Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 2:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Prospects for Peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Great Lakes Region.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room S-216 of the Capitol Building.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Offshore Tax Evasion: The Effort to Collect Unpaid Taxes on Billions in Hidden Offshore Accounts.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 26, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Market.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Retirement Savings for Low-Income Workers.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here very proudly and gratefully to support the nomination of Jeffrey Meyer as a U.S. district court judge for the District of Connecticut. I am proud because of his extraordinary credentials. I am grateful to President Obama and, hopefully, to this body for giving Connecticut the services of a professor, litigator, prosecutor, and a person of extraordinary integrity and ability. Jeffrey Meyer has all of the qualifications in extraordinary depth and quality to be a great judge. He is truly a lawyers' lawyer. He is a prosecutors' prosecutor. He will be a judges' judge. Mr. Meyer served as a legal aid lawyer in Vermont for Vermont Legal Aid and as an associate of two Washington, DC, law firms. He really has made his mark as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut, where he served for 10 years, five of them as appeals chief. He also was a law clerk to Judge Oakes for the Second Circuit. He has a grounding in academia, having taught at Quinnipiac Law School and served as Supreme Court advocacy clinic teacher at Yale, where he has also been a visiting professor since 2000. I am abbreviating and summarizing his credentials because they are well documented and well known in this body. What can't be summarized so easily is the quality of judgment he has and that befits a judge on the Federal court. Judges on the U.S. district court, as I know from my own experience, having litigated for quite a few years, are often the last point of justice for many people in our country. They are the voice and face of justice for so many people who may not have the means or the persistence to appeal further, and for most litigants he will be the voice and face of justice before his court. That is a very solemn responsibility. It is a responsibility for life. These decisions about who will serve on the district court are among the most important we make in this body, so we approach it seriously and thoughtfully. Following the high standards we impose, Jeffrey Meyer aptly and abundantly meets the test for serving as a U.S. district court judge: His background in litigation; his experience in actually trying cases; his background as an academic, in thinking through some of the toughest issues of the law and teaching others how to do it, how to actually be a lawyer; and, of course, his judgment and his sense of perspective and, most importantly, his integrity. I have worked with Jeff Meyer. I know of his dedication to his clients. I have worked with him in very tough personal situations where his advice to a client would make a critical difference in that person's life. I know he has the human quality of compassion and insight that is really necessary to make judgments about credibility when he has to judge the credibility of a witness on the stand or when he has to sentence an individual who may have broken the law but has mitigating factors to present. Anybody who spends time in a trial court knows that judges have to make split-second decisions based on their knowledge of the law but also on their instincts, on what they sense is right. Jeff Meyer has that quality of judgment that makes all the difference in the world. Some people have it, even if they haven't graduated, as Jeff Meyer did, from some of the best schools in the country, and some people don't, even when they have all the degrees in the world. Maybe it is common sense or horse sense or good instincts or character. It is very hard for anyone to say who has it without meeting them, as we did on the Judiciary Committee, and knowing them. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my great friend and colleague Senator Leahy, for championing people of this great ability. Senator Leahy has devoted his lifetime to the quality of our Federal judiciary, and it has been immensely beneficial to our judiciary and to all who appear before our Federal judges to have a champion such as Senator Leahy of Vermont. There are now 96 vacancies in our Federal court. Thirty-nine of those vacancies have been classified as judicial emergencies. Let us get on with our task and our responsibility to make sure justice is not delayed in the greatest country in the history of the world, because we know so often justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied. That may be true of the least seemingly important case that matters so greatly to the person whose life is at stake or it may be an issue of great moment to the Nation's future. But one way or the other, the American people rely on us to make sure justice is done, that judges are nominated and confirmed, and that we enable every American to have access to judges who will decide fairly and wisely the merits of their case. Whether it is through a trial or in a motion, justice is what makes our Nation one of the greatest--the greatest, in fact--in the history of the world. I am very proud and grateful for the opportunity to support Jeff Meyer to be a U.S. district court judge for Connecticut. I yield the floor.

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 Margaret Taylor, a detailee from the State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges today in anticipation of votes on nominations and for the rest of the 113th Congress in order to assist with matters related to the work of the committee.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my distinguished colleagues for recognizing my sons' service. One is a marine reservist deployed to Afghanistan and the other is a Navy officer currently in further training. I thank them and offer my support to the goals they have articulated today. I look forward to the resolution they are offering and talking further about the specifics of it. I again thank them for recognizing the urgent need for this body to take action at this point in supporting those goals. I look forward to continuing my work with them. Again, my gratitude to them for their courage and determination, and I offer my thanks and support. I am here today to talk about a bill that undoes an injustice, and frequently the work of this body is to undo injustices, and sometimes even mistakes, such as the repeal of the cost-of-living adjustment reduction for certain military retirees. I have spoken before in this Chamber and at home in Connecticut about my opposition to the pension cost-of-living adjustment reduction contained in the budget agreement approved by this body. I firmly believe there is no just way to balance the budget on the backs of our military retirees. It was a mistake then, and we can undo it now without a so-called pay-for. Their sacrifice and service has been paid in full. With their sacrifices, military retirees deserve to be paid in full for the promises we have made to them. We made those promises to them for their service and sacrifice that they have given us already, and we should not break that promise. The reduction in these cost-of-living adjustments impacts both the brave veterans who served for 20 years in the military and those who earned their retirements because of a service-connected medical disability. We should keep our promises to both. Last month I discussed this problem with about 25 veterans in American Legion Post 96 in West Hartford with Commander Ken Hungerford. Our brave patriots who served and sacrificed for our country understandably agreed they should receive the full benefit of present cost-of-living adjustments. This is a promise we have made and a promise we must keep. To fix this issue, Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire and I first introduced the Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act. I continue to support it. I also support Chairman Sanders' comprehensive veterans legislation that would restore this cut to military retiree pensions, along with improving access to health care and tackling benefits backlogs for veterans. I am very proud to have helped draft the omnibus bill, known as the mega bill, that has already been offered on the floor. There is a very simple, straightforward solution that we should adopt before either of those two options. It is S. 1856, which would repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. S. 1856 meets this criteria of paid in full. It is simple and straightforward. It has no pay-for because there is no need for an offset when we are talking about fulfilling our promises to our brave and dedicated veterans, who have given on the battlefield their all, who have given us, in service and sacrifice--even before they reach combat or even if they had no combat--the kind of contribution to our national security and our national defense that merits these cost-of-living adjustments. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I listened to the testimony of Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine Fox that it was not consulted in the drafting of the cuts in COLA--the cost-of- living adjustments--and does not support the reduction in military retiree benefits enacted through section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. If there is a need to combat fraud in any of our programs, let the Department of Justice increase the vigor and effectiveness of enforcement efforts. If there is a need to repair a statute, to prevent waste or fraud or corruption, we should deal with that issue separately and distinctly. If there is a need to reduce the debt and the deficit-- and I agree we should be mindful of fiscal responsibility--we ought to do it without breaking our promises to veterans. We ought to keep those promises without worrying about the debt that could be cut by other measures. And we should adopt those other measures rather than demanding a payback or an offset or whatever the terminology may be. In the next 5 years, we will see 1 million Americans leave the U.S. military. As troops come home from Afghanistan, as the military downsizes, the Marines and the Army reduce the number of men and women serving in uniform, 1 million Americans will leave the military. That number consists of individuals' lives--it is not just a statistic--individual stories of heroism and bravery on the battlefield, of invisible wounds, as well as horrific visible injuries; invisible wounds involving the issues of post-traumatic stress and chronic brain injury. More than one-third of them, perhaps as many as a half of all of those young men and women leaving the military, will bear those invisible wounds of war. We need to provide them with the health care, job counseling, skill training, jobs, and treatment for those invisible wounds of war they deserve and they have earned. That is the purpose of the bill I have helped to draft with Senator Sanders' leadership, the omnibus bill that will address those issues. I am hopeful, also, we will adopt the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, to extend tax credits for employers who hire those veterans, tax credits that expired at the end of last year. My bill would restore them. But let us now urgently and immediately adopt S. 1856--a simple and straightforward measure to restore justice to the Federal pension system for military retirees. Let us not balance our budget on the backs of our brave veterans. Let us restore those pensions to the level we promised and keep our promises as a nation to the military veterans who have kept our freedoms strong. Mr. President, that is the end of my remarks. I thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am reminded even at this late hour, when most of the world has moved on to other pursuits, what a great privilege it is to be with two magnificent voices and advocates for fairness and economic opportunity: Senator Warren of Massachusetts, and my very good friend, Senator Booker of New Jersey, on his first occasion here on the floor. I feel very blessed and fortunate and privileged to be here with them. I feel that way at any moment on this floor in this body but particularly as we face this great challenge ahead: how to preserve and enhance our middle class in America; how to make sure America fulfills its great promise Senator Booker evoked so eloquently, going back to the days of George Washington; and now, with great leaders facing many of the same kinds of basic questions about whether we can provide that opportunity going forward, whether we are equal to the task in an increasingly complex society. Just today, in the New York Times, there was a very profound and telling story about markets losing middle-class consumers. Only the high-end and the low-end retailers are being able to find markets for their products because our middle class is dwindling, squeezed by the vise of an increasingly desperate situation. How desperate it is for people who are depending now on unemployment insurance, as they see the deadlines for them approaching and they know they will lose roofs over their heads, meals on their table, for families they are struggling to keep together. As Senator Booker and Senator Warren said so well, the unfairness of the economic crisis caused by Wall Street and Washington but visited upon Main Street America, middle-class America, mainstream America, still struggling to recover. We know the unemployment we face today is deeper and more intractable than at any other time in our history. Long-term unemployment is larger percentagewise than it has been in previous recessions. That is a tragedy for those families but also for our economy, because those consumers are lost to the retailers and to the mainstream small- and middle-sized businesses that depend on them to grow and hire more people. In Connecticut, as of last month, almost half of all of the individuals who have suffered a job loss--43.6 percent--were unable to find work for 6 months or more. That is more than 60,000 people. Those numbers don't tell the stories. They are not the voices and faces I have seen who are depending on a meager $300 a week and who have lost even that amount. Rosa Dicker, who has a deep knowledge of health care reform from her previous work, has received only three call-back interviews out of 500 jobs she has sought, and her job search lasted almost a year. Michael Kubica, who went back to get his MBA after years of experience in insurance and publishing, and, again, has been repeatedly turned away for employment. Alicia Nesbitt, proud to have been employed continuously from the age of 16--decades ago--recently found herself applying for food stamps. Then, of course, there is Katherine Hacket of Moodus, CT, who joined the President recently to speak out about the need for extending these benefits. Katherine's family has sacrificed greatly for this Nation, because she has not one but two children serving in our military. Yet, because of Congress's inaction, Katherine is struggling to pay for food and heating bills during her job search. There are good guys out there helping people to find jobs. Capital Workforce Partners has done tremendous work. I have met with them and other job creators, as well as job seekers around Connecticut, and sometimes those job searches actually succeed, because people are able to sustain their lives and continue to search for work. Erin Londen, one of the constituents whom I met as I have gone around the State, has found work after 10 months of unemployment. She writes: I could not be happier! I just love my new job, it is everything I was looking for. She is not a person who wanted to be without work. She is not a person who sought to be unemployed for 10 months. None of these people--none of the people on long-term unemployment insurance--want to be without work. She wrote to me: It can take up to three months to get an interview. Then if you have follow-up, it could be another month. So I do not think it is reasonable to only offer six months of unemployment benefits. That pretty much says it. I want to emphasize one aspect of this problem that I think is absolutely unconscionable for this Nation to tolerate, and that is the high unemployment rate among our veterans. This situation for post-9/11 veterans is beyond comprehension and beyond accepting. The male post-9/11 veterans in particular face rates of 8.6 percent, almost 2 points above the national average. Many of these veterans have been out of work for more than 6 months. Long-term unemployment among our veterans is a scourge that this Congress has an obligation to address. Many of them left good-paying jobs. They came back to a nation that said it was grateful, and now they find no jobs and no unemployment insurance to keep a roof over their head and food on their table. That is why I have introduced the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that would extend a key tax credit to incentivize companies to hire veterans. This credit expired last year, but veteran unemployment remains a serious problem, and I urge the Congress again to pass it. I have been joined by Senator Begich and Senator Udall of New Mexico in writing to the Finance Committee to urge it to approve this measure so we can bring it to the floor. I want to thank AMVETS as well for its support on a measure that is, unfortunately, increasingly important; that is, to ban discrimination against veterans in both employment and housing. Believe it or not, this phenomenon occurs. Most would find it incredible. Yet a measure is necessary to ban discrimination against men and women who served in uniform, who served and sacrificed, who have given to this Nation. Discrimination, unfortunately, is also a fact of life against the long-term unemployed. I have proposed again and reintroduced the Fair Employment Opportunity Act, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of employment status. Discrimination has been established by various studies--researchers at Northeastern University. Similar studies involving academics at Yale, the University of Chicago, and the University of Toronto have found that the long-term unemployed--the longer they have been unemployed--are much more likely to be victims of discrimination. I want to thank seven cosponsors on this bill: Senators Markey, Gillibrand, Sanders, Shaheen, Murphy, Menendez, and Brown. I urge other colleagues to support it as well. f Finally, I want to thank again Senator Booker. He honors not only his own long history of public service but also the memory of our late colleague, our extraordinary and esteemed colleague, and my wonderful mentor and friend, Frank Lautenberg. He joins the ranks of others in the Senate who are fighting for the needs of the economically disadvantaged--people, as he said so eloquently, who play by the rules. They believe in this country, its ideals, its goals, and they want to serve it and give back and contribute. This Nation depends on a covenant. It is the covenant that each of our generations leaves the country better for the one that follows--not only that the country is better for the next generation, but that each of our generations, on our watch, pledges to do better. That is the reason we need to extend unemployment insurance. Without it, we will be a lesser nation, not just economically but in fairness and morality as well. I thank Senator Booker for reminding us of that fundamental fact about our Nation. 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, this month we recognize the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that assured every woman her constitutional right to make her own decision about whether and when to have a child based on her fundamental right to have her privacy protected. I had the honor to clerk for the author of Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun, shortly after that decision in 1974. Few of us expected we would be here 41 years later facing the kind of attacks--in fact, the onslaught on women's health care and on their right to privacy--that we see again and again and again on the part of States, and even in this Congress. Today the House of Representatives will debate and probably vote on a bill that would severely restrict--very practically constrict--a women's right to choose. H.R. 7 is a threat to that right of privacy. Instead of moving forward in protecting women's health, all too often we have seen ongoing attacks. After four decades, this judgment is threatened by onerous and ongoing limitations repeatedly passed by State legislators and this body. I am very proud to be joined today by two of my most distinguished colleagues, Senator Murray of the State of Washington and Senator Baldwin of Wisconsin, who have been tireless champions for women's rights--for our constitutional rights--and for women's health care. I am humbled and admiring of the work they have already done and the work we have ahead of us. With their support, I have introduced--particularly with the active work of Senator Baldwin--a measure that will proactively and preventively protect women's rights against this onslaught at the State level. The Women's Health Protection Act is designed to stop restrictions that purportedly protect women's health but really use that cause as a ruse and a ploy to impose physical layouts on clinics, admitting privileges on doctors, and other kinds of severely burdensome restrictions--such as ultrasound requirements when there is no real medical reason for them--and basically apply to abortion health care the same kinds of restrictions with no more limitations than are required for medically comparable procedures. That is the basic principle. The goal is to push back the offensive onslaught on women's health care. We want to be on the offense rather than the defense because undoubtedly most of these restrictions, if not all, will eventually be struck down by the courts. The resources which are required are burdensome on the organizations and groups and individuals who are forced to carry on that fight. I know about that fight because I helped to wage it as an attorney general in the State of Connecticut for 20 years. I am very proud that I enforced many of the laws that are designed to protect a woman's right to choose, including the FACE statute. I was the first attorney general to enforce the FACE statute. We have many issues that are now before the Supreme Court, such as the McCullen v. Coakley case--which I hope will be decided--to uphold the buffer zone that makes women's rights real against the intimidation and deterrents that anti-choice groups try to bring. Making these rights real--the right of privacy, the right to be left alone--is the fundamental reason that we have introduced the Women's Health Protection Act. The President tonight will talk about many of the most important issues that matter to this country, including economic opportunity, job creation, recovery from the deepest recession in recent history; giving people a greater sense of confidence and trust in their ability to gain the skills they need to move forward in their lives. Economic mobility in this country is one of the greatest challenges we face for our children and our grandchildren. Those issues of job creation and economic growth are what we should be debating, not H.R. 7, not the restrictions at the State level that seek to inhibit and impede the ability of a woman to exercise her fundamental right to privacy. Let's keep in mind what is important to the American people who sense deeply, because it is part of our cultural DNA, part of our fundamental reason for being as a nation, that we have a right to privacy over a personal decision that should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor, her health care provider, and her family, without interference from government bureaucrats or politicians. That is what is important. Ending the chilling effect of those State restrictions is also one of the goals--the chilling effect that deters women from exercising those rights, making those rights real, protecting a woman's right to decide whether and when to have a child. Every pregnant woman faces her own unique circumstances and challenges, and she has a right to make her own decision based on her own values, guidance from a physician she trusts, a family member she loves and her personal goals and what is right for her family. In the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, the attacks on this right have not been slowed; they have merely evolved, and they have taken new forms. I stand with my colleagues today and ask that we recognize together these pervasive threats, that we counter them and stand together in fighting back. I am very proud to stand with Senator Baldwin and Senator Murray, and I am proud to yield for Senator Baldwin.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the chairwoman for her remarks. I wish to express to her, as I do to all of my colleagues, that agriculture and farming really are a way of life. We need to make sure our family farms and all farms are sustained. We sometimes tend to neglect or take them for granted. Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for the time and attention she has devoted over the many years she has been here to the farms of Maryland and the farms of America. I think it is a cause we share. Whether it is Alabama or Georgia or Maine or any other State represented on the floor here today, we need to make sure we provide the safety net where it is necessary and the support when it is due but also keep in mind that consumers ultimately are the beneficiaries, the men and women and children, having four children myself. Also, having for a time actually worked on a farm, I know this product is central to the American existence and the American way of life. I thank the chairwoman, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Arkansas and join him in applauding the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for her extraordinary and historic work on this measure which serves so well our values and goals and our traditions in the Senate of bipartisan service, putting America first over partisanship. I join my very distinguished colleague from Arkansas who has highlighted so well the values served by agriculture in America and served well by this appropriations bill and by the measure Chairwoman Stabenow is seeking to forge, again through bipartisan work involving both Houses of this body. Agriculture serves so many of our basic values in this Nation-- environmental and consumer values, patriotism and pride in a way of life. In Connecticut, we know deeply and urgently how threatened are these values and traditions, this way of life and the environmental consumer issues at stake. I am pleased that we are near a compromise, on the verge and the cusp of an agreement on the farm bill that will serve the interests of farmers in Connecticut and around the country. The dozens of dairy farmers with relatively small farms around Connecticut have said to me again and again that they need help and certainty. That was the message they gave me as I visited their farms around the State of Connecticut time and again, and now apparently help and certainty are on the way. I am pleased that the farm bill conferees have reached a compromise on the dairy provisions in the farm bill. We are going to be studying them very closely. They have only just been announced. Apparently, the new deal announced by the farm bill conferees would keep the margin insurance program but remove the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. In place of that Dairy Market Stabilization Program, the deal revives the recently expired Milk Income Loss Contract Program known as the MILC Program. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program is a transitional program while the new margin insurance plan is being set up by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Without going into all of the details, I think this agreement represents progress, and I am going to carefully scrutinize it and seek to improve it from the standpoint of Connecticut's dairy farmers. But there can be no doubt--none whatsoever to anyone in this body, which I think we would all agree--as to the importance of the milk industry, beginning with the dairy farmers. Indeed, reflecting the importance of milk to America is the fact that it is the only beverage, other than water, that is permitted on the floor of the Senate, as far as I know. I am pleased and proud to have a glass of milk on the floor today. This is a first for me in my young experience as a Senator. I am not sure if it is a correct parliamentary inquiry, but I say to the Presiding Officer: Got milk? I'm willing to share.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. This issue is a very serious one because the lives and livelihoods of our farmers are at stake. There is the open space that may be sacrificed if dairy farms surrender and are forced to abandon this way of life due to the increasingly high costs of feed, fuel, and labor that are pressing them as they also encounter potential price reductions. So they are squeezed. Dairy farmers are squeezed. In Connecticut we mostly have small family-owned farms like the Fairvue Farms in Woodstock, Hytone Farm in Coventry, Mapleleaf Farm in Hebron, Fort Hill Farms in Thompson, Cushman Farms in Franklin, and Graywall Farms in Lebanon. I have visited a number of them. I know firsthand how hard these farmers work simply to keep their farms going. These six farms make up the Farmer's Cow, a group of Connecticut family-owned farms dedicated to producing some of the very best milk in America. Their milk is so good, in fact, they opened a milk bar--that is right, a milk bar--in Mansfield called the Farmer's Cow Calfe & Creamery where you can choose from five or six different types and flavors of milk to help wash down their delicious and fresh sandwiches, salads, cheeses, and ice creams. Visit Connecticut and visit the Farmer's Cow Calfe. These are the farms we need to support and keep going. These are the hard-working men and women we need to support. We can and must support our dairy farmers in Connecticut and around the country. In fact, in Connecticut we have more than 150 dairy farms on 70,000 acres--18 percent of our State's land--which translates into $2 billion in economic activity for the State of Connecticut alone. These farmers need help. They need stability and certainty. Unfortunately, some Members in the House of Representatives have delayed the farm bill for far too long, leading dairy producers to wonder whether the Federal Government is a friend or a foe to their businesses. Even though Connecticut's dairy industry is a significant contributor to the State's agricultural industry and general economy, the industry's strength and survival depend greatly on the support that the Federal Government can and must provide. In Connecticut, in 1975 there were 817 dairy farms. Today there are 150 dairy farms. I think that experience is probably reflected by every State represented in this body. Every one of my colleagues, perhaps, can attest to the diminishing number of dairy farmers and farmers in general. Connecticut is doing its part and doing its share so that farms in our State are sustained, and the Federal Government ought to do its part as well. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Connecticut ranks 45 out of 50 States in receiving agriculture-related subsidies. Connecticut received $127 million between 1995 and 2010 compared to the $22 billion received by Iowa and the $24 billion that went to Texas. I have nothing against those States. I am not criticizing those amounts, but the amount we received in Connecticut is a fraction--a small fraction--of what is needed to sustain our dairy farmers, and that is why I will be urging and advocating for dairy farmers in Connecticut under this deal. Their interests are shared nationwide. We need to make sure that the agreement announced yesterday by the farm bill conferees--keeping the margin insurance program, but removing the Dairy Market Stabilization Program and reviving the MILC Program--truly serves milk producers in our Nation, not just the processors but consumers and farmers. We must do right by America's dairy farmers, an often under-represented group in this body, and make sure we do right by our farmers and consumers by giving them the certainty and help they need to continue a way of life and a product that is vital to our health and well-being as a Nation. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I have milk. I offered to share my milk with the Presiding Officer. I know that Maine has its share of farmers. I understand the Presiding Officer is not allowed, under our Senate rules, to respond in substance, but I would be glad to share with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am told it is a permissible beverage on the floor. If it is not, I am sure I will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Chairman Sanders of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I serve, for his extraordinary vision and leadership and join him in thanking the majority leader for his commitment to this kind of comprehensive and aggressive approach to revise and reinvigorate, reinvent and reform, veterans programs in a comprehensive and overarching approach. I will be speaking at greater length in the days and weeks to come, but I want to join the Senator in committing all of us--I hope on a bipartisan basis--to this effort to fix the flaws and fulfill the vision this Nation owes to the men and women who have served and sacrificed year after year. This program recognizes a fundamental truth: We are dealing with different populations of different ages, and within those populations, people with different needs and challenges, and a comprehensive program is necessary to address the obligation. It is an obligation we owe them to make sure that we leave no veteran behind and keep faith with every man and woman who has served and sacrificed for this Nation. It fixes the flaws of the last budget agreement that reduced the cost-of-living adjustment on retirees' pensions. It commits the Nation to economic opportunity and real jobs--training for the jobs that exist now and the jobs of the future. It reforms loan and aid programs for college education and also for noncollege education. It addresses the gaps in health care, not just by promising but performing. And, of course, it will also necessarily help veterans who may be preyed upon by schemes and scams, legal or illegal, and that is a very desperate and challenging need for this Nation to address, and hopefully it will do so on a bipartisan basis. There should be no reason and no justification for opposing an effort that is paid for--and I stress paid for. My hope is we will have bipartisan support for this visionary and courageous measure that says to America's veterans: We will keep faith with you. We will leave no veteran behind. One of the first promises I made 3 years ago in the first speech I gave on the floor of this Chamber was I would work and fight aggressively for the veterans of this Nation. I intend to work for this program--work to improve it--and continue to listen to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and all of the groups that represent our veterans so ably, and speak for them. The voices and faces of Connecticut's veterans have been with me always, and I see them always when I return. I will work tirelessly for this program. Again, my thanks to all of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who will be supporting this program, and to our chairman Senator Sanders for his great leadership.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Chairman Sanders of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I serve, for his extraordinary vision and leadership and join him in thanking the majority leader for his commitment to this kind of comprehensive and aggressive approach to revise and reinvigorate, reinvent and reform, veterans programs in a comprehensive and overarching approach. I will be speaking at greater length in the days and weeks to come, but I want to join the Senator in committing all of us--I hope on a bipartisan basis--to this effort to fix the flaws and fulfill the vision this Nation owes to the men and women who have served and sacrificed year after year. This program recognizes a fundamental truth: We are dealing with different populations of different ages, and within those populations, people with different needs and challenges, and a comprehensive program is necessary to address the obligation. It is an obligation we owe them to make sure that we leave no veteran behind and keep faith with every man and woman who has served and sacrificed for this Nation. It fixes the flaws of the last budget agreement that reduced the cost-of-living adjustment on retirees' pensions. It commits the Nation to economic opportunity and real jobs--training for the jobs that exist now and the jobs of the future. It reforms loan and aid programs for college education and also for noncollege education. It addresses the gaps in health care, not just by promising but performing. And, of course, it will also necessarily help veterans who may be preyed upon by schemes and scams, legal or illegal, and that is a very desperate and challenging need for this Nation to address, and hopefully it will do so on a bipartisan basis. There should be no reason and no justification for opposing an effort that is paid for--and I stress paid for. My hope is we will have bipartisan support for this visionary and courageous measure that says to America's veterans: We will keep faith with you. We will leave no veteran behind. One of the first promises I made 3 years ago in the first speech I gave on the floor of this Chamber was I would work and fight aggressively for the veterans of this Nation. I intend to work for this program--work to improve it--and continue to listen to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and all of the groups that represent our veterans so ably, and speak for them. The voices and faces of Connecticut's veterans have been with me always, and I see them always when I return. I will work tirelessly for this program. Again, my thanks to all of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who will be supporting this program, and to our chairman Senator Sanders for his great leadership.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to be with public health advocates such as the Presiding Officer, my very distinguished and eloquent colleague Senator Brown, and Senator Durbin, who was on the floor earlier today on this very subject which remains one of urgency and profound importance to the public health of this Nation. Indeed, if there is a public health threat, enemy No. 1 in the United States of America, it continues to be tobacco use and nicotine addiction. We talk a lot in this body, throughout the Congress and throughout the Nation, about reducing the costs of health care. If we were to cut tobacco use and nicotine addiction, it would drastically reduce diseases such as cancer and heart disease and lung problems which reduce the longevity of life in this country but also create enormous costs in treating those medical diseases. Indeed, the cost of tobacco in health care for this country is about $193 billion a year, not only in direct medical costs but lost productivity. I am proud to have fought--and fought successfully--through many of my years as attorney general of the State of Connecticut, working in alliance with other attorneys general, with private health advocates such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and private advocates throughout the country who have achieved so much. When we doubt our achievements on this 50th anniversary of the annual Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco and Health, we should remember the days when 43 percent of adults smoked cigarettes and were addicted to nicotine. We should look at ``Mad Men,'' the very popular TV series, where tobacco use and smoking is ubiquitous. There is barely a scene without it. Those were days when doctors in their medical offices smoked cigarettes, the days when Big Tobacco fervently and vehemently denied that tobacco caused cancer or any of those other diseases. In alliance with attorneys general and eventually the Department of Justice, we fought successfully to bring out the truth and to help not only change the ads and pitches and promotions of Big Tobacco but also eventually to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. Yet for all the progress we have made--and, indeed, the rate of smoking has gone from 42 percent in 1965 to 18 percent in 2002 among adults--we are still lagging. We are way behind where we should be in preventing all those diseases that come from tobacco and protecting the public. The state of regulation and protection in this country is anemic compared to the danger and the threat. Between 2000 and 2012, cigarette use declined nearly 35 percent. But in that same period of time, cigar use rose by 124 percent, and especially among young people cigar use is increasing. There are new fronts and new frontiers in the fight against tobacco addiction, and the public health consequences--the disasters and catastrophic health consequences that come from lifetimes of nicotine addiction and tobacco use. Big Tobacco continues many of the tactics which caused so many people to become addicted and die. It is the only industry which makes the only product that kills its customer, and so it must replenish its customer base by luring new people, new users, and its target continues to be young people--young people who are lured into cigar use and then cigarettes by the use of flavors and all kinds of pitches and promotions which make these products seem more like candy and fruit than they do like the killers they are. We must accept that a major part of the responsibility belongs to the FDA and to the Federal Government because there are no deeming regulations, which are necessary to regulate cigars in this country. With 3,000 new people under the age of 18 trying cigar smoking each and every day, the fact that we do not have deeming regulations and strong regulations of tobacco products is simply unacceptable. Deeming regulations forthcoming from the FDA would allow it to regulate these other forms of tobacco, whether it is cigars or spit tobacco--also known as chewing tobacco--all forms of tobacco and tobacco-like products that threaten the health of young people. I have been consistent, along with many of my colleagues, in calling on the FDA to issue these regulations and hope they will do so quickly. Let me mention another growing new frontier and threat in this country involving e-cigarettes. These new products offer, in the rhetoric and pitches and promotion of the industry, a way to enable people to quit smoking. Yet they are often pitched to young people with flavors and other gimmicks. For those young people, they are a gateway to smoking and nicotine addiction. Companies that make e-cigarettes, not coincidentally, are being purchased by Big Tobacco, the makers of tobacco cigarettes. The influence of these companies can be seen in the advertising, marketing pushes, and campaigns of these products which feature celebrities, are candy flavored, and purport to offer a safer alternative to smoking. The ability of big tobacco to market these products, just as they were able to market cigarettes to children, gives them the ability to create a new generation of people who are addicted to nicotine and susceptible to going to other forms of tobacco products. I call on the FDA to act and to reach a determination that will enable it to regulate e-cigarettes and protect young people and all of us against the dangers and the costs of these new products. They are unknown in their ingredients. Many of them may contain the same or similar carcinogens. Somebody using e-tobacco products has simply no way of reliably knowing because they are unlabeled. The amounts of nicotine are also unknown and unlabeled. Studies of e-cigarettes have found that products claiming not to contain nicotine actually do contain it and the amounts of nicotine may vary widely across products. What is known beyond any doubt is nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is probably one of the most addictive legal or illegal drug there is today. We cannot sit idly and allow this new product to addict a new generation of American children. I hope this year's Surgeon General's report will remind us of the accomplishments that have been made but the dangers and challenges ahead that we must confront. I am proud to yield to one of the great public health advocates in this body, my colleague and friend Senator Merkley. Order of Procedure I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that following our remarks the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.