Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2013, which I am very proud to introduce today, with bipartisan support, joined by my colleagues Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, and Casey. This bill is a comprehensive effort to update our existing system of sanctions and to reflect the reality that President Bashar al-Assad and his murderous regime continue to engage in a horrible civil war against the Syrian people. This bill builds upon the longstanding U.S. sanctions regime against Syria begun in 2004 to deal with that government's policies supporting terrorism, continuing its occupation of Lebanon, pursuing weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and undermining U.S. and international efforts to stabilize Iraq. Following events in Syria beginning in March of 2011, a series of executive orders have been issued to address the ongoing violence and human rights abuses that have been supported and perpetrated relentlessly by the Assad regime. Fortunately, Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to sanction many people who are committing terrible atrocities. Now is the time to add to those sanctions, to enhance and enforce them, and ensure they encompass everyone who is enabling Assad to continue his massacres against his own people. I have seen some of the effects of this cruel war in person. Earlier this year, I traveled to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, with Senator McCain and Senator Graham, where I saw firsthand how the Assad regime has torn families and lives apart. I returned home from that trip convinced, along with my colleagues, that the United States cannot stand idle while this war rages on and over 1 million Syrians are displaced from their country--a substantial part--the estimates are 30 percent of its entire population displaced from their homes. I remain convinced the United States should take action not only with sanctions but with more effective humanitarian relief. Sanctions are an effective way to cut off Assad's financing and therefore his source of power. Humanitarian relief is necessary to aid the Syrian people who have become refugees in such enormous numbers, even as we pursue those sanctions. Thankfully, most of the world has come together to denounce and isolate Assad for his horrible abuses. Appallingly, though, a few--most notably Russian banks--finance Assad and enable his continued atrocities. In September, Senators Ayotte, Cornyn, Shaheen, and I urged the Treasury Department to sanction those Russian banks that are perpetrating war in Syria. They are enabling that war as well as the atrocities it has spawned, and there is significant evidence that some Russian banks, including VTB, VEB, and Gazprombank, have given financial cover to Assad and may still be hiding his assets. This bill, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act, would ensure that those actors do not go unpunished. It would sanction financial institutions doing business with Assad and his senior officials, and it would also provide for a full accounting of all Assad's assets. If Assad is hiding money in Russian banks or elsewhere, we need to know where that money is, because it rightly belongs to the people of Syria, not to its murderous dictator. But our actions against Assad must be wider in scope than simply the financial sector. Therefore, the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act looks at all the perpetrators of horrific violence who empower Assad and it creates sanctions against them. This bill codifies existing executive orders that sanction senior Syrian officials and people who sell or invest in the Syrian Government. It sanctions anyone who helps the Assad government develop weapons of mass destruction or provides them with conventional weapons. They are responsible for the majority of killings in Syria. They are complicit, and knowingly, purposefully-- they are not merely the enablers, they are the providers of those assets used by Assad against his own people. We have seen how some unscrupulous arms dealers continue to provide arms to the Assad regime that enable his killing. Just yesterday, I was pleased to announce that the Defense Department will stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, the arms dealer that is selling weapons to Assad. Think of it: The U.S. Government was financing, with U.S. taxpayer money, purchases of helicopters for the Afghan Government, to go to the Afghans with the knowledge that that same Russian export agency was selling weapons to Assad. It was stopped, but it is just one example of a company that allows Assad to continue killing his own people. This bill also requires the President to submit a list of people responsible for human rights abuses committed against the people of Syria. The President must submit a list of those culpable individuals who should be held accountable for human rights abuses committed by Assad against his own people, and the bill will sanction anyone who has provided goods, services or support to enable human rights abuses. As my colleagues can see, this bill would do quite a few things, but there are a number of important things it will not do. It will not prevent the United States from supporting the moderates who are fighting against the Assad regime, and it would not jeopardize our ongoing efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpile; rather, it creates a strategic framework to ensure that the prolonged dismantling of chemical weapons does not serve as a cover for the international community to ignore the brutal reality of these slaughters throughout Syria. The bill is carefully crafted to ensure that the sanctions do not target the people of Syria themselves who are just trying to survive during a difficult time. That is why humanitarian relief from this country is of such paramount importance. Over the past few months, there has been a lot of debate over what the United States should or should not do in Syria. Over these past months, the debate has focused on military force and many have been hesitant to use such military force in Syria. But that does not mean the United States can or should stand idle on the sidelines as hundreds of thousands of people are dying and the war threatens to create a wider conflict in the Middle East. I think we can all agree, on both sides of the aisle, that we should be strengthening sanctions against the human rights abusers and supporters of Assad and his military that is tirelessly, relentlessly, and purposefully murdering his own people. This bill is a bipartisan attempt to move forward around the common concerns of helping the Syrian people. In the coming days, I look forward to a debate on this bill and the way forward in Syria as we consider Iran's nuclear program and other important factors. There will be a meeting in Geneva upcoming. I view this bill as a means of strengthening our government's hand as we seek peace in Syria and seek to strengthen those forces in Syria that seek to protect their own people. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important effort to ensure that the United States continues to stand up and speak out strongly on the side of the people of Syria against a regime that is striving solely and single-mindedly to keep itself in power at all costs, in fact, whatever the cost in the slaughter and displacement of its own people.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Nothstein, a detailee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted Senate floor privileges for the duration of the 113th Congress.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 1714 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, an esteemed lawyer and prosecutor herself, for her service on the Judiciary Committee and dedication to the quality of our courts and for her bringing us together this afternoon to focus on a topic I think perhaps is not uppermost on the minds of most Americans, not something they worry about when they are bringing their kids to school or fixing dinner at night, but that shapes the quality of our society. It assures the rule of law, and it guarantees the courts of our country look like the people of our country. We are here because there are too few women as judges on our Federal courts. They have been denied that opportunity, and for so long they were denied the opportunity even to practice law. We are here because this situation is unacceptable. The Senate cannot and should not continue to obstruct the appointment of qualified nominees--in this instance women. Nina Pillard, like Patty Millett, is eminently qualified--indeed, distinguished, a candidate who fits the ideal profile. If you were designing and writing in the abstract the resume of a circuit court judge for the United States of America, it would be Nina Pillard. One of the tragic results of the obstruction that we see in the appointment of judges nominated by the President is that the Senate is blocking women appointees to this court. The Senate has only confirmed one woman to the DC Court in the last 19 years. During this same time period, five men have been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In the court's entire history, only five women have been confirmed. These facts speak for themselves. Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and Chairman Leahy, the Judiciary Committee has been approving qualified women to take the ``men only'' sign off the door at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But those women have been blocked by a minority of this body. There ought to be common ground for Senators to have a good reason to block an appointment to the judiciary made by the President of the United States, which is his constitutional responsibility just as it is ours to advise and consent, and not simply, blindly block a woman appointee. In 2005, the bipartisan gang of 14 came together and they agreed that a Senator should vote against a nominee only in ``exceptional circumstances, extraordinary circumstances.'' The history of that agreement is pretty well known here even though only a handful of Senators who joined in the agreement are still here. Its spirit and intent ought to guide us. Even if it is not binding in letter, its intent and purpose are as real now as they were then. It was to avoid the kind of nuclear approach--it is called, I suppose, the nuclear option for that reason--because it would be so organically threatening to the civility and collegiality of this body if it is invoked. The approach should be, as a Republican member of that gang of 14 said, that judges should be denied confirmation only in the event of ``a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of a person, not an ideological bent.'' If Senators agree that only exceptional circumstances justify blocking a nominee, then clearly the three female nominees that have been nominated by the President ought to be confirmed by the Senate. Our Country, and the legal profession specifically, has an unfortunate history when it comes to women. As I mentioned earlier, for generations women were not even allowed to practice law. Only recently have they been afforded the opportunity to serve on the Federal bench--despite their serving with extraordinary distinction when they were in fact appointed. They are still woefully underrepresented. When women are denied an equal chance to serve on our courts, we are left with judicial bodies that fail to reflect the American people, fail to reflect their values and backgrounds, their aspirations and dreams, and in fact their talent and insight. An exclusionary Federal judiciary makes a mockery of our Nation's claim to equal justice under law. The excuse for blocking appointees is that the DC Circuit Court does not need more judges. I find this claim unpersuasive, based on the workload of the court. We can debate, in fact, the numbers, but statistics in this instance fail to reflect the complexity and difficulty of the cases that come before this court. The same Senators who say the caseload fails to justify appointments now gladly voted to approve John Roberts to the ninth seat on the court when the court had just 111 pending appeals per judge. It now has 182 appeals per active judge. The history here is that the Senate approved appointees nominated by George Bush to fill the 9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the DC Circuit, the three seats that are vacant today. But this issue should not be about partisan politics. It should not be about which President made the appointments. It ought to be about the principle; that is, if the workload is insufficient, the number of seats on the court should be reduced by legislation. The Congress should not refuse to fill vacancies when they exist lawfully and in fact when there is strong evidence that the workload justifies filling those vacancies. Nina Pillard is a civil rights icon. She is a public servant of extraordinary distinction. Ms. Pillard led the integration of women into the Virginia Military Institute. Her work led the Supreme Court to uphold Congress' ability to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act. Her academic work continues to identify common ground between liberals and conservatives that can allow for the protection of important rights. Some have said that she is a feminist. The fact is, Professor Pillard believes that a woman's right to choose is protected by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, she believes in a judicial decision, written by Justice Blackmun--for whom I clerked--which has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court over four decades. It is embedded in our constitutional law, as fundamental as the right to privacy is fundamental to our Constitution. I think the merits more than justify her confirmation. There is no question that she has the talent and temperament, the intellect and integrity, the experience and the sensitivity to serve as one of our great judges on this court of appeals. I urge my colleagues to put aside the extraneous and irrelevant considerations that may lead them to oppose confirmation and, very simply, to give their approval to a woman who will be a mentor and a model to so many other women now in law school or beginning their careers or even beginning their judgeships, and who one day will aspire to this kind of position. They will see her example and ours in approving her as an inspiration to them in their careers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleague from the State of Washington for her eloquence and leadership on this issue, as I do my colleague from California. She has been steadfast and strong in support of a woman's right to make choices about reproductive rights. She is absolutely right; we are not going away. This bill that will be introduced later today from our colleague from South Carolina--as much as we respect him--is a nonstarter because it is nonsensical and unconstitutional. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this year. We could not have been clearer then, and we should be very clear now, that it is inappropriate, unwise, and unfair. It remains so today and will be so for as long as we are here. This bill essentially leaves any woman who needs an abortion for health reasons--and I stress, for health reasons--after 20 weeks of a pregnancy with no options--none. It punishes doctors with up to 5 years in prison for providing a service that the doctor believes, in his or her professional judgment, in his or her medical opinion, is best for her and her family. Those decisions are what the Constitution protects, what Roe v. Wade guarantees, what the right of privacy preserves in the right to be left alone. Quite simply, this bill is bad for women, and it criminalizes medical professionals who would try to do what is right. I have a long history in law enforcement, and this sort of ban, which would leave women in completely desperate circumstances with no options is shortsighted, misguided, and illegal. We should not be here talking about proposals that would degrade and disgrace the Constitution, but about job measures, economic growth bills, and measures to solve the immense challenges that confront us in dealing with budget issues. I thank the Senator from Washington State for the great work that she is doing on those issues. We should be debating the issues that concern and confront the American people at this historic challenging time--not a measure that will be struck down by the courts because it is so plainly unconstitutional and so clearly bad policy--not only for women but for men, families, and for all of us. We have seen bill after bill in recent times stalled by disagreements over health care. We have seen the Federal Government shut down over health care. Now we see another legislative attempt to win, essentially, political points at the expense of risking the health and welfare of women and children in this country. The attack on women's health care must stop. We are here in the midst of a busy legislative session to restate the fact that this bill is going nowhere. My colleagues and I will not allow this bill to put women's lives at risk, and to put their health care in jeopardy with politically motivated attempts at destroying constitutionally protected rights. That is why we are elected to this body, to take a stand and speak out, to protect the people who are most vulnerable, and to make sure that women who are at risk can be allowed to make personal private decisions about their health and their bodies without obtrusive interference from the government. These decisions should be made by women, their families, the medical profession, and whomever else they wish to consult, not by politicians. I yield the floor for my colleague from California

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, in 2005--May of that year--the Senate faced a crisis that seems very familiar and very much like the one we face today in this body. Very simply, the Senate was unable to approve judges, which threatened to incapacitate a coequal branch of our government, the U.S. judiciary, and it confronted the threat of what came to be called the nuclear option, a change in the rules that would have wrecked the collegiality and civility that have characterized this body. Members of both parties recognized that the situation was untenable, and they recognized as well that the American court system was too important for the Senate to simply stop approving judges and suspend that very important constitutional responsibility on behalf of this body. At the time, 14 Senators came together to find a solution. They came to be known as the Gang of 14--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. I want to read their names for the record because I think their conduct characterized what is really perhaps best about this institution. They were Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, John McCain of Arizona, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and John Warner of Virginia. What they devised was a quite simple solution. They were grappling with the same question that confronts us now: What can justify a Member of the U.S. Senate voting to block consideration--in other words, to filibuster a nominee to the judicial branch? Their idea, simple as it was, had tremendous power. They agreed they would oppose a judicial nominee only in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' That was the gist of the agreement. There were other features to it, but their spirit and intent in this short phrase had profoundly meaningful impact. In fact, for the remainder of the Bush Presidency, there were no more filibusters on judicial nominees, and those Senators, with that short phrase, accomplished a historic impact. What did they mean by it? One of them said at the time: Ideological attacks are not an ``extraordinary circumstance.'' It would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegations about the qualifications of a person, not an ideological bent. An ethics problem, a character problem, some allegations about the qualifications of a person. Today, I ask for a renewed and revived commitment to the spirit of that agreement, a reinvigorated effort to apply that standard, and offer to work with my colleagues to revive that spirit of opposing a nominee and blocking that individual only in an extraordinary circumstance. I come to the floor today because we have heard objections to a number of nominees on the basis of claims that clearly cannot constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Opposed through that 60-vote threshold filibuster just last week were a couple of nominees who clearly have the qualifications to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I rise in support today of another: Cornelia Pillard. Whatever has been said about this process, we have heard no extraordinary circumstance to oppose any of these nominees and certainly not Ms. Pillard. Senators can always disagree about exactly what our courts should do and how we should divide and allocate resources, and the claim has been made here that the reason to oppose those nominees is that there is insufficient workload to justify them. The fact is this Congress has approved the positions that are vacant and they have been nominated to fill. I know a lot of my colleagues have opinions on how to structure the courts and what the workloads should be, but I would assume these differences of opinion do not amount to extraordinary circumstances. They happen all the time. We debate what the workloads of the courts should be, and certainly the job of this Senate and of every Senator is to advise and consent on judicial nominations. If we refuse to consider the qualifications of a nominee and if we make the judgment based on irrelevant considerations, we are failing to advise and consent. We can debate about the structure and workload and number of cases before a court, but they are not extraordinary circumstances. The fact is that the workload of this court well justifies these nominations. In fact, it has grown in number since nominees were last approved. The waiting time for decisions on cases makes it eighth out of 12 circuit courts. The cases themselves cannot be judged only by the numbers, by the sheer volume of the caseload; the Senate, in my view, has to look also to the complexity and difficulty of the cases. I have argued before this circuit court and I participated in cases such as the Microsoft appeal, which took months--in fact, years--to resolve from start to finish and involved precedent-setting issues and decisions by the circuit court and literally hours of argument. So the argument about workload and about the need to fill or leave vacant, as the opponents say, those vacancies is incorrect and wrong. Agreeing with me are the Judicial Conference and a majority of their colleagues, who also say the vacancies should be filled, as do judges from across the political spectrum and appointees of a lot of different Presidents. But the point is that disagreement or even the claim that the workload does not justify it is not an extraordinary circumstance, and that ought to be the standard, consistent with the Gang of 14's agreement. I happen to believe Cornelia Pillard is almost the ideal nominee. If you were to design someone to sit on the court--if you had that ability--on the basis of record and talent and temperament, I do not think you could do much better. The DC court is said to be the second highest court in the country. I think they are all the second highest court. I do not think any one of them is better than the others. But what we want is an individual in each of these judgeships who is worthy of the immense responsibility because for most litigants the circuit court is the last stop on the litigation course. Nina Pillard brings to this nomination not only brilliance in an academic sense but a variety of experiences and a record of thoughtful engagement with diverse views and a dedication to excellence and to public service. She has spent time in the classroom as well as the courtroom, and she is a civil rights hero as well as a public servant and an expert on the judicial system. In other words, if you had to design someone with a record and experience that is ideal for this court or any of the other circuit courts, you would pick Nina Pillard. Now, I am going to come back to the floor. I am going to speak about her, I am going to speak about this court, I am going to speak about the Gang of 14, and I am going to speak about what should justify blocking a nominee of the President of the United States to serve in the courts. But for now let me just say about her that I hope my colleagues will see her qualifications, listen to her story, and listen to the better angels of their nature. The present situation cannot stand. If we continue on the present course, we will arrive at the same juncture that existed in May of 2005 when the Gang of 14 helped to save the Senate from a crisis. It would have been a crisis for the collegiality and civility of this institution. It would have also been a crisis for the country. I hope we can again avoid it if we permit this process to move forward and recognize there is no extraordinary circumstance for any of these nominees that should block their approval by the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to begin by thanking a number of my colleagues for their leadership, including Senators Merkley and Harkin and others in this body who have championed the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, known as ENDA, over many years with great passion and constancy. Now we are literally on the verge of approving this historic measure in this body and hopefully in the House of Representatives. I have heard from numerous organizations that represent America's workforce, such as the Service Employees International Union and the United Auto Workers Union, that--and I am quoting the UAW--``this legislation represents a step in the right direction toward providing equal opportunity for all Americans.'' That message is also carried on by America's faith leaders, our business community, generally, and many others who have fought over the years for civil rights and civil liberties. It is one of the paramount civil rights issues of our time and I am proud to be fighting for it. I wish to mention some of the American businesses that have stepped forward to endorse this legislation: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals of Ridgefield, CT; Diageo North America of Norwalk, CT; UBS AG of Stamford, CT; and Xerox Corporation, also of Stamford, CT. There are many others around Connecticut, big and small. The reason the business community is steadfastly and strongly behind this bill is that it is good for America's working men and women and it is good for the business community. It has attracted bipartisan support in this body and around the Nation. America is moving toward this kind of guarantee against discrimination. This bill is many years in the making. The last time the Senate voted on this issue in 1995 the bill couldn't even attain 50 votes. Our Nation has made tremendous progress since then, of course--not only on this bill but on a range of LGBT civil rights issues. This bill is important because it is inclusive. ``Inclusive'' is the word that ought to characterize our society. In the 18 years since the Senate last voted on ENDA, 14 States, which together are home to almost one-third of the Nation's population, have come to recognize same-sex marriage. This is, of course, an increase from zero in 1995. Over the past two decades, we have seen a string of landmark Supreme Court cases, from Romer v. Evans to Lawrence v. Texas, to this year's hugely important and inspirational ruling in Windsor v. United States. But this issue is about more than just legal reasoning and rulings. It is about real people. It is about members--millions of them--of the LGBT community who are now just beginning to enjoy full freedom and equality that is guaranteed to them by our Constitution as citizens. It is about their moms and dads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, members of their families from all over, as well as their coworkers in the places where discrimination will be banned and who are supporting this legislation. They deserve nothing less than full equality, which is what this bill would give to them. They should not be victims of discrimination because of whom they love. That is the simple idea behind this historical potential law. Still, we have a lot more work to do on this bill. The House certainly will not be an easy battle. We need to make sure, very simply, that the House is given an opportunity to vote. Because if it is given that opportunity--if the House votes--it will approve this bill, just as it did the Violence Against Women Act, after the Speaker initially denied that opportunity. The last time this bill came to a vote in the House was in 2007, when 35 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill, but it did not pass the Senate. I understand Speaker Boehner may have reservations. He has expressed them already. I understand the politics for other Members may be difficult. But this vote is about the future of our Nation, about what kind of America we are going to be. It transcends in importance a lot of the measures we undertake. It is about real people's lives in the workplace, in their homes, and what kind of life they have, what kind of opportunities they have to fulfill all of their potential as human beings. That is why America is so special. It guarantees people an equal opportunity. In 29 States, LGBT Americans live without any protections against discrimination in private sector employment. They have those protections in 21 States across the country. Between 15 percent and 43 percent of all LGBT Americans have experienced discrimination or harassment in their workplaces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and that number rises to a staggering 90 percent for transgendered Americans in particular, with more than one-quarter--25 percent--reporting they have been fired. These kinds of troubling statistics have no place in the America of the 21st century. We have an opportunity in this same bill to ban discrimination against our veterans. I would suggest--and I will propose it in an amendment--that similar protections be afforded to them. Hiring a veteran is a good investment for any business. Veterans have unique qualities, including dedication and discipline, which make them qualified for many civilian jobs. Unfortunately, too many veterans are unable to find work today, most especially our younger veterans who experience higher unemployment rates than their contemporaries who have not made the sacrifice and have not given the service they have in uniform. For them to be unemployed at higher rates is a disgrace. It is an outrage that the greatest Nation in the history of the world whose citizens volunteer to serve and sacrifice, preserving our freedom, have higher unemployment rates when they come home than others. The evidence is--and I have heard it and seen it from veterans as well as others--that they are sometimes victims of discrimination. That ought to be outlawed. That is what I believe this law can do, in addition to seeking equality and opportunity for all Americans and banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I wish to express my gratitude to AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the National Guard Association of the United States, which have supported this initiative prohibiting discrimination against veterans. When I introduced S. 1281, the Veterans and Servicemembers Employment Rights and Housing Act of 2013, they supported it, and I am grateful to them. I think this kind of amendment would be a welcome companion to ENDA, the landmark legislation the Senate is moving forward toward passing. Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act When it comes to the workplace--on a separate, unrelated piece of legislation--I wish to thank Senator Coons for his leadership in the manufacturing initiative area he has spearheaded and speak on a particular measure that will help manufacturers grow and invest, the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act. This legislation was cosponsored by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, as well as sponsored in the House by another Connecticut colleague, Rosa DeLauro, to create a new type of an account that manufacturers can use to help save and eventually make investments in their businesses. I am proud the Manufacturing Reinvestment Account Act is part of the Senate's manufacturing American jobs agenda led by Senator Coons. Under this initiative, several of my colleagues have come together to make sure we move away from manufacturing crises and toward manufacturing jobs. That is what we should be doing, helping to create jobs, not create crises, especially when they result in self-inflicted wounds. This bill will allow manufacturers to put up to $500,000 a year in these special manufacturing reinvestment accounts, much like people put away money in IRAs. It would give them 7 years to use the money they deposit for qualified manufacturing expenses. Essentially, these manufacturers can use these funds for investments in physical capital such as equipment and new facilities or human capital such as job training and workforce development. They then would be able to withdraw the funds from their accounts at a low 15-percent tax rate. This bill is a Connecticut original. I am very proud I sponsored it last session and I am proud to do so again now. I wish to thank in particular Jamie Scott of Air Handling Systems in Woodbridge, CT, for the key role he played in developing this idea. He came to me with the basic concept and we developed it into a bill which is so eminently qualified for support. It makes such clear common sense, and it shows what happens when industry leaders and their elected representatives work together to devise innovative ideas to grow the economy. We not only produce in Connecticut and make the best manufactured products in the world, but we also make ideas, which is why this Yankee ingenuity has produced a bill that favors reinvestment accounts to enable investment at low tax rates and spur and incentivize job creation. With the support of Mr. Scott and Congresswoman DeLauro, it has been reintroduced on the House side. I have been happy to introduce this legislation in the Senate. I hope it will provide real encouragement for manufacturers to grow and invest and expand job training, taking this money from profits and putting it away so it can be saved without taxation, and then using it at lower rates of taxation is a basic principle that makes eminent good sense. I think it comes at an important time as we all grapple--economists, experts, businesspeople-- with how to recognize and spur a manufacturing renaissance throughout the United States. What is needed is dollars and capital and the commitment to make sure we create jobs and use people for those jobs who are not only willing but eager to work. I also thank our community colleges, such as Asnuntuck and others around the State, that have done so much to provide job training in the skills that are needed, matching skills to jobs that exist and jobs that will be created. Asnuntuck Community College's manufacturing technology program is just one example among all of our community colleges which have trained more than 1,000 students who have transitioned successfully to private sector jobs that make use of the cutting-edge skills they learned on machinery, often donated by businesses, so Asnuntuck can teach those students so they can be matched to those businesses' needs. I have seen those students in action during my visits to Delta Industries in East Granby and ATI Stowe Machining in Windsor. Both of these companies have hired many students from Asnuntuck and are looking to hire more as they grow and expand in Connecticut. So these programs serve a profoundly important public good for our whole country that should bring us together on a bipartisan basis. We want to work together, not divide ourselves over false crises and unnecessary partisan division. I am confident, if we pass this legislation, our manufacturers will use this innovative tool and the manufacturing reinvestment account will help us to double down on growing America. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to congratulate the Westport Little League team who made it all the way to the national Little League World Series finals earlier this year. The 11 phenomenal student players from Westport, CT comprised the first team from Connecticut to reach the final rounds of the Little League World Series since 1989. The Westport Little League team came to the Little League World Series as New England champions and played against the reigning Northwest team from Washington State to make it to the finals. In this thrilling qualifier, Westport rallied from behind, winning 14 to 13 in the seventh inning with a single to left field. This game was the fourth time in Little League World Series history where both teams completed 27 runs and the third time in history to score a collective 30 hits. Although these students from Westport did not win in the next few championship games, they never gave up. Even in their fight for third place against a team from Tijuana, Mexico, they played their hardest to the very end. Player Chad Knight hit two home runs and drove in seven more, making a Little League Series world record of nine runs. After their great success, Connecticut welcomed them home with a parade through the streets of Westport and an afternoon at the Governor's mansion. The Westport Little League team was invited as a special guest of the Yankees and hosted by the Red Sox at Fenway Park. I also wish to congratulate Tim Rogers, manager and head coach of the team, assistant coaches Brett Reiner and Tom Whelan, and the parents and loved ones of these inspiring young players. I am incredibly proud of their success, representing Connecticut as role models for student athletes around the country. They worked together as a team to reach the ultimate honor in youth baseball.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak on two separate and distinct matters relating to the military. Remembering Our Armed Forces Justin Eldridge

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, no one in this body other than I had the privilege to know Justin Eldridge of Waterford, CT. Justin was a true American hero, a patriot--a U.S. marine who served our country in Afghanistan and who scarcely more than 24 hours ago took his own life at his home. My thoughts and prayers are with Justin's wife Joanna and their four children and all of Justin's family and friends, fellow marines, who grieve his loss at this difficult time. I first came to know Justin when he formed a chapter of the Marine Corps League in southeastern Connecticut. He believed deeply in the Marine Corps and in service to his country, his family, and in the values and traditions and ethos of all of our great U.S. marines and the men and women who wear the uniform. Yesterday, Justin Eldridge lost his own battle--a long battle with post-traumatic stress that he fought heroically after serving in the Marine Corps for 8\1/2\ years before his medical retirement in 2008. Even after he returned home from Afghanistan, Justin had a long fight ahead of him. He returned home with the signature wounds of this war-- both traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress--and he worked for years to get the specialized treatment he needed. He tried hard to be there for his family. According to his wife Joanna, his four children loved having him around. He faced another all-too-common problem in this country--health care at the Veterans' Administration and accessing the care he needed. He was admitted to the VA hospital and began a long road of treatment. I cannot express in words how deeply sorry I am that treatment evidently proved unsuccessful--perhaps not the result of the VA or its doctors or its hospital because we are only beginning to learn as a country and society how to confront post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury with the specialized diagnosis and care these diseases demand. Even in grief we should not forget Justin's service to his country and his joy and his pride in that service--and he deserved both joy and pride--as well as his long-fought battle here at home. I wish to take this occasion to encourage anyone who is suffering from post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, or any other wounds of war to reach out for help. The Veterans Crisis Line is there to help you. Anyone who needs that help can call 1-800-273-TALK. Courage is shown not only on the battlefield but afterward upon return when an individual in need of help seeks it, as Justin did. Justin's story also reminds us of the heroic caregivers who take care of our Nation's veterans. We owe thanks to the people who dedicate their lives to helping those who have served. Joanna also deserves our thanks because she was there for Justin, by his side throughout his treatment. She never gave up; she never relented; she never surrendered. She was his full-time caregiver, participating in the VA's caregiver program. Justin himself continued to give back. I will never forget my conversations with him at that Marine Corps League event and afterward by email and phone. Joanna is a strong advocate for all veterans, as we should all be. She studied psychology in college and hopes to go to law school. She wants to dedicate her life to being a veterans advocate, and I commend her and all of our military families, all of our military spouses who are there for their loved ones who seek to reach out. We need to keep faith with those veterans. We need to know and discover what will conquer the demons that often threaten to subdue our bravest and most selfless veterans when they come back and to give them the courage and the strength they need to conquer these dreaded diseases that we ourselves have a complicity in creating. We have an obligation and an opportunity to do more and we must keep faith and make sure no veteran is left behind. My heart and prayers go to Justin's family and, of course, I know I am joined by all the Members of this body not only in grieving but in offering our help and service if there is anything we can do. Madam President, I would like to speak on a topic that has been discussed by two of my colleagues this morning, the senior Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Carl Levin. I thank my colleagues for joining me in raising a vital issue that must be addressed by this body and by Alan Estevez--a well-qualified nominee for the position of Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. I will vote for the confirmation today of Alan Estevez. I believe he is well qualified and has the credentials to perform with distinction in this role. I hope that uppermost on his list of priorities will be the Mi-17 helicopter acquisition that is so misguided and wrongheaded in the way it has been handled by our own Department of Defense. If one were to stop at Stella's corner restaurant on Main Street in Stratford, CT, for lunch or a cup of coffee and ask the folks there: What do you expect from your government? I think one of the things they would say is they expect the Congress and all of us here to keep our country safe; and that when it comes to buying the equipment for our troops and allies, we should do so, hands down, no doubt about it, by buying American. It should be made in America, manufactured in Connecticut or in the United States. Nothing could be more simple or straightforward. Yet somehow that Main Street common sense is simply ignored across the river at the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, where so many decisions are made. Since becoming a member of the Armed Services Committee I have become aware the Department of Defense committed almost $1 billion to provide Afghanistan a fleet of Mi-17 helicopters. Let me clarify: Russian helicopters going to Afghanistan with American tax dollars, bought from the Russian export agency that at the same time is selling arms to Bashar Assad to kill his own people in Syria. Since 2005, the United States has been procuring Mi-17s to build the capacity of the Afghan military and is working toward a total fleet size of approximately 80 helicopters. The Afghan military had approximately 50 Mi-17s as of last year, and this year the Army awarded a $572 million contract to purchase another 30, with approximately 15 more to come, to replace the aging helicopters the Afghan military has already run into the ground and failed to maintain. The contract to award these helicopters was managed in a way to prevent any American helicopter companies from bidding on the work, even though the analysis of the Department of Defense in 2010 concluded the made-in-America CH-47D Chinook helicopter is the most cost- effective single platform type fleet for the Afghan Air Force over a 20-year life cycle. I acknowledge I may be partial to helicopters made in Connecticut. The best helicopters in the world are made in Connecticut by the Sikorsky employees who happen to stop at Stella's on Main Street for lunch or a cup of coffee, and I see them there all the time. The H-92 troop transport helicopter or H-60 should also be considered by the Department of Defense for this mission. But at the end of the day, ``made in the USA'' ought to be the ruling principle. Made in the USA-- American helicopters for the American military and American allies. In 2011, the Army contracted with the Russian state-owned arms export firm Rosoboronexport. Yes, the very same Rosoboronexport that arms our enemies in Iran and is a key enabler of Assad's ongoing slaughter of his own civilians in Syria. Women and children in Syria die by the arms provided by Rosoboronexport--purchased by Assad with money financed by Russian banks and purchased from Rosoboronexport. These are well- documented crimes against humanity--war crimes that eventually should be prosecuted. I am working with my colleague Senator Ayotte on legislation to strengthen the contracting provisions that prohibit ``contracting with the enemy.'' These contracts are, in effect, supporting enemy purchases. Before us is a glaring example of contracting with the enemy. We have all heard testimony that preventing mass atrocities in Syria was complicated by their air and naval defense systems that prevent the protection of civilians in Syria and threaten its neighbors in Turkey and Jordan. Where did those systems come from? The answer is Rosoboronexport--the same systems that could shoot down our planes if we pursue additional measures against Syrian war crimes, the same entity that arms Iran, where we currently are seeking solutions against nuclear armament, and where we have said all options should be on the table in terms of our military action. The Department of Defense thinks the best thing for our long-term national security is to pay the Russian arms dealer that threatens global stability and our own freedom of action. But it gets worse. Without question we have overpaid for these Russian helicopters. A general told me the best way to think about these helicopters is they are ``flying refrigerators'' that we never should have bought in the first place. We paid about $18 million a copy, while Russia sold other nations Mi-17s for $4 million each. What a bargain. Other countries buy each helicopter for $4 million, we pay $8 million. And it is still worse. The Army acquisition office that handled this contract is now under investigation for ``questionable transactions,'' including potentially improper payments to Russian companies involved in the repair of these helicopters as well as problematic personal ties between the Army officials in this office and those foreign entities. If I went to Stella's and I told this absolutely remarkable story, I am hoping the folks there would say: No, you must be making this up. This couldn't happen at the U.S. Department of Defense. No way in the United States of America, not with our tax dollars. But in fact it is all true, and I have tried to cite the facts as objectively and dispassionately as possible. I suspect for anybody at Stella's who might have believed this incredible tale, they would have said: Well, if a tenth of that is true, what are you going to do to stop it? What are you going to do to end this waste of taxpayer money and the insult and outrage to the American taxpayer? Well, we did something. At my urging, and through the work of my colleagues who have spoken, including Senator Cornyn, Congress, in the Defense Appropriations Act, expressly prohibited the Department of Defense from spending any more taxpayer money on Russian helicopters and doing business with Rosoboronexport. In fact, I wrote to the Secretary of Defense about this program. I have written numerous letters, and I have met with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Did that stop these purchases? No. The $\1/2\ billion contract recently signed, recently completed, now under way by the U.S. Army for more Russian helicopters, used previously appropriated funds to ignore the will of Congress. Clearly, the spirit and intent of the National Defense Authorization Act was to end these purchases. The U.S. Department of Defense, in effect, has defied the will of Congress. So here we are today, almost $1 billion out the door and the near certainty these helicopters are going to be used to smuggle drugs--that is right, smuggle drugs in Afghanistan. That purchase has occurred. The contract has been completed. And we can be sure, just as they failed to maintain those helicopters in the past, they will fail again in the future because the Afghan national security forces don't have the people trained to maintain the helicopters. In fact, right now it doesn't have the people trained to fly those helicopters. And in a few years what the American taxpayer will have to show for this folly is rusted scrap heaps at Bagram Air Force Base. I understand that some in the Pentagon started this program with good intentions. Their thinking may have been that the Afghans already had some of these helicopters in the process of standing up their capability to defend themselves, they ought to have a few more, and then transition to a more capable helicopter. I have heard from our generals that we need these helicopters because the Afghans know how to fly them. But the fact is this program was never designed to be sustainable after we leave Afghanistan. My hope is we will leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later. There is simply no transition in place now or in the foreseeable future to buy American, to train those Afghan pilots how to fly those American helicopters, how to maintain American helicopters. When the Russians forced us to procure the helicopters from them directly, rather than excess helicopters from countries like the Czech Republic, we should have made a course correction immediately, even if we thought those kinds of helicopters were necessary in the short term. There were options and alternatives that should have been pursued and they were not. That is why I believe the plan requested by the senior Senator from Texas makes a lot of sense. He has asked the Department of Defense for an alternative plan for meeting the Afghan requirements. We cannot walk away from a problem that we created. We cannot walk away from the need for a transition. But there is a better way to get there. The answer, very simply, is buy American, buy American helicopters. I expect Mr. Estevez will be confirmed today. But I want to say to him please, as one of your priorities, figure out a way to end these purchases from Rosoboronexport. You owe it to the Members of this body. You owe it to the American people to find a way to buy American and to keep faith with the brave men and women who will use the equipment that you will help purchase with taxpayer dollars. I know you take this responsibility seriously, and I hope that you will bring that seriousness of purpose to these issues because they are important, not just to the military and not just to taxpayers, but most especially to the American men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues. I am not sure I can match their eloquence in describing their gifts and their contributions on this issue and so many others, but I hope they and others will join me in meeting with the present Sandy task force in seeking to remedy or correct perhaps some of the logjams and redtape and deficiencies in process that led the people of our States to wait for so long before they saw relief in practical terms. I thank them for their eloquence today and for their truly formidable contribution on the issue of climate change and global warming and to thank them also for the very powerful contributions they have made on the response to Superstorm Sandy that affected so many people in Connecticut. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 1- year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy's landfall in the Northeast and the destruction it brought on a ruinous path through Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. I will be joined today on the floor--and I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to engage in a colloquy--by my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, and from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, if there is no objection.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I can scarcely capture in words the awesome, monstrous power of this storm as it hit the Northeast as I traveled there. I was near the coastline of Connecticut, traveling some of the roads in the midst of this storm as it ripped through my State, tearing apart communities along the coast, destroying homes and businesses, displacing families, and forever altering the shoreline itself. Anybody who questions the power of nature at its most destructive should have seen this storm as it unfolded and the damage it left in its wake--in fact, in Connecticut, $770 million in damages. What I remember from touring Connecticut is not only the size and magnitude of the destruction but also the resilience and strength of Connecticut's people as they struggled through the pain and anguish of coping with this devastation, wondering how they would ever rebuild. In fact, they have rebuilt with the courage and relentless strength and fortitude that have so marked the character of Connecticut and New England and New York as they rallied around one another and exhibited that sense of optimism and hope. It was as important as any material resources that were brought to bear. They rallied around each other with gratitude and with hope because they had each other, and they have succeeded in clearing the debris, reconstructing, rebuilding in a way that is inspiring. I only wish Congress's response was as effective and courageous as that of the citizens of Connecticut that I viewed in the storm's aftermath. The Senate was slow to act, but it was before the House in passing the $60 billion recovery package for the Northeast. The effort was stalled in the House, quite bluntly, with bipartisan politics of the worst kind and trivial obstruction. There are lessons to be learned. No. 1 is that partisanship and politics should have no role in our response to disasters, whether in Oklahoma or Colorado or Louisiana or the Northeast. We are all in this effort together when disaster strikes. We should rally around each other as the people of Connecticut rallied. Our response has to be quicker, smarter, stronger than it was in this institution. We owe it to ourselves as well as to the people who suffered the financial and emotional loss. For many of them, there were physical injuries as a result of this natural disaster. Those two lessons are reinforced by a third, which is that these superstorms have become a new normal. We can no longer regard the once- in-a-century storm as once every hundred years. They are coming once every year because climate disruption is increasing their frequency and force in a way that is awesome and alarming and astonishing. So another lesson is that there has to be preparation to prevent damage and to mitigate the effects of these storms when they strike, and the investments--and they are investments--have to be smart and strong, with means such as storm barriers, breakers, better shoreline resilience. Eventually, the Federal Government provided aid, and Connecticut has put to good use the $200 million that was distributed through the National Flood Insurance Program to homeowners and business owners. Cities and towns around my State have used $42 million in FEMA assistance, and more than $10 million has gone toward health services and facilities. As our Governor announced yesterday, an additional $65 million has been granted to the State to supplement the initial $72 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the form of community development block grants for disaster relief. These new Federal dollars are critical to the effort of rebuilding, and I will continue to fight not only for additional funds but also against the bureaucratic logjams and redtape that have prevented so many from receiving more timely aid. This aid has come too slowly, it has been too small, and it has been behind the efforts--in time and strength--of the people of Connecticut. I will continue to fight for increased aid, including from the $100 million that was announced yesterday and today--today's announcement of the U.S. Department of Interior of $100 million in the coastline resiliency project. I will support all qualified applicants from Connecticut securing some of this competitive funding. We will fight for a fair allocation of this money to benefit the important work Connecticut is doing to strengthen our coastline so that we can prevent and reduce the effects of these storms in the future. I had the privilege to travel the State as a leader of a listening tour for the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force this past May, just over the half-year mark from the time Sandy hit. The progress made with this help from the Federal Government, combined with the good will, drive, and sense of responsibility toward one another--exemplified by the people of Connecticut--has been remarkable. We must resolve to do better at the Federal level, and I hope that not only the storm itself but the shortcomings of the relief effort will be a teaching moment for the Nation. The evidence is irrefutable that climate disruption is impacting our oceans and atmosphere and leading to an increasing number of severe weather storm events across the country that we cannot control. We will see more of such monstrous storms here and in other parts of the country. I thank my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Schumer, who have been strong and steadfast leaders in this effort to recognize the effects of climate disruption and prepare for them. Connecticut is in the process of upgrading our infrastructure to strengthen our resiliency among the most vulnerable communities. We are investing in microgrids, often powered by hydrogen fuel cells manufactured in our State, to provide backup power for hospitals and senior communities in towns such as Preston and Franklin, which I visited in the aftermath of the storm. In Milford, residents are using HUD funding to elevate their homes so they can guard against these storm surges. Other coastal towns are employing green infrastructure with marsh grass to slow surging waters during storms. In Stamford, CT, my hometown, the city is using Federal aid to upgrade a 17-foot hurricane barrier by replacing manual pumps to ensure against damage to the city's communities in future storms. I visited the shoreline of Stamford, as I did up and down the coast of Connecticut, and I have since, to see how Connecticut is learning these lessons so we can reduce dollar costs as well as human costs. The improvements taking place across Connecticut speak volumes to our strength of will and mind and the determined character of our people in Connecticut. I express appreciation to colleagues, such as Senators Schumer and Whitehouse and others in this body, who helped us in a time of need. They came forth to provide encouragement and support. They assured the people of Connecticut that they are not alone. No one in the United States--whether it is in the Presiding Officer's State of West Virginia or in the western most part of Hawaii--should be alone after being struck by a natural disaster. We need to rally together. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am very pleased to follow my colleague from Connecticut in recounting to this body some of the voices we have been hearing from across our State, some of the individuals whose stories make very compelling evidence for the need of this body to heed the bipartisan spirit--indeed, nonpartisan spirit that so animates and moves this country--to demand that we get the job done yesterday. I used exactly that expression to tell this body how important action is to move forward. I am on the floor today with thanks to our majority leader Senator Reid, who has come to the floor and has so ably and courageously led us, not only on the Democratic side but also on the minority side as well. I hope we will demonstrate in this body the profile in courage the country expects and needs from us at this time. I yield to the majority leader at this time if he has a message to bring to us.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, let me add my voice to the eloquent and powerful remarks made by our majority leader and the Senator from New York, who have rightly deemed this House proposal an obstacle-- indeed, an obstructionist move--designed to perpetuate and not end the shutdown, and to block and not enable our efforts to reach a bipartisan compromise which would allow America to continue paying its bills on time. Those two goals--ending the shutdown and enabling America to pay its bills on time--are the predominant objectives we must have as a bipartisan effort goes forward here in the Senate. This House proposal is doomed to failure. It would be a failure not just for the legislative process, not for the political actors here, but a failure for America. I am reminded of the remarks so well made more than 10 days ago by the majority leader about one aspect of the effects of this shutdown on an industry very important to his State of Nevada and very important to the Presiding Officer's State of Hawaii--the tourism, lodging, and hotel industry. That impact is devastating. As their Senator, I have heard this morning from staff and employees of the Starwood Hotels based in Stamford, CT, who have written to Members of Congress about the effects they see to their company and to others like theirs in this industry--hotel and tourism--which is vital to the State of Connecticut. In fact, we invest constructively and positively in promoting our State's tourism industry. I will read from a letter from Amy Kilbury, associate director of IT finance at Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide: The current impasse, now in its third week, is having a negative impact both on the economy in general, and specifically on the travel and tourism industry, which depends on the confidence of business and individuals on the future stability of the economy. The shutdown is having ripple effects; as federal agencies have reduced their operations so have private government contractors, and in turn, this is affecting both business and leisure travel. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter, and a letter written by the American Hotel and Lodging Association.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. These Starwood employees are writing to their Senators and Members of Congress because they see firsthand the effects on their livelihood and their lives. The stories recounted earlier by my colleague from Connecticut and those I recited yesterday on the floor are real effects in the lives of real people, negative and painful--indeed, devastating effects on people who depend on the economic flow of certain and stable work by the government, contractors, and small and large businesses like Starwood that are affected. There is no question the future health of the American economy depends on the policies we need to adopt and advance to sustain economic growth--indeed, to make it more robust to preserve job creation and, in fact, heighten and enhance it, and to make sure that these employees of Starwood are well served, not impeded, by the government they supported with their taxes and they elected with their votes. We have an obligation to them to do better than we have. I was deeply moved by the story recounted by Senator Durbin a short time ago on the floor about a young Iraq veteran more severely wounded than the ones I recounted yesterday. But he is a veteran like the individuals whose stories I told yesterday. They deserve better from our government. Indeed, they deserve an end to the kind of obstructionism we saw just a short time ago on the other side of this Congress, in the other branch of this legislative body, from Members of the House of Representatives who know the proposal they are making has no chance of adoption by the deadline we need to meet to make sure that the greatest Nation in the history of the world avoids default and continues to pay its bills on time. The CEO of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, which represents Starwood, Katherine Lugar, said: Hotels are a major economic driver and job creator across the country, and the industry's ability to continue its growth is hamstrung by inaction from our policy members. The administration, the House of Representatives, and the Senate need to act swiftly in the best interests of the entire Nation and end this shutdown. Pay our bills on time. That has been the objective of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and on the other side, like Senator McCain who has just come to the floor. That bipartisan effort has to be our objective. We need to do better for the American people and meet the obligations we now have. As chairman of the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the hotel and lodging industry, the commerce committee, we are hearing about how States such as Arizona, Hawaii, and Nevada, as well as Connecticut, are losing millions of dollars every day in economic activity. In fact, the Weir Farm National Historic Site in Connecticut is harmed, along with the Grand Canyon, and all the communities and industries associated with it. These issues are real and tangible. The harm is now and urgent. I urge my colleagues to come together and resist the pressures and demonstrate the kinds of profiles of courage we have seen on both sides of the aisle--standing strong, speaking out, resisting partisanship-- and coming together for the good of the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. room 428A Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Small Businesses Speak: Surviving the Government Shutdown?''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for speaking so forcefully and ably about the real-life stories in his State--stories of people affected very directly by the shutdown and the prospect of the greatest Nation in the history of the world failing to pay its bills on time. As powerfully as he spoke, so did our colleagues from California and Maryland, emphasizing again the evidence of how deep and broad the cumulative effect is of the shutdown. I had occasion to speak to people across Connecticut, as I know my colleague, the Acting President pro tempore, has done over the past 10 days. He and I have talked about how Connecticut is affected and about the individuals there who have borne the burden of this shutdown. As in Oregon and California and Maryland, there are real-life stories of people who have been affected not just temporarily but lastingly and enduringly. I had occasion over the last 48 or 24 hours to talk with many of them out of the glare of the public eye--privately, candidly--and I want to tell some of their stories today, beginning with a meeting I had this morning in East Hartford at VFW Post 2083, at the invitation of my good friend CDR John Hollis of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and a group he helped to invite--veterans of conflicts ranging from Korea, to Iraq, to Vietnam, to Afghanistan--all ages, all races, religions--more than 20 of those veterans telling me their stories and imparting to me their message: Get the job done. Reach a bipartisan compromise and make sure the government opens and end the shutdown and pays its bills on time, as befits the United States of America, for which they fought, the Nation they served and sacrificed to keep free. I was drawn by young men such as Micah Welintukonis, Jordan Massa, Michael Scavetta, David Alexander, veterans of the most recent conflict in Afghanistan; and John Hollis, Ed Dettore, Lester Yarmiel, Richard Kennedy, Mel Huston, Lucius Miles, who have fought in previous wars. As a matter of fact, Micah Welintukonis has recently returned from Walter Reed, where he had to undergo the latest round of surgery to his arm, which was severely wounded in Afghanistan in combat there. That wound led him to receive the Purple Heart. He was there with his wife Camilla and his three children to talk to me about his fear that he will be denied benefits and compensation that he is due, he deserves, and needs--the disability claim that he may apply for. Of course, Jordan Massa is also a Purple Heart recipient as a result of a wound that he likewise received in combat. He waited for 2 years to receive approval of his disability claim, only to learn on October 1 that he will very likely have to wait longer because of the VA furloughing so many of its employees. Others who came to this meeting: Mike Scavetta from Wethersfield--a veteran who served in an Air Force military police unit deployed to Afghanistan, who needs the GI bill, which he credits as reconnecting him to a civil society after his return. He has applied for a higher disability rating with the Department of Veterans Affairs based on his continued experience of post-traumatic stress. Jake Demaskiewicz in Rocky Hill, who has served not only in the Army in Operation Enduring Freedom, but on his return now in a nonprofit organization, is assisting other veterans. Thirty percent of his paycheck comes from the VA's vocational rehabilitation program, and he receives disability payments. These payments, compensation claims will run out at the end of October, and the delays are present even now, discouraging and failing these brave combat veterans who have endured so much for our Nation-- the Nation that now has shut down these services because of a small fringe of extremist ideologues in one House of this Congress, one branch of this government, who have succeeded in paralyzing the process. There are many other impacts on veterans in the denial of programs that are so important, many of which I have mentioned on the floor, such as the Education Call Center, personal interviews at regional offices, education and vocational counseling, outreach programs, including at military facilities and VetSuccess on Campus. These programs and benefits and claims cannot be sustained by a piecemeal allocation of money. The claims need to be verified by going to other agencies such as the IRS. The labor training programs need to be provided by the Department of Labor. Opening one agency is no substitute for a comprehensive approach to serve these veterans and the people of the United States, whether it is Head Start children who depend on that program, or seniors who depend on nutritional services. Over these past 2 weeks, I have spoken to home buyers whose loans cannot be processed by government agencies or by banks, business owners whose borrowing cannot be approved, potential victims of health threats who cannot be protected by the FDA or the CDC. There are researchers at the NIH and at places such as Yale who cannot continue their vital work to learn of new treatments, of advances in medicine that can help save people's lives and prevent suffering, and medical school applicants and Ph.D. candidates whose financial aid is in jeopardy and who cannot even, many of them, travel with government support to interview for their next possible assignment and study. These ramifications are not limited to veterans. They affect our economy at its core. I warned about the effect on job growth and economic recovery and now it is visible, literally visible in the businesses and offices and places of employ throughout Connecticut. Just yesterday in the Connecticut Post there was this story. The picture is of Robin Imbrogno. This picture of Robin Imbrogno from the Connecticut Post in yesterday's newspaper is of her at a meeting with her staff, preparing for their work. Their office in Seymour, CT, provides human resource services for businesses from California to Maine, across the country, to more than 150 business clients. It begins: Robin Imbrogno pulled her staff together after work on Thursday for an update. How, she asked, has the federal government's partial shutdown impacted business at her company, the Human Resources Consulting Group. ``Even more ways than I'd thought,'' she said moments later. I am going to quote the article. At the company's office in downtown Seymour, the staff of about 30 was having trouble carrying out a host of tasks for their more than 150 clients located from California to Maine: For one, they can't access [the central source of information in the government.] For another, they can't finish background checks or file equal employment opportunity reports. Most vexingly, perhaps, they got more phone calls than ever on Monday complaining that paychecks hadn't arrived in people's mailboxes across America--even though the U.S. Postal Service is supposed to be fully staffed. Their report is about new businesses that cannot open, retail businesses that cannot go into business because they cannot ``procure the necessary business license.'' As Robin said, ``It wasn't a fun phone call.'' There is evidence of this effect on employment in businesses across this country, across the State of Connecticut. This relatively modest- size business in Seymore, CT, the Human Resources Consulting Group, founded and headed by Robin Imbrogno, is just one of many across the country. Her reports about the effects on jobs--we are talking jobs--is a wake-up call for this body. It is a wake-up call for not only the Congress but for everyone in positions of leadership, because this effect will be enduring. In the same article from the Connecticut Post, it talks about the SBA not providing loans to small businesses: $150,000 worth of loans every day in one Congressional district in Connecticut alone. Eight companies slated to get SBA-backed loans from a private nonprofit organization will not receive them because of this shutdown. There are other individuals. I cannot share all of their stories, but just a few. Mary Brady in Durham is trying to buy a home. She cannot do it because she is unable to verify Social Security numbers and income with the Internal Revenue Service; Jesse Pannell, who contacted my office because the buyer of his home in Union, CT, cannot process a loan from the USDA because the USDA employees are furloughed and there is no one to process his buyer's application. In the city of New Haven, which I visited over the weekend, urban renewal is halted because of the shutdown. This city relies on the Department of Housing and Urban Development to proceed with foreclosure actions on developers. Those developers are subject to foreclosure actions when they fail to maintain their property, when that property becomes a blight on the neighborhood. But, of course, HUD employees are furloughed and they are not at their desks to help the city of New Haven. This ripple effect spans the State and the country. It goes from loans to a physical therapy company, a car wash, a catering company, a dental firm, small businesses that populate Main Street. As much as we focus on the markets, on Wall Street, we are talking about Main Street in jeopardy because of this shutdown. These are real-life tragedies. There are real consequences to real people, real harm and hardship in real lives. This body has to listen to them, as I did, and as I have done over the past couple of weeks. Behind all of this real harm to real people is the prospect of an even more horrendous possible harm resulting from this Nation failing to pay its bills on time. The havoc and chaos that would result, the calamity and catastrophe across the globe, the lasting impact on our Nation, on our credibility as a world power, simply is unthinkable and unimaginable. How would we face our children if we were to allow this Nation to go into default? How would this generation explain itself to the next and the one after? Every generation enters into a compact in America that we will leave this Nation better than we found it, just as the World War II generation fought to preserve freedom and democracy and gave of itself in combat and then came back to build the interstates and desegregate our schools and put a man on the Moon. In peace as well as war, our veterans are coming back eager and ready to contribute to this country. The men I just mentioned and met with in East Hartford at VFW Post 283, veterans across Connecticut, veterans across the country, expect more from this government and are eager to leave this Nation greater than it was left to them, and there are millions of other Americans who also are contributing and giving back in their own ways and who are committed to following that model of courage and dedication that has characterized previous generations. How do we face the next generation if we allow this great Nation to fail to fulfill its most basic obligation that every family meets--paying its bills on time. It is often said America always does the right thing, after it tries everything else. I know I am paraphrasing, not quoting directly. Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst of all possible governments, except for all the others. We do not have the luxury today of trying everything else before America does the right thing. We do not have the luxury of failing democracy and failing to pay our bills on time. We must meet this challenge and follow the example of those veterans and millions of other courageous Americans who have said to all of us, as they did to me this morning: Get the job done. Make sure the Government of the United States serves the people and pays its bills on time. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.