan, historic bill to ensure that delays in treatment are eliminated and bad actors at the VA health centers are held accountable is a critical step to keep faith with our veterans and let us move forward quickly and responsibly with this bill. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague Senator Murphy. He is my friend and partner on so many different issues but most especially on measures to stop gun violence in this country-- commonsense, sensible measures he has championed so ably, and I have been very proud to work with him as a partner in spearheading this issue as well. I wish to explain my reasons that I am unable to vote for the bill we are considering today, the bill that is presented for cloture on the motion to proceed this afternoon. People in the United States have a Second Amendment right to possess and use firearms. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. And there are legitimate ways people can use firearms in this country--recreational and sometimes commercial. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and this measure, arguably, is in service of those rights. I cannot vote for a measure which makes owning or possessing or using guns more readily or easily useable when we have failed to act, and we have failed to act, on commonsense, sensible measures that will stop gun violence. I voted to achieve cloture on a measure very similar to this one before Sandy Hook and before the Senate failed to produce the necessary 60 votes which were required to pass commonsense gun violence legislation a year ago April. I can see the legitimate reasons to vote for the Sportsmen's Bill and to support cloture but not when this body has failed in its fundamental obligation to make America safer and to rid it of gun violence. We have an obligation to take first things first and protect our children and adopt the kinds of commonsense measures--background checks, mental health initiatives, school safety, and a ban on illegal trafficking-- that are easily within reach and would be passed by a majority of this body if presented for another vote and if a majority of Members voting was sufficient rather than the 60 votes that is now our threshold. I am reminded today of a victim of gun violence over this very weekend in the early morning of Sunday. A young woman in Bridgeport was gunned down by her ex-boyfriend, raging into her mother's house. First he shot her mother's boyfriend and then turned his gun on her because she had the audacity to end their relationship. Her story puts a face on the reason I have offered a measure named after Lori Jackson, another victim of gun violence, to impose commonsense steps to take guns away from the people who are under temporary restraining orders as well as permanent restraining orders. Whether that kind of measure would have worked in this case is irrelevant. Her death was unnecessary, preventable, tragic, and painful to her family, not to mention her mom, who was in the house at the time she was gunned down and murdered. Her death occurred within 75 minutes of another death in Bridgeport. On the east side, Abraham ``A.B.'' Davidson, a 23-year-old young man, was sitting on his house porch on Barnum Avenue in Bridgeport--gunned down. In the case of Kiromy Fontanez--the young woman who was shot by her ex-boyfriend--the shooter, Jose Santiago, was apprehended almost immediately and gave a confession. According to Bridgeport police, the case is closed. The chief of the Bridgeport police, Chief Gaudett, had this to say: Three separate incidents, six people shot, two people dead. I am very proud of the work that all of our officers do every day, but especially last night. It was a really trying night last night. Chief Gaudett committed himself to begin a renewed effort against domestic violence inspired by the death of this young woman, Kiromy Fontanez. In Connecticut we have already exceeded the number of domestic violence deaths that occurred in all of last year. Her death was the 10th in 2014 alone. Domestic violence takes a terrible, awful, unacceptable toll in lives and injuries, heartbreak and pain, and it is so avoidable and unnecessary. We need to do more about domestic violence, but, as my colleague Senator Murphy has commented so well, the chances of death as a result of domestic violence are increased by five times when there is a gun in the house. Guns and domestic violence are a dangerous toxic mix, and that is the reason for our legislation, the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act. The legislation we have offered takes away guns, stops purchases and ownership of guns when there are restraining orders, when there is an objective reason to think there will be this kind of threat of violence and rage and wrath. The memory of these two people--who died just yesterday morning in the early hours of the Sunday following Independence Day--should focus our attention again on what is important, what should be our priority, what should be our first steps when it comes to guns. That is to make America safer. Four months after the brutal murders in Sandy Hook, this body said no to the grieving Newtown families, to the people of Connecticut, and to the vast majority of American people who continue to support commonsense measures such as background checks. This body voted to prevent gun violence legislation from getting a final vote. Today we will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the sportsmen's bill. The fact that we are now considering this legislation to expand recreational shooting on Federal lands without addressing the scourge of gun violence is a stark reminder of the Congress's misplaced priorities and unfulfilled obligations. I sympathize with what my great colleague Senator Hagan is trying to do. If the legislation we are considering were part of a broader national discussion and conversation about who should possess guns and how we should keep them out of the hands of dangerous people--criminals and mentally troubled people who are dangerous to themselves or others--it would be a different debate on the floor and the considerations for me would be different on this vote. I spent last week going from town to town in Connecticut listening to constituents who asked me, What are you doing in Washington? What I heard a lot was, What are you doing in Washington to stop gun violence? When will you bring back the measures to stop gun violence that are the legacy and the lesson of Sandy Hook--a tragedy that still causes so much pain to so many people, thinking of those families, the 20 beautiful children and brave educators whose lives were lost that day. I cannot go back to Connecticut and tell those people who asked me about what we are doing about guns in America that what we have done is made it easier for Americans to shoot at targets, made it easier for big game trophy hunters to bring their polar bear rugs back from Canadian hunting grounds, and reduced regulations that govern shell cases. That is not my idea of where our priorities should be. First things first. Let's stop gun violence. Let's at least take steps to reduce its horrific toll of death and injury, its cost in dollars. Let's try to find that bipartisan ground on reducing domestic violence or reaching out to people who need mental health treatment, and let's find common ground on making America safer. That common ground serves our best instincts--what makes our Nation the greatest Nation in the history of the world, a nation whose independence we celebrated this weekend, with pride and joy, even as the terrible toll of gun violence continued in yesterday's early morning, over the weekend throughout America, where tens of thousands of deaths have followed the tragic, horrific, unspeakable tragedy of Sandy Hook. I will vote against this legislation, against invoking cloture, with sadness and regret that that obligation and promise is as yet unfulfilled. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, photographs on this poster are of a young woman, Lori Jackson, a Connecticut resident, who died tragically, needlessly, savagely in Oxford at the hands of her estranged husband. Lori is the reason I have introduced legislation named after her to close a gaping loophole in our Federal law--well, she is not the only reason. Tragically, there are thousands of other women and some men who have shared her fate because of a gap in Federal law that permits intimate partners to continue to have firearms, even when they are under restraining orders from the court. Those restraining orders are placed against them because they evidence clear danger to their partners, whether their husband or their spouse. The reason they pose danger is that they become violent. The gap in the law is it applies only to permanent restraining orders, not temporary ones. Lori Jackson sought a temporary restraining order when her estranged husband threatened her physically and her two 18-month-old twins at their home. She sought and she obtained a temporary restraining order and literally the day before that temporary restraining order was to become permanent and the prohibition against her husband having a firearm would have gone into effect, he gunned her down at her parents' home where she had sought refuge with her children--gunned her down and savagely and severely wounded her mother as well with those same firearms. The temporary restraining order against Lori's husband was completely ineffective, powerless to prevent him from using that gun against her and killing her--and her mother, severely wounding her. Tragically, Lori's story is far from unique. Jasmine Leonard also had a temporary restraining order against her husband. She died last week after her husband shot her. Chyna Joy Young celebrated her 18th birthday just days before she was shot and killed by her estranged boyfriend, despite the temporary restraining order she had against him. Young was 3 months pregnant. Barbara Diane Dye was granted a temporary restraining order and then fled to Texas. She returned only for a hearing on the permanent restraining order, and that is when her husband cornered her in a bank parking lot and shot her repeatedly with a .357 magnum revolver, killing her there. When domestic abusers have access to firearms, it isn't only abuse victims who are at risk. A violent husband under a temporary restraining order in Brookfield, WI, followed his wife to the salon where she worked. Not only did he shoot and kill his wife but he killed two additional people and wounded four more. After Erica Bell got a temporary restraining order against her husband, he came to her at church. He followed her there. He shot and killed Erica and he also shot four of her relatives, including her grandparents, great-aunt, and a cousin. This scourge of domestic violence, combined with the epidemic of guns in our society causing gun violence, is a toxic recipe, and we must do more against domestic abuse. That is why I have formed an organization in Connecticut called Men Make a Difference, Men Against Domestic Violence. It is a program launched in cooperation with our largest domestic prevention and response agency, Interval House, which does a wonderful job against domestic violence. It is a commitment of prominent men, all men, providing role models for young men and boys to reach out to other males and take action to prevent domestic violence. We can truly make a difference as men. We can fight domestic violence. We can gradually make progress against it because it is a cycle. More than 70 percent of all men who commit domestic violence have seen or experienced it in their own lives, and these kinds of organizations can help stop and stem domestic violence. But domestic violence, combined with guns, is a recipe for death. As our former colleague Frank Lautenberg used to say: ``The difference between a murdered wife and a battered wife is often the presence of a gun.'' Women are five times more likely to die as a result of domestic violence when there is a gun in the home than when there is not. So I have introduced the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act. It is a long name. The most important part of the name is Lori Jackson, because her story tells it all. There is no reason we should fail to protect women when they are protected by a temporary restraining order rather than a permanent restraining order. In fact, there is every reason to provide more protection in the first week or 2 weeks when there is a temporary restraining order in place. Remember, the temporary restraining order is granted not on a whim or a question, because of specific, credible evidence that an intimate partner poses a physical danger, and it is granted by a judge after considering that evidence. The moment of danger in a relationship such as Lori Jackson's is when one partner tells another--it may be a spouse, it may be a boyfriend, a girlfriend--she is leaving, she wants a divorce. That is the moment of maximum rage. That is the moment of greatest danger. That is the moment of uncontrollable wrath. At that moment of greatest danger, the law is at its weakest. There is no prohibition against that enraged, impulsive, hurt, angry individual from continuing to possess or purchase a firearm. The Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act very simply closes that gaping loophole in our law, providing that just as with a permanent protective order, an individual subject to a temporary restraining order cannot purchase or possess a firearm. It is a very simple, commonsense measure, but it can help save lives. It can help save others such as Lori Jackson and the individuals whom I have named--many of them courageous, strong individuals like Lori Jackson who broke with an abusive relationship. The experts in this field will tell us that is among the most difficult things to do, and it puts a woman at her most vulnerable point in the relationship. Again, that is the time when current law fails her. That is the reason we should close that loophole. Other measures are also important and necessary. I salute our colleague Senator Klobuchar for her proposal that will close an equally important loophole in our law relating to people who are convicted of stalking. That is an eminently important and sensible step to take. It will keep guns out of the hands of stalkers; likewise, Representative Moore's legislation to help States enforce our gun laws. Similarly, the comprehensive measure of mental health initiatives, school safety steps, background checks, is part of a comprehensive effort to stop gun violence in our country. They are all important and necessary. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut for championing them as a teammate in this effort, and he has joined me in supporting this legislation. I named this legislation after Lori Jackson as a memorial to her and a gesture of sadness and outrage at her death. Every man or woman who has lost his or her life through a domestic violence gun homicide deserves to be memorialized on this floor, as does every victim of gun violence. With more than 1,000 names added as victims every year, I believe we can honor them best by passing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in honoring Lori Jackson, Jasmine Leonard, Chyna Joy Young, Barbara Diane Guy, and Zina Daniel, all of the women who have lost their lives to domestic abusers and whose lives might have been saved. We can't know for sure. There is no certainty they would be alive today, but we know their chances would have been better if that temporary protective order had also protected them from an abuser who possessed or bought a firearm at that moment of maximum danger. We continue to grieve in Connecticut for all victims of gun violence, especially the 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators who lost their lives. This past Sunday I attended in West Haven the opening of a 24th playground. Where Angels Play is the name of the playground organization headed by a firefighter, a very resolute, steadfast, public servant, Bill Lavin. This playground, honoring one of those children, was on the beach in West Haven--a moment of haunting and exquisite beauty--when all of us gathered in honor of Charlotte Bacon on a sun-filled day, Father's Day. Joel and JoAnn Bacon and their son Guy were with us. Each of those playgrounds is a memorial to those children who died, and we have likewise honored the six great educators who perished. There are ways to honor and remember and memorialize these victims. Alexis Volpe in Middletown did a small garden, and she was joined by the Daisy Scouts there. All of them are beautiful in their own special way, but action is the best way to honor the memory of the victims of gun violence, action to adopt commonsense, sensible measures that will help prevent gun violence in the future. None is more important than honoring, remembering, and acting to save others such as Lori Jackson, who will always be with us in spirit and memory. I thank my colleagues who have joined me in this effort, Senators Durbin, Murray, Boxer, Murphy, Hirono, Warren, and Menendez, sponsoring the Lori Jackson Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act. I yield the floor for my good colleague and friend, the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking a number of my colleagues, most especially our good friends who are very active Members of this body, Senators Sanders and McCain, for acting in a very bipartisan and courageous way to enable us to reach a compromise and vote on a truly historic step forward--as we did recently--to begin to bring an end to this crisis in our health care system and the VA. I also thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his amendment, and I hope it has some support in some form--as it and other amendments deserve as well--because as commendable as the bill is, it certainly does not solve all of the problems in the VA health care system, let alone the VA. Let's recognize that the disability claims backlog persists. The bureaucratic rigmarole and sclerotic bureaucracy of the VA in many parts of the country continue to plague our veterans, and we need to recognize that top to bottom the VA needs an overhaul in its culture as well as its management. But this bill represents a good faith and effective way to respond initially--the beginning of a solution to a health care crisis that is decades long in the building. The delays in the VA health care system are well known and longstanding. I spend a lot of time, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well the Armed Services Committee, listening to veterans. I have a veterans advisory council that gives me extraordinarily insightful and important advice. I make a point of visiting the VA health care facilities all around Connecticut, and I spend a lot of time in places where veterans gather, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and others. Listening to them is a major source of information for me in forming my judgment about what should be done with the VA health care system. What I hear from them--most commonly-- is that the health care is good, but it takes too long to get it. The doctors, nurses, and health care providers do very good work, but it takes too long to see them. The delays are what our veterans find most troubling about this system. What we have seen--disclosed first by CNN and then by others--is not only delays but false record keeping to disguise those delays and falsification of documents and lists to hide a failure to meet deadlines--in fact, to provide timely care. That kind of falsification of records and destruction of documents, and, in effect, cooking the books and then covering it up goes beyond simply delaying health care. It is, in effect, a form of fraud. We have taken a first step here to meet the immediate needs and help end the delays. This bill will enable veterans to seek private health care at private facilities or private clinics or private hospitals if they have to wait too long or live too far away to make use of the VA facility. It also increases resources--a longer-term effort to provide more doctors and fill the 400 vacancies that exist right now. Those resources are vitally necessary, not only to provide more providers but also to rebuild, renovate, and construct new health care facilities. In providing more resources, this bill will also aid 26 VA facilities, such as the Errera clinic and facility in West Haven. It also imposes accountability. It makes sure that officials in the VA who are incompetent or corrupt can be fired more easily and that bonuses or promotions can be stopped for those officials who betrayed a trust. It also shows that what is necessary here is more money and better management--not one or the other. Both together are necessary to really serve our veterans with the health care they deserve, which is first class, world class health care and nothing less. That is what our Nation's heroes truly deserve, and more and more of them will be making use of that health care--2 million more over the past 5 years and millions more over the next 5 years. That burden is not something to be addressed at the margins. It has to be addressed head-on and fully and generously because that is the promise we made to our veterans--first class, world class health care, and nothing less. I will close by saying that accountability means something more than just firing corrupt or incompetent officials. It means holding them responsible for criminal culpability when they cook the books, falsify records, make false statements, and in effect lie to the American people as well as to their superiors in the VA. That will require a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, which is the only law enforcement agency that has the resources, expertise, and authority to conduct a prompt and effective criminal investigation on the scope and scale that is required. There are more than 50 locations where evidence of criminal culpability has been found. Thirteen percent of VA schedulers have indicated to the auditors that they were coerced or threatened into adopting, in effect, improper practices. Another 8 percent kept secret or unofficial lists, and many at those facilities and others may have cooked the books. I am not jumping to conclusions. I am not rushing to judgment. That is why an investigation is necessary and appropriate. Only the Department of Justice can convene a grand jury. Only the Department of Justice has the FBI resources. The VA inspector general has 165 investigators for the whole country, and that is not enough. That is simply not sufficient for this investigation. The VA is overwhelmed and overworked in its health care facilities, caseloads, and the needs that VA clients and patients are bringing to these facilities. The VA does some things very well when it comes to amputees, post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and many kinds of injuries associated with the battlefield. Combat medicine is more advanced than it has ever been before, and the VA is part of a very progressive effort to increase and to deliver health care more efficiently to that population. But the population of veterans who have fought in the longest wars in our history--although they may be a smaller part of our population than ever before in our wars--has been through multiple deployments, and they deserve the kind of intensive and comprehensive health care that the VA has committed to provide, and that will take more resources. This bill is a beginning. It is only a downpayment on what we owe our Nation's finest and bravest. We owe them the best that we can provide in health care and nothing less. That is part of what we promised, and that promise must be fulfilled. Thanks to the action of this body today we have begun on that path. I urge the House of Representatives to adopt this measure and to help us fulfill that promise. I hope they will do it soon. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, tomorrow the Senate has a historic and magnificent opportunity to increase everybody's fair shot at the American dream--everyone's fair shot at a college education that enables and opens the American dream to people who come from families where college was an unachievable aspiration. I know about those families because I come from one of them. I am the first man in my family to have a college education, not to mention the opportunity to go to law school. There are a couple of hard, practical facts, apart from all the rhetoric about the American dream. The fact is today college education is a major--maybe the most important determinant--of income. It is one of the major determinants of employment. The employment rate for college graduates is much higher than for those who lack it. In fact, the unemployment rates for college graduates are half or less than what they are for those who lack that education. College education--in fact, education in general--is the single most important instrument of social mobility in this country. It is a way for people to reach the middle class or for families to stay in the middle class. Right now, the middle class is squeezed in every direction by so many different economic factors and pressures, and the cost of a college education is one of the most pressing of them. So we have the opportunity tomorrow to enable countless people to take advantage of the American dream in a very hardheaded, practical way by enabling all college graduates or others who have student loans to reduce the charges--the interest rates--on those loans to a lower rate that is the lowest rate acceptable. I thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership in championing this cause before it reached the Senate floor--way before it became the fashionable and popular issue it has become. I thank also the President of the United States who, by Executive action, has helped to ease the burden of those college loans to thousands of current student debtholders. He has recognized the importance of reducing that burden by expanding a program that was passed by Congress in 2010, tying monthly student debt payments to a portion of the debtholder's discretionary income. He has expanded that program to include many of those debtholders before the date that it is currently operative, and I thank him for that step, but it is a minor step compared to what we have the opportunity to do tomorrow in realizing an opening to the American dream for many students who have already been through education and now carry interest rates on their debt of 8, 10, 11 percent. It is an opportunity not only for them to reduce that interest rate but also for the economy to take advantage of their purchasing power that will be unleashed--consumer demands that will be enlarged--because people are more likely to buy homes, start families, begin businesses, become entrepreneurs, be innovators and inventors, who right now are making career choices because they are saddled with debt that forces them to pay interest rates much higher than current students do. It is not a forgiveness program. They will continue to pay the principal on that debt. It is not a free ride or a handout. They simply get the benefit of the interest rates that our friends across the aisle thought was absolutely right, just months ago, when applied to the existing program. So this opportunity is a commonsense, simple measure to provide some relief to people struggling under a debt load that is suffocating to them, their futures, their families, and our economy's future. I believe sincerely there are equally important measures that eventually we need to take in this body, in this Congress, in this Nation, to make college more affordable. The costs of tuition and college expenses need to be brought down. The grants we provide--so- called Pell grants--and scholarships that come from other sources need to be expanded and increased. The opportunities for people who incur debt to work down or work off that debt through public service can be dramatically and drastically enhanced for their benefit and for the benefit of our communities and country that will stand to be forthcoming by their policing, their teaching, their firefighting, their public service that can be, in effect, rewarded and incentivized by enabling them to work down or work off those debts. These programs are a moral imperative, as is affording the opportunity of students to discharge in bankruptcy those debts when they simply cannot fulfill them, but this idea of giving everybody the benefit of the lowest possible interest rates that will be part of the bill we vote on tomorrow is a solid and sound and vitally important beginning. We enable homeowners to refinance and car buyers to refinance and many other kinds of debtholders to refinance but not student loans. That is a discrimination, maybe not unlawful but still a distinction that makes no sense either from the standpoint of our economy or the interests of the debtors. So I hope we will give them a fair shot but also impose a basic and fundamental tenet, an ethos of fairness: If it is good enough for home loans and car loans, why not for student loans? We should not be adopting policies that encourage people to give up on their dreams. In fact, we ought to be doing just the opposite, making young people feel their dreams are within reach. I will close by saying to my colleagues that in the last months I have been listening around the State of Connecticut--at roundtables and meetings--to both high school students and college students about this issue of college affordability. What is so inspiring to me, in the meetings I have had--in places such as Ansonia, Windham, and Bridgeport--is the drive and determination of our students to embark on a college education. They know its value, its realistic value, its cost, and they want to do it because they know it is a way up. They are gaining and they are giving back. But many of them have to make compromises. They have been admitted to schools. Their first choice is a first-rate school, but they cannot put together the package financially that will enable them to go. It is beyond reach financially, even as it is within their grasp intellectually. So they may compromise--maybe the first of other compromises that they will make throughout their lives, as they pursue careers, as they have to make hard choices. But at that age, those compromises should not be driven simply by financial imperatives. They should have the best education that is possible for them, and this country should make it available, not just for their sake but for all of ours. I have been listening to college students who are leaving--at the commencement addresses I have given at law schools, as well as colleges--listening to students talk about their futures as well, futures that will be compromised because of the debt they have, an average of $27,000 to $30,000 in the State of Connecticut alone, and it is similar in many States around the country and the reason we have $1.2 trillion in debt overall today. They will compromise in doing a job that may be more lucrative but less rewarding, less so to them and less so to our economy, less so to our society--a lesser way of earning a living in terms of its impact in contributing to our social fabric, qualify of life. They may not be teaching, they may not be policing, they may not be doing things that give back to our society because they need the income, the higher income to pay back that debt. So those compromises affect all of us as well. They are done because they simply cannot afford either to go to the school of their first choice or the career of their first choice, but the government can afford to give them a lower interest rate. We know the government can do so because right now it is profiting off the backs of students in billions and billions of dollars. The estimates range, over a 5-year period, from $66 billion to other amounts. We know the government will continue to profit even at lower interest rates from the Student Loan Program. So let's have less profit to the government, better well-being in our communities, and fairer treatment for our students--a fair shot for them and their families and for all who have as their objective simply to better their lives and gain a fair shot at the American dream. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very proud to begin a conversation on the floor with a number of my colleagues about one of the most urgent and pressing challenges that face us as a body here in Washington, making laws, but even more preeminently to families and students around the country who literally, right now, are sitting at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in family gatherings, trying to find a path forward in financing their education, their children's education, their grandchildren's education. We must do better as a nation. We have to do better in giving a fair shot to them--to the innovators and entrepreneurs and investors of the future--the people who will power our economy with ideas and energy as a result of college education, which is part of the American dream-- part of giving everybody in America a fair shot at that dream. I have been doing a lot of listening over these past weeks, over these past 3\1/2\ years, and over three decades in public service. I think listening is one of the most important things we do as public officials. There is an old saying that God gave us two ears and one mouth so that maybe we do a little more listening than talking. When I talk to students--and I have been doing a lot of that at commencement addresses and classrooms and roundtables around the State of Connecticut--I tell them I want to listen. What I have been hearing at Ansonia High School and Windham High School and The Stanwich School-- high schools around the State of Connecticut--is they are seeing dreams crushed by the cost of college education. The pages who are here today, our children, when we go home at night can tell us about how devastating these costs are, how their hopes and aspirations for the future are constrained and sometimes crippled financially by the cost of college education. We must bring it down. The costs of tuition and expenses must be reduced. At the same time, we need to find better financing options for our students. That is the reason we are reintroducing today the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, with some minor changes, because we have listened to people who have told us improvements that could be made in that measure. But, most importantly, we have listened to students, both the high school students and college students, who are telling us about dreams deferred and dreams devastated by the costs of college education. So we must make sure that the $1.2 trillion that overhangs them and our economy is addressed. This measure would help the students of today and tomorrow. It would help the students of today because it offers promise for the future, and the students who already have debt would be able to reduce that debt. Those students who are paying 7 or 8 or 10 or 11 percent would be able to reduce it, refinance, not just--we all do refinancing of our home loans and our car loans right now. There is no possibility of doing it with student debt loan, and that is what this measure would enable them to do. For folks who have graduated and who cannot start families, begin businesses, buy homes, contribute to our economy, it would enable them to accomplish those dreams rather than deferring or abandoning them. I am often heartbroken, as I talk to people who have these debts. They did the right thing; they played by the rules, went to college, and now find themselves crushed by that debt. Those who are laboring under these crushing debt loans often have pursued careers in medicine and other professions such as nursing that would enable them to do an enormous good for this country if they were helped, if that crushing burden were somehow reduced. Giving them a fair shot is good for our economy because it will increase consumer demand. It is also good for our social fabric--literally economically, socially, and physically good for our health by enabling some of those doctors and nurses to work in communities that are underserved right now. We ought to give them public service options, enable some of that debt to be paid down or paid off through community and public service. But the measure I think we can agree is urgent and pressing, where there ought to be consensus, is enabling the commonsense refinancing of current debt. There are other measures that are vitally important, such as clarifying and requiring more accuracy and truth in the forms that are given to students at the time they take these loans so they know what their debt will be; enabling more of them to have grants rather than loans, bringing down the cost of tuition; enabling more public service options as a means to pay down or pay off debt. But let's focus right now on what is clearly an imperative--a moral imperative and a social imperative for our Nation--to enable more refinancing right now. For federal student loans that were originated in the years between 2007 and 2012, the government will make $66 billion. Mr. President, $66 billion. That money goes into the U.S. Treasury fund when, in fact, instead it should be invested in our students and our communities. I urge my colleagues to join in this effort and to focus on those additional measures we can achieve. I see my colleague from Illinois is here. He has championed and I have been pleased to join him in efforts to enable student debt to be discharged in bankruptcy. One of the great, gaping gaps in our present bankruptcy system is that students cannot find any relief from this student debt. Almost every other form of debt can be discharged from bankruptcy but not student debt. So there are other measures we can and should achieve, but a fair shot for everyone ought to begin right now with this measure on the floor, enabling students and former students to refinance so they have the best shot at paying off those loans and a fair shot at the American dream. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, who has been such a champion and a leader in these efforts over so many years. Well before I came to the Senate, he was there working and fighting for more affordable loans for our students. The comments that have been heard on the Senate floor over the past hour reflect a growing awareness and worry in the country, a worry about what happens to America in the future, whether we will leave a lesser America, and whether the American dream will be not only deferred but denied to so many students who are wondering and worrying right now about their personal futures as well as the future of the country. These comments and this conversation will be extended over this day and the days to come as we prepare for a crucial vote next week on this bill. One of the chief authors of this bill, Senator Warren, is to be thanked and commended. She will be on floor later today or tomorrow to speak for herself, but she has shown, through her career, how often people who most need this kind of help, whose finances most cry out for this assistance, are impacted, and in fact constrained in their futures by the big banks and lending institutions that take advantage of them-- and, in this case, even the U.S. Government itself that is profiting off their backs--billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our students when we should be investing in them. We have an obligation and a historic opportunity to make things right for young people and older people, whose present lives are impacted and whose futures are constrained by the daunting and financially crippling overhanging debt. It is an overhanging debt that impacts our economy because it prevents the entrepreneurs from taking risks. It prevents young people from buying homes and starting families. It financially cripples our economy as well as those individual lives. So in the light of self-interest, we ought to argue for all of us to support this legislation. For myself, I am going to be listening to those students who discussed their futures with me at Ansonia High School, Stanwich, at roundtables across Connecticut, at the commencements where I spoke, and the college students who spoke to me at Quinnipiac, or the law school students there who talked to me about how their present lives and their spirit, their hope for public service, as well as for gaining for themselves the promise of their futures, will be impacted and maybe put out of reach by the debt they have, not just hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars, but tens of thousands of dollars and, for some, hundreds of thousands of dollars. We can do better for them and for ourselves if we enable them to refinance. Right now, student debt is not only one of the few debts that is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, but it is one of the few debts that is nonrefinanceable. Let's treat these students as we would other debtors. In fact, let's give them a fair shot. Let's give our country a fair shot. I am proud to support this legislation. I thank all of my colleagues who are here today, and all who will support--I hope on both sides of the aisle--this vote we will have next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to yield now to Senator Merkley and then to Senator Schumer.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. Order of Procedure I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each during the majority's controlled time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, and I want to begin by thanking him for his leadership, his persistence, and his perseverance in the face of resistance that should not exist. This cause ought to be one that galvanizes the Nation, and perhaps it will, since the Nation has been appalled and astonished by reports of not only cooking the books but covering up that potential criminality--destruction of documents, falsification of records, secret waiting lists, delays that are unacceptable and intolerable for basic, necessary health care our veterans need. But these issues are longstanding, decades old in this system, and they need to be addressed with system-wide reform. I am strongly in support, and proudly so, in advocating the Ensuring Veterans Access to Health Care Act that Senator Sanders has just introduced. It is a version of the omnibus bill and other measures that have been introduced. It has essential features that will provide better health care sooner and more accessibly to our veterans. It is necessary to pass, but these provisions should have passed literally years ago. In fact, the very first piece of legislation I introduced in the Senate, S. 1060, called the Honoring All Veterans Act, included a provision to deal with this shortage of doctors in this system. It included other health care-related measures to expand the availability and accessibility of health care. These problems, far from new, have been existent for some time. And the coverup, the lying, and falsification of records is potentially now criminal and beyond a failure of public policy; it is a failure in integrity. I am pleased to join Senator Sanders to make sure the 9.3 million of the Nation's 22 million who are enrolled in the VA health care system-- which is up from about 2.5 million at the end of the first gulf war-- have the kind of service they need. This bill will address some basic needs. It provides authority to remove senior executives based on poor job performance and preventing wholesale political firings. The legislation would provide veterans who cannot get timely appointments access to private clinics and the option of going to community health care centers, military hospitals, or private doctors. It would authorize the Veterans' Administration to lease 27 new health facilities in 18 States, including funds for the enhanced lease of the Errera Community Care Center in West Haven, CT, which does profoundly important and excellent work. The legislation authorizes emergency funding to hire new doctors and nurses and other providers in order to address systemwide health care provider shortages and to take other necessary steps to ensure timely access to care. It addresses the health care primary care shortage for the long term as well by authorizing the National Health Service Corps to award scholarships to medical school students and to forgive college loans for doctors and nurses who work at the VA. These kinds of measures and others in the bill will act to fulfill our basic obligation to our veterans, just as I attempted to do in the Honoring All Veterans Act some years ago, and others have joined since in seeking to do. My hope is we can reach across the aisle. In fact, I am working with Senator McCain on a bipartisan letter to the Attorney General urging all possible involvement and leadership in a criminal investigation. I hope a similar spirit of bipartisanship will enable us to work with Senators McCain, Burr, and Coburn on their Veterans Choice Act and combine these measures, enlist them in supporting a bipartisan solution and join Senator Sanders in hoping for that bipartisan effort in this measure because there is no question that the VA budget has grown, but simply has failed to keep pace with surging demand, especially in mental health services and primary care. Too many of our veterans are coming home with serious mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and need the care we owe them. We need accountability. Part of it will be firing the officials who should be held responsible, but part of it may also be prosecuting them, and that is the reason I have asked the Attorney General to take the lead to assume much more immediate, significant involvement in any criminal investigation that may be necessary. In fact, there is credible and significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing here. The Department of Justice must be involved and in my view must take a leadership role, and that is the reason Senator McCain and I have joined in a letter that we are seeking support for our colleagues to send that would request the Attorney General to take such steps. Only the Attorney General has the resources, expertise, and authority, along with the FBI, to do a prompt and effective criminal investigation. Only the Department of Justice can convene a grand jury and take other necessary steps. Only the FBI can bring to bear the expertise as well as the resources. The inspector general of the Veterans' Administration has only 165 investigators for the entire Nation. This investigation now spans more than 40 centers where criminality has been alleged. Of the 216 sites visited by the auditors recently, many were found to have issues of scheduling practice defects and potential integrity problems. So there is a reason for the VA inspector general to not only consult with the Department of Justice but also involve the Department of Justice in an active leadership role here, and for the Acting Secretary of the VA to request that involvement, which I hope he will do. I commend what he has done so far, but now is the time for the Department of Justice to be involved in leading. The audit of the facilities around the country is to be made public-- not just the overall results which have been delivered to the President in a report last Friday, but all of the results--site-specific results for locations, for example, the two hospitals in Connecticut in West Haven and in Newington as well as the six medical centers in Connecticut. All of those site-specific audits should be made public. I have written to the Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson, urging that he make those face-to-face audits of the VA medical facilities public, not only for Connecticut but for the whole country. Restoring trust and credibility will be achieved only if there is more transparency. Nondisclosure would be a bad way to begin a new era of leadership at the VA. Full transparency is absolutely vital to help restore trust and confidence, which has been so gravely threatened and, indeed, undermined. Finally, I have a few words to say about Secretary Shinseki. The immediate challenge is not about replacing one person, it is about fixing a system that is desperately wrong. I deeply respect Secretary Shinseki's decision to resign last week after concluding that his continued service would be a distraction from the urgent and necessary overhaul of the Veterans' Administration. I respect even more his dedicated service to our Nation. He is a decorated combat veteran who led into battle many of the men and women who now use the Veterans' Administration. His mentors and models, as he so eloquently told our committee, now use the Veterans' Administration. In his heart, I believe he is passionately committed to the cause of serving our veterans, and he deserves gratitude and respect from the American people for his service in the U.S. military and his telling truth to power as the President so powerfully observed. The Nation must recognize it owes our veterans world-class, first- class medical care that is second to none. Putting them at risk in medical facilities after they have put their lives on the line on the battlefield is a disservice to them and our Nation. It is abhorrent and atrocious that there have been these potentially criminal acts--destruction of documents and falsification of records-- at many of the VA facilities around the country. There is no excuse for it. Whether it is arbitrary deadlines or timelines, there is simply no excuse for that kind of lying. The lying that happened within the VA was not only to General Shinseki, but to the American people. The ones who committed that kind of wrongdoing should be held accountable administratively and criminally. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ongoing global military operations since 9/11, have cast a long shadow on this Nation's history. It involved less than 1 percent of the population, including the families of the brave warriors who have been sent to battle. All of us will live with the consequences, and all of us have an obligation to keep faith with them, leave no veteran behind, and give them prompt and world-class, first-class medical care when they need it right away. The ``greatest generation'' set a model for them, and they are, indeed, the next greatest generation. We have to do right by them as they have done right by us. No matter what the era, conflict, or war, let us keep faith with all of the veterans and leave no veteran behind.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders, and I want to begin by thanking him for his leadership, his persistence, and his perseverance in the face of resistance that should not exist. This cause ought to be one that galvanizes the Nation, and perhaps it will, since the Nation has been appalled and astonished by reports of not only cooking the books but covering up that potential criminality--destruction of documents, falsification of records, secret waiting lists, delays that are unacceptable and intolerable for basic, necessary health care our veterans need. But these issues are longstanding, decades old in this system, and they need to be addressed with system-wide reform. I am strongly in support, and proudly so, in advocating the Ensuring Veterans Access to Health Care Act that Senator Sanders has just introduced. It is a version of the omnibus bill and other measures that have been introduced. It has essential features that will provide better health care sooner and more accessibly to our veterans. It is necessary to pass, but these provisions should have passed literally years ago. In fact, the very first piece of legislation I introduced in the Senate, S. 1060, called the Honoring All Veterans Act, included a provision to deal with this shortage of doctors in this system. It included other health care-related measures to expand the availability and accessibility of health care. These problems, far from new, have been existent for some time. And the coverup, the lying, and falsification of records is potentially now criminal and beyond a failure of public policy; it is a failure in integrity. I am pleased to join Senator Sanders to make sure the 9.3 million of the Nation's 22 million who are enrolled in the VA health care system-- which is up from about 2.5 million at the end of the first gulf war-- have the kind of service they need. This bill will address some basic needs. It provides authority to remove senior executives based on poor job performance and preventing wholesale political firings. The legislation would provide veterans who cannot get timely appointments access to private clinics and the option of going to community health care centers, military hospitals, or private doctors. It would authorize the Veterans' Administration to lease 27 new health facilities in 18 States, including funds for the enhanced lease of the Errera Community Care Center in West Haven, CT, which does profoundly important and excellent work. The legislation authorizes emergency funding to hire new doctors and nurses and other providers in order to address systemwide health care provider shortages and to take other necessary steps to ensure timely access to care. It addresses the health care primary care shortage for the long term as well by authorizing the National Health Service Corps to award scholarships to medical school students and to forgive college loans for doctors and nurses who work at the VA. These kinds of measures and others in the bill will act to fulfill our basic obligation to our veterans, just as I attempted to do in the Honoring All Veterans Act some years ago, and others have joined since in seeking to do. My hope is we can reach across the aisle. In fact, I am working with Senator McCain on a bipartisan letter to the Attorney General urging all possible involvement and leadership in a criminal investigation. I hope a similar spirit of bipartisanship will enable us to work with Senators McCain, Burr, and Coburn on their Veterans Choice Act and combine these measures, enlist them in supporting a bipartisan solution and join Senator Sanders in hoping for that bipartisan effort in this measure because there is no question that the VA budget has grown, but simply has failed to keep pace with surging demand, especially in mental health services and primary care. Too many of our veterans are coming home with serious mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, and need the care we owe them. We need accountability. Part of it will be firing the officials who should be held responsible, but part of it may also be prosecuting them, and that is the reason I have asked the Attorney General to take the lead to assume much more immediate, significant involvement in any criminal investigation that may be necessary. In fact, there is credible and significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing here. The Department of Justice must be involved and in my view must take a leadership role, and that is the reason Senator McCain and I have joined in a letter that we are seeking support for our colleagues to send that would request the Attorney General to take such steps. Only the Attorney General has the resources, expertise, and authority, along with the FBI, to do a prompt and effective criminal investigation. Only the Department of Justice can convene a grand jury and take other necessary steps. Only the FBI can bring to bear the expertise as well as the resources. The inspector general of the Veterans' Administration has only 165 investigators for the entire Nation. This investigation now spans more than 40 centers where criminality has been alleged. Of the 216 sites visited by the auditors recently, many were found to have issues of scheduling practice defects and potential integrity problems. So there is a reason for the VA inspector general to not only consult with the Department of Justice but also involve the Department of Justice in an active leadership role here, and for the Acting Secretary of the VA to request that involvement, which I hope he will do. I commend what he has done so far, but now is the time for the Department of Justice to be involved in leading. The audit of the facilities around the country is to be made public-- not just the overall results which have been delivered to the President in a report last Friday, but all of the results--site-specific results for locations, for example, the two hospitals in Connecticut in West Haven and in Newington as well as the six medical centers in Connecticut. All of those site-specific audits should be made public. I have written to the Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson, urging that he make those face-to-face audits of the VA medical facilities public, not only for Connecticut but for the whole country. Restoring trust and credibility will be achieved only if there is more transparency. Nondisclosure would be a bad way to begin a new era of leadership at the VA. Full transparency is absolutely vital to help restore trust and confidence, which has been so gravely threatened and, indeed, undermined. Finally, I have a few words to say about Secretary Shinseki. The immediate challenge is not about replacing one person, it is about fixing a system that is desperately wrong. I deeply respect Secretary Shinseki's decision to resign last week after concluding that his continued service would be a distraction from the urgent and necessary overhaul of the Veterans' Administration. I respect even more his dedicated service to our Nation. He is a decorated combat veteran who led into battle many of the men and women who now use the Veterans' Administration. His mentors and models, as he so eloquently told our committee, now use the Veterans' Administration. In his heart, I believe he is passionately committed to the cause of serving our veterans, and he deserves gratitude and respect from the American people for his service in the U.S. military and his telling truth to power as the President so powerfully observed. The Nation must recognize it owes our veterans world-class, first- class medical care that is second to none. Putting them at risk in medical facilities after they have put their lives on the line on the battlefield is a disservice to them and our Nation. It is abhorrent and atrocious that there have been these potentially criminal acts--destruction of documents and falsification of records-- at many of the VA facilities around the country. There is no excuse for it. Whether it is arbitrary deadlines or timelines, there is simply no excuse for that kind of lying. The lying that happened within the VA was not only to General Shinseki, but to the American people. The ones who committed that kind of wrongdoing should be held accountable administratively and criminally. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ongoing global military operations since 9/11, have cast a long shadow on this Nation's history. It involved less than 1 percent of the population, including the families of the brave warriors who have been sent to battle. All of us will live with the consequences, and all of us have an obligation to keep faith with them, leave no veteran behind, and give them prompt and world-class, first-class medical care when they need it right away. The ``greatest generation'' set a model for them, and they are, indeed, the next greatest generation. We have to do right by them as they have done right by us. No matter what the era, conflict, or war, let us keep faith with all of the veterans and leave no veteran behind.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to recognize TSgt Michele L. Jones, originally from Pawcatuck, CT, on the occasion of her retirement from the U.S. Air Force. Since enlisting in the Air Force on December 17, 1992, she has served honorably all over the world--Iraq, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Korea--while participating in and directly supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Technical Sergeant Jones started her career as an information management apprentice at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, NE. Following that post, she was transferred in 1995 to Kunsan Air Force Base in the Republic of Korea, the first of many demanding overseas assignments. She then served at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama from 1997 to 1999. Continuing her rise through the ranks, Technical Sergeant Jones served again in the Republic of Korea, at Osan Air Force Base, from 1999 to 2000. This was immediately followed by a 7-year tour in Japan with the 35th Civil Engineer Squadron at Misawa Air Force Base, where she served in the Big Sister Program and the Special Olympics. As a noncommissioned officer, Technical Sergeant Jones was recognized as a top leader and expeditionary airman. While in Japan, she deployed to Saudi Arabia and Iraq and distinguished herself while serving with the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in Baghdad. During this tour, she earned high praise from LTG David Petraeus, then the commanding general of Multi-National Security Transition Command--Iraq. In addition to the personal recognition she has received, Technical Sergeant Jones' hard work and leadership helped her units earn awards as top commands in Japan and the Air Force. Following these demanding operational tours, Technical Sergeant Jones transferred to Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in 2007. Assigned as the 563rd Rescue Group's information manager, she once again deployed to Iraq in 2008, serving as the noncommissioned officer-in-charge, Task Force 134 in Baghdad, Iraq. She returned to Nellis Air Force Base and served in the 53rd Test and Evaluation Group before deploying in 2010 to Qatar. There, she served as the noncommissioned officer in charge of protocol at Al Udeid Air Base, supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and New Dawn. Finally, during Technical Sergeant Jones' long and exemplary career, she has interacted regularly with Congress. While deployed to MacDill Air Force Base, where she supported U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, Technical Sergeant Jones coordinated Congressional delegation visits to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility, which included Iraq and Afghanistan. The able travel assistance she offered to Members of Congress and senior Defense Department leaders earned personal recognition from the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Vice President of the United States. Since 2012, Technical Sergeant Jones has provided additional outstanding support through her service in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. I am delighted to commend Technical Sergeant Jones for her more than two decades of distinguished service to our Nation. I wish her the best as she begins the next chapter of her life.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. President. Reserving my right to object, and I will object, I respect my friend and colleague from South Carolina. We are friends, and we agree on a lot of issues. On this issue we fundamentally disagree. I am here to remind the American people and my colleagues that this proposal to ban abortion after 20 weeks, in my view, is irresponsible and should not be before the Senate. But I am more than happy to cast a vote on it, along with the Women's Health Protection Act, and I hope they will be considered. This issue deserves to be before this body. Neither of these proposals has yet been considered in committee. The minority leader of this body has recently spoken about the need for ``a vigorous committee process'' in handling bills. This bill should not be considered in this way. This bill would prohibit the medical profession from performing an abortion when a fetus is older than 20 weeks and would do nothing, frankly, to help women protect their health and the health of their families as well as their right to have control over their health care needs. This bill leaves the vast majority of women who may need an abortion for health reasons after 20 weeks of pregnancy with no options, and it punishes doctors with up to 5 years in prison for providing a service that the doctor believes in his or her professional medical opinion is best for the woman and her family. Our constitutional right to privacy tells us unequivocally and emphatically that these choices should be between the doctor and her family or her advisers, including her clergy. The proponents of this bill would have us believe the bill would reduce the number of abortions in this country. In fact, the statistic that matters in this debate shows there are a mere 1.5 percent of abortions that occur 20 weeks after conception, and the majority of these medical procedures occur due to a health issue that would put the fetus or mother or both at risk. Take for example a young woman I am going to call Laura. She is a young mother from Connecticut. She became ill at 22 weeks into her first pregnancy with early onset of severe preeclampsia. Laura's blood pressure rose dangerously, her kidneys stopped, and she was at risk. Her pregnancy was wanted. She wanted a baby and she planned for it, but she needed to end it to protect her health. Her physician was able to provide her with a timely and safe abortion. Although Laura felt a future pregnancy would be too risky, she went on to adopt three children. Facing such severe medical risk, women such as Laura need the safest care modern medicine can offer. With all due respect, Senator Graham's bill ignores the health realities of women, the realities they face every day in Connecticut and around the country. Had this bill been law, a doctor would have had to wait for Laura to be facing death before protecting her with the abortion she needed. The Women's Health Protection Act would put women's rights first. The Women's Health Protection Act seeks full and thorough consideration of these issues, and I seek it through the regular order. Let's have hearings, let's consider these measures in committee, and let's bring them to the floor in a way that they can be debated insightfully and thoughtfully, not this way. The Women's Health Protection Act protects a woman's health and her ability to make her own decisions and her constitutional rights. I object.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I respect the sincerity of my colleague from South Carolina. The fact of one instance of possible medical malpractice does not justify this kind of sweeping abrogation of women's reproductive rights or women's health care. The principle is the same whether it is 4 weeks back or 4 weeks forward. The principle is that a woman has constitutional rights to choose health care and has a constitutional right to privacy that would be negated by this measure. And we are siding with improving women's health care, enhancing and upgrading it, and giving women choices and protecting those choices, not cutting back by 4 weeks or in any way infringing on that fundamental right. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.