Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate John Breitfelder of New Canaan, who was selected to represent Connecticut in this year's Healthy Lunchtime Challenge contest hosted by First Lady Michelle Obama. Today, John joins 54 students, ages 8 to 12, at the White House for a Kids' State Dinner. These winners hailing from all 50 States, 3 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia will share a healthy lunch featuring their winning recipes. John's creation, a quinoa ``risotto'' with shrimp and kale was selected from over 1,300 recipes evaluated by a panel of judges, which included representatives from the First Lady's Let's Move!, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Education, DC Central Kitchen, and two student graduates of the Share Our Strength's Cooking Matters Program. The contest ``invited a parent or guardian to work with their child ages 8-12 to create a lunchtime recipe that is healthy, affordable, original, and delicious.'' The winning recipes adhere to the USDA's MyPlate guidelines, featuring each of the food groups. I applaud John for taking the initiative to enter this contest to explore how healthy foods can also be delicious, and the support of his family. This innovative competition not only combats childhood obesity, but also raises awareness of the importance of cooking for overall health as well as success in the classroom. Children are taught personal responsibility, encouraged to express their creativity, and are inspired to continue to make responsible choices and bring consciousness to each meal. I also thank the First Lady for hosting a Kids' State Dinner to celebrate the importance of parents and guardians spending time together in the kitchen and then sitting around a table and sharing food with each other. This month, Epicurious will offer a cookbook featuring these winning recipes free of charge. I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in recognizing John and his fellow junior chefs for inspiring countless students across the country to try their own recipes and share the gift of healthy eating with their families and communities.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, over this past week I had the opportunity to visit with many students, many faculty and staff of our colleges, both private and public, all around the State of Connecticut. I know the Presiding Officer has led very strongly in this effort. What I found is that students and teachers of Connecticut and around the country absolutely understand how destructive and lastingly harmful this doubling of interest rates will be for people of all ages in America. Never before has higher education meant more to earning potential and employment, now and in the future. Never before have the faculty, staff, and students of America been more united in their understanding of how critical higher education is--not only to them but to our economy. Our students are the ones who will buy homes, build families, start businesses, and contribute to our economy. They will do more to give back and contribute if they have the great advantages of higher education spared from the financially crippling debt that threatens them now. In fact, financially crippling debt is a reality for more than 73,000 people who owe an average of $29,000 in Connecticut alone. That debt is a burden for our entire economy as much or more as it is for those individuals. So there is a strong societal and national interest in this issue. I didn't need to tell the students of Connecticut what the consequences are of doubling the interest rates, and I didn't need to tell them what it would mean for their future. They told me. They told me at Middlesex Community College, where I spoke to the community college sector--I discussed the issue with the president of that college, Anna Wasescha, along with public officials, students, and financial aid people. They told me at Northwestern Connecticut Community College, where I spoke with the president Barbara Douglass and individuals there, students and faculty, who noted to me that 51 percent of their students received some kind of financial aid, including Stafford loans. All around Connecticut I spoke to faculty and students, such as Sam Chaney, who is a 2010 graduate of Quinnipiac. He said to me when students graduate: . . . you're not just paying rent, you're paying as much or more in student loans. . . . I hope they're not in the position I was in, being told not to worry about the sticker price of college. I heard from Irene Mulvey, the president of the Connecticut chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Her organization is constantly in touch with student borrowers and knows just how much subsidized Stafford loans mean to them. As she said to me, ``As faculty members, we see the impact that student loan debt has on our students and their families every day.'' She called this doubling of interest rates ``indefensible.'' She is correct. It is indefensible, unconscionable, unacceptable. Even at 3.4 percent, as the Presiding Officer well knows, our Federal Government profits from the student loan program. It profits in the amount of $51 billion a year. Doubling the interest rate simply means more profits for the Federal Government. There is a fundamental principle at stake; that is, whether our Nation is going to continue profiting from student loans, which should be regarded not as a benefit to the students but an investment in our Nation, not as a charitable or eleemosynary program but as a vital investment in the skills and talents and the major resource our Nation has as a free and democratic society, the talents and skills of our people. Freedom from student debt should be a fundamental national interest as important as any that this body addresses. It is as vital to the future of the country as our national defense. I did not need to tell the students of Connecticut what this doubling of interest rates would mean to them--$31 a month, $1,000 a year. They know. They do the math. They get it better than people in this Chamber or in the House of Representatives. They told me what the $1,000 would mean to them. Elizabeth Tomasco: ``Textbooks and start saving for my very own car.'' Gina: ``I would use $1,000 to pay for books. Don't double my rate.'' Across Connecticut, students are telling us: Don't double my rate. I did not need to tell them as well that there are a lot of borrowers in this country who get a pretty good rate, a lot better than 3.4 percent. In fact, those borrowers are the biggest financial institutions, the big banks who borrow from the Federal Reserve at a discount window at less than 1 percent--.75 percent often. They are angry about it; that they are worth less in these financial markets, in the view of our Federal Government that loans money, than the big banks and big institutions that, in fact, are sometimes regarded as too big to fail. Students are failing to pay back those debts, but the nation is failing our students and it is failing itself because our national interest is in the student loans and talents and skills and opportunity it provides, not just in the next year or couple of years but for a lifetime and for the long term of our Nation. I am a proud supporter of the Bank on Student Loan Fairness Act, which would give them the same kind of fairness, equivalent fairness that our big banks enjoy when they borrow from the Federal Reserve. But in the meantime, we need a solution for this next year, and it is the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act. It is a remedy of short duration, I hope, that will in the end be accompanied and followed by longer term reforms that will give students the benefit of those lower rates, lower even than 3.4 percent, so our Federal Government ceases to use students as a profit center and ceases to take advantage of them. I am not against smart cuts to reduce our debt and our deficit. These kinds of burdens on students, using them as a deficit solution, is not a smart cut. That is an understatement. In the long term, we need to reduce the cost of higher education, which has increased over the last few decades by 1,000 percent. That is the result of year after year overinflationary increases in tuition which over time have managed to make a college degree unaffordable to all but the most well off unless they use that kind of financially crippling debt to attend. The age of supporting oneself through a 4-year college degree is past for most. This unfortunate trend has been coupled with more and more employers requiring a bachelor's degree for even consideration in the hiring pool. So the doubling of interest rates is indeed indefensible, as Irene Mulvey told me. It is indeed unacceptable in the greatest nation in the history of the world--which must continue the quality and affordability of higher education if we are to remain the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope my colleagues will join the Members of this Senate who have supported the Keep Student Loans Affordable Act and will support a reasonable measure keeping these rates at 3.4 percent. To allow variable rates and, in effect, teaser loan levels that can rise beyond affordability, without caps, without protection is, in fact, against the national interest. This measure will help us keep students in school and spare them the kind of financially crippling debt that all too many of our young people have when they leave college. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from California Senator Boxer for her very eloquent and powerful words on behalf of my client and friend Gina McCarthy and her appointment as Administrator of the EPA. I don't make any pretense of matching the persuasiveness of her statement on behalf of Gina McCarthy, but I am going to be speaking throughout this week and for as long as it takes about Gina McCarthy because she is not only a client and friend, she is a consummate public servant and environmental protector. I have known Gina McCarthy for many years. In fact, I was her lawyer, which is why I say she was a client. As her lawyer, as attorney general of the State, she became a friend, not just because of her personal qualities of integrity and intelligence but because of her professionalism as an environmental protector who has sought always to recognize the need for a balance between environmental activism and economic growth. She recognizes a balance involving ardent and passionate protection of environmental values as much as anyone could possibly bring to this task. She also brings a willingness to listen, a willingness to hear all sides and consider all facts and, in fact, act as a passionate fact finder and lawyer as well as someone who respects the letter and spirit of the law. I wish to speak to my colleagues about her respect for the law. It isn't just the letter of the law she follows; it is the spirit and intent of the legislature. I think that is important and should be important to this body because she has reflected throughout her career, working for two Republican Governors in Massachusetts and Connecticut, her dedication to public interests and to the legislative intent of the laws she fulfills. She is truly an environmental protector for all seasons. She is a woman for all seasons and a public servant for all seasons. Over the years we worked together she was consistently tough, fair, and smart as an environmental law enforcer. She recognized the need to balance environmental activism with economic growth, and she also understood that the two are almost always mutually supportive. I am proud and delighted she has demonstrated her willingness to assume this critical position and to face the kind of difficult path this confirmation process has imposed. Achieving confirmation, which I actively support, should be truly bipartisan. Blocking a vote on her nomination is disappointing and destructive. It is paralyzing partisan gamesmanship at its worst. My former colleague is well respected in the environmental and business community in my State of Connecticut and around the country for her dedication to listening and developing public leadership and practical solutions to environmental challenges. She protects environmental values and policies while enhancing economic opportunity. She is no foe of the business community or economic progress and job creation. In fact, she sees how protecting economic values is complementary and supportive to environmental activism. The President couldn't have picked a more qualified person to lead the EPA at this critical time. The combination of her experience, intelligence, energy, and unquestioned expertise will make Gina McCarthy an effective EPA Administrator. She has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the American people depends on clean air and clean water. The American people, more than ever, understand that fact. She is the right person for this job at this time. I urge my colleagues to move forward with her confirmation, to avoid obstructionist tactics, and to embrace this nomination as good for all of the American people, for all of the interests she has sought to represent. I urge us to move forward as quickly as possible so this critical agency will have the kind of leadership that is so important at this point in our history. I urge my colleagues to support my friend and the President's choice to lead the EPA. I assure my colleagues they will not be disappointed. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank both of my colleagues. We will soon be joined by another colleague in this colloquy, my colleague and friend from Connecticut Senator Murphy. I first want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island. He has been a constant and extraordinarily eloquent speaker on this subject. He has regularly been reminding us of our obligation even before the President outlined his vision of what we need to do today. I thank my friend, and I thank the President for his bold leadership and very effective and courageous action he is taking today. Anybody who questions the need for action in this area need look no further than the shorelines of Connecticut which were devastated by Superstorm Sandy and have been repeatedly hit over this past year by a rash of unprecedented severe weather events. Connecticut has been through extraordinarily severe and serious weather events that may become the new normal. We hate to think of these kinds of storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes as the regular order. In fact, that havoc may be the new normal for many States and, indeed, the new normal for all of America, which is why the President's leadership today is very important. Without action, we will suffer the effects of inertia and continued pollution contamination. Climate disruption is the result of human contribution, human inaction, and human failure to address these problems. In fact, inaction is unacceptable. Inertia is intolerable. This kind of leadership from the Senate, as well as from the President, is a moral obligation to protect the climate for our children and our grandchildren. In the last 30 years asthma rates have doubled. In the last year alone our Nation has faced droughts, floods, and extreme temperatures in almost every corner of the country, which exacts a cost in dollars and in human lives as well as suffering. These kinds of extremes in climate are destructive and deadly. The health-related costs of climate change literally add billions more to our debt. Connecticut has suffered major disasters six times since 2010. There have been six disasters in less than 4 years, and that compares with six disasters in a 30-year period from 1954 to 1985. So we know firsthand how climate disruption--it is not just climate change, it is climate disruption--can affect our daily lives. We have an opportunity, as well as an imperative, to act now. We need to take simple steps, and we know what they are: upgrading and modernizing our existing powerplants so they emit less carbon, investing in clean energy research and development, and investing in fuel cells. Connecticut is the fuel cell capital of the Nation and could be the fuel cell capital of the world. By doing what I just mentioned, combined with other measures that are easily within reach, we can help save lives and dollars in this effort. The investments we are making in infrastructure--the public investments--can also help us to go in this direction. There are commonsense and necessary actions that we have an obligation and an opportunity to take now, and one of them is the appointment of Gina McCarthy to head the EPA. Her appointment is now stalled by the same paralyzing partisan gridlock that is all too common. This kind of partisan gamesmanship should stop. I know her well. I can assure this body of her qualifications, as I have done before. She has worked in the Presiding Officer's State of Massachusetts, as well as my State of Connecticut. She has worked with Republican Governors. She has exemplified the kind of balanced, sensitive, and responsive approach to business needs and interests as well as to environmental protection. She is well respected in the environment and business communities because of her dedication to developing practical solutions in facing this set of environmental challenges. Her leadership, along with the President's vision today, is so very important. There is a group of us who are working together. I am proud to be a part of that effort. I have cosponsored legislation that would protect some of Connecticut's treasured bodies of water, including the Farmington River, the Salmon Brook, and Pawcatuck River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I have joined with members of the New England delegation to urge the Army Corps of Engineers to complete its study of the Connecticut River so we can better understand the human impact on that river and improve its system. All of these efforts will be for naught if America and humankind fail to address the fundamental challenge we now face, which is to end our contribution to climate disruption, stop the drift and inertia, accept that we must act and act now. The President's plan is only an example of the kind of bold approach we need to combat the impacts of climate change. With the Presiding Officer's approval, and with the Senator from Rhode Island's acquiescence, I will yield to my colleague from Connecticut for his comments. We share a State, and we also share a view that our children--his two and my four--will benefit from what we do together as a body, as a group, and as a country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise to speak on the immigration bill, and I will do so, particularly on the amendment process my friend and colleague from Iowa has discussed, but first let me say a few words about two of the President's nominees whose confirmations we will address later today or within the next day or so. Nominations Penny Pritzker will truly be a great Secretary of Commerce, in my view. She has experience and acumen and ability that will serve her well in building strong relationships in the Federal Government, but also strong partnerships with the business community in promoting job creation and fostering sustained economic growth. She has been a strong leader not only in her own business, but in her community, and I look forward to working with her as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation where I serve. Mayor Anthony Foxx, if he becomes Secretary of Transportation, likewise has a record of accomplishment as a local official, as a strong mayor, and I look forward to working with him on investment in high-speed rail, distracted and drunk driving, air safety, rail safety, and all of the issues that are so important to the infrastructure of our country and to the transportation issues that will help promote jobs and increase economic progress. I will be submitting statements for the Record at greater length on these two nominees who I believe embody the principle of excellence and dedication in public service. Madam President, we are reaching a fateful and extremely important moment in the history of our country when we have the great opportunity, the exciting and energizing prospect, of providing a path to earned citizenship for 11 million of our fellow residents. They live alongside us, in our neighborhoods and communities, and they serve on community boards and all kinds of activities where they are indistinguishable from citizens except for the fact they are not citizens. There are 11 million people living in the shadows, including young people brought to this country when they were infants or as children, who know only English as a language, whose home is here, and who know only this country as their home, whose friends and life are here, their schools, and even the military many of them serve. The DREAMers are among those 11 million, and their parents and loved ones who came with them to this country. We have this historic opportunity to provide them with a path to earned citizenship. To earn citizenship they are paying back taxes and penalties, learning English, if they do not know it already, and meeting the other strong standards and criteria this act provides. Along with enhanced border security and a crackdown on illegal employment, this act provides better skilled people more opportunities to come to this country in a program I have helped to lead on, as well as lower skilled workers who want to fulfill the American dream. This legislation is about the American dream, and it culminates a careful and cautious and deliberate process led by Chairman Leahy in the Judiciary Committee, where abundant opportunity was afforded to offer amendments and have them pass. In fact, a number of my amendments adopted in the Judiciary Committee strengthen due process, fight human trafficking, afford opportunities for people to seek release from solitary confinement, and protect American workers, and standards and compensation for American workers, against unfair and illegal competition from other businesses and other workers based on substandard conditions and exploitation of workers here. Those kinds of amendments have improved on the very important work done by the Group of 8. I join in thanking them, the Group of 8, those eight Senators who labored so long and helped to provide such a great model for us to move forward and improve further. I believe this legislation can be improved. Two amendments I have offered would help improve it. The little DREAMers, who are too young to qualify right now for the expedited path to citizenship that is provided the DREAMers under S. 744, would be helped by an amendment I have drafted, with support from the great champion of the DREAM Act, Senator Durbin, who deserves so much credit for spearheading this effort over so many years. I have done this at the State level before coming here as a Senator, when I was attorney general, but Senator Durbin has championed their cause year after year, Congress after Congress, and so I have joined him in supporting an amendment to this bill that would help those littlest of DREAMers, too young now to qualify for that expedited citizenship, and to do so if they are in school or otherwise satisfy the criteria the amendment would provide. I also thank Senator Murkowski for cosponsoring this very bipartisan measure with me so that anyone left out of the DREAM Act because they are too young would be covered. A second amendment I believe would improve this bill would provide more whistleblower protections for H-2B visa workers. They come to this country to work here and they are dependent on their employers to remain here. So, naturally, if they are exploited, if illegal working conditions subject them to hazards, and if they provide the basis for unfair competition because they are paid less than the minimum wage, they are fearful of retaliation when they make complaints because their employer can discharge them and they are then automatically deported. So this whistleblower amendment would provide them with protection. This is essential to making possible their redress and remedy when they are victims of illegal violations. Both those amendments would improve this law. But I recognize this bill is a huge and historic step forward. It is imperfect, but I will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I will continue to fight for these amendments, these improvements in this law--enabling the little DREAMers to have those same opportunities as the DREAMers who have been brought to this country and now are here and can contribute so much to our Nation; and I will continue to fight for whistleblower protections for all workers who may be exploited if they are brought here under visa because whistleblowers deserve that protection. They are protecting not just themselves when they complain, but all workers. But I will vote for this measure even if there are no more amendments because I believe this measure fulfills the American dream of opening this country--a Nation of immigrants--to others who have the American dream and see this country as a beacon of hope and opportunity. Anyone who doubts it should do what I do regularly. Whenever I have the opportunity on a Friday in Connecticut, I go to our Federal courthouse and attend the naturalization ceremonies. People come there with tears in their eyes, accompanied by their families, neighbors, and loved ones to celebrate one of the biggest moments in their lives-- becoming a citizen of the United States of America. Many of them come after years of struggle to achieve that status--physical struggle to reach our shores, emotional separation from their families abroad, and professional hard work embodying the best about America. I thank them for becoming U.S. citizens. I thank them for not taking for granted what all too many of us do--the great privilege and right of being a citizen of the United States. Let us seize this moment as a Nation of immigrants to open our doors once again, open our hearts to those 11 million people who want simply a path to earned citizenship--a historic and rare moment in our history where the American people have come together in a deep and enduring consensus that now is the time to strengthen border security, as the amendment we are considering would do, to crack down on illegal hiring, as this bill would do, and to make possible for millions of Americans what my father did, what others did, which is to become citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world. We owe it to ourselves, as well as to our children, to give them that opportunity, and we owe our Nation the opportunity to benefit from their strengths and talents and energy and, yes, their dedication to the country that has given them this historic opportunity. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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 June 20, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

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 June 20, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 428A Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a roundtable entitled ``Seqeuestration: Small Business Contractors Weathering the Storm in a Climate of Fiscal Uncertainty.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 20, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce and Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 20, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the Workforce of the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Role of Private Contractors.''

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, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Developing a Skilled Workforce for a Competitive Economy: Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act'' on June 20, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 June 20, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Briefing on Syria.''

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 June 20, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 20, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 20, 2013, at 2:45 p.m.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, it is a great privilege to rise and honor the late Senator Frank Lautenberg. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say he was a true hero to New Jersey and in the Senate, a self-made man, and an inspiration to us all. I was proud to count Frank as a good friend and mentor. We shared similar backgrounds--children of Eastern European immigrations--and similar convictions. I will never forget Senator Lautenberg's courage when he cast important votes on gun violence prevention just a few months before his death. He had a renewed hope that we could save many lives and prevent more Americans from facing the senseless violence that we all experienced with the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In tribute to Frank, and to the Newtown families, I will continue to fight for gun violence legislation. I am sure that Frank would agree that this battle will be a marathon, not a sprint, and we need to keep pushing forward. Many have risen over the last few weeks to pay tribute to Frank. I am similarly humbled by his many years of service and the number of accomplishments that we can attribute to his leadership. As the last serving World War II veteran, his bravery in battle will never be forgotten. He was a relentless and unremitting fighter for public health causes, such as controlling the harmful effects of public tobacco use, raising the drinking age to 21, and banning toxic household chemicals. He was determined to witness the effects of his legislative efforts, and many times he did live to see his tremendous work. Frank was a champion of the rail community for many years, leading transportation safety issues. Throughout his tenure he improved passenger rail systems, protected Amtrak, and pushed for improvements to high-speed rail. Frank was certainly in my thoughts as I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation yesterday on rail safety. I am grateful for his tenacity and proactivity on these issues. We have lost Frank Lautenberg's stirring presence on the floor, but never in our hearts. For 28 years, he pushed for important changes as a force for good, refusing to give up the public fight for his steadfast convictions. Cynthia and I send our love to Bonnie and the Lautenberg family.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss H.R. 1797. A number of my colleagues, Senators Murray and Boxer, have been here this morning to talk about the bill that passed yesterday in the House of Representatives that would prohibit all abortions beyond 20 weeks with very, very limited exceptions. This topic is critically important to the women of Connecticut and our country, and the bill is lamentably and regrettably yet another example of legislation that feigns concern for women's health when actually it would endanger the lives and well-being of women across this great country. The bill would take decisions regarding health care away from women and their doctors and would force doctors to decide between incurring criminal penalties and helping their patients. That choice is unacceptable professionally and morally. The decision to end a pregnancy is a serious decision that a woman should make in consultation with her doctor. When those decisions are made later in a pregnancy, they are most often the result of serious health risks to the mother or the discovery that the fetus is not viable. They are the result of those risks or the discovery that a fetus is not viable. Political interference is abhorrent and unacceptable in these personal and private decisions, and it violates the constitutional right of privacy. The other scenario in which a woman may seek an abortion later in a pregnancy is due to an inability to access such services earlier-- whether due to financial restrictions or a lack of access to health care or other extenuating circumstances. In fact, 58 percent of abortion patients say they would have preferred to have an abortion earlier. Low-income women were more than twice as likely as their wealthier counterparts to be delayed because of financial limitation and difficulty in making arrangements. As politicians, we should not be placing additional restrictions on women in these circumstances. The House bill blatantly ignores constitutional protections that are vitally necessary to protect the health of women, as decided in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, because these kinds of restrictions place limitations that interfere with constitutional rights and have no place in these personal and very private decisions. The limited exceptions in this bill would require a woman to report a rape or incest to law enforcement or a specific government agency when she is seeking much needed health care services. Those restrictions that affect women when they have been victims of a crime or face serious health risks have no effect in reducing abortions, and that is their purported purpose--to reduce abortion--but that purpose will in no way be served by these restrictions. Victims of incest or rape may be too young or too fearful of retaliation to report to a law enforcement agency. Why create a needless, lawless obstacle to vital health care? We should be working to ensure that women have the ability to access safe and affordable contraception so there are fewer unintended pregnancies in this country. And yet supporters of this bill would also restrict access to contraception, and they are the ones who have tried to make it more difficult to get access to the information and services necessary to prevent unintended pregnancies. We need to do more. Our Nation needs to do better to ensure that women have access to preventive and maternal health care so they can be prepared to face the responsibility of pregnancy and parenthood. This bill would do very little, if anything, to actually help women protect their health care and the health care of their families. I urge my colleagues to reject any consideration of this ill-intended and, I hope, ill-fated measure that endangers women's health across the country, and I urge my colleagues to focus on the real priorities that face this Congress--job creation and economic recovery, for example-- and stop this attack on women's health. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on June 10, 2013, I was regretfully absent during the vote on the Leahy amendment No. 998 because of travel delays due to inclement weather. Had I been able to attend the vote, I would have supported passage of this amendment, which establishes a pilot program to invest in gigabit networks in rural areas. This program has the potential to greatly improve Internet access in underserved communities, which can lead to significant improvements in commerce, education, health care and other areas. I applaud the Senate's passage of this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, today we mark the 6-month anniversary of a date that none of us will ever forget because it transformed our lives, it transformed America, and it certainly transformed Connecticut and the community of Newtown. We commemorate the 6-month anniversary of that unspeakable, unimaginable tragedy that cut short the lives of 20 beautiful, innocent children and six dedicated, courageous educators. It transformed America in so many ways. It changed our lives irrevocably and, I hope, put us on a trajectory toward changes in our laws that will prevent this kind of horrific, unimaginable tragedy from ever happening again. Our challenge right here in this body, on this floor, is to make sure we learn from it, that we act on it, and that we keep faith with those families, as well as the Newtown community and all of our country that lost so much that day. December 14 began like so many other days for the parents of Newtown, CT. They took their children to school, kissed them goodbye, and went about their day with plans for play dates, Hanukkah and Christmas holiday parties, and presents that they would give to those children for those holidays. They planned snack breaks and holiday parties. They wrapped presents. Just hours later, I stood with them and saw them emerge from the Sandy Hook firehouse having learned that those children would not be coming home that night. I arrived in Newtown as a public official within hours of that shooting. But what I saw was through the eyes of a parent--grief-stricken, panicked parents, tears streaming down their faces--who came hoping to reunite with their children. Many parents did reunite. Children were brought to all of the parents who gathered at the firehouse, and they left with their children--until the families who realized that their children would not be coming home. I saw those families who lost beautiful, young children. Some of them are here, along with adults--dedicated, courageous adults--families of educators who died themselves trying to save their children. I will never forget the cries of grief, anguish, pain, and disbelief. Every parent in his or her DNA has something fundamental. It is about trust and caring for children, making sure they come home at the end of the day when they go to school; that they are kept safe in some very basic and fundamental way. Society shares that trust. Society failed in that trust. We will never forget the loss and heartbreak of that tragic day in Sandy Hook. But we also know that in the face of evil there was tremendous goodness and heroism. There were genuine heroes: the first responders who braved the unknown, hearing gunfire, charging into that school, and stopping the shooting through their courage because the shooter turned that gun on himself. There were the brave educators, teachers, administrators, and school psychologists who threw themselves in front of bullets or tried to save their children and perished themselves. Then members of the community who came together in support of the families and who themselves, along with first responders, are continuing to recover. They exemplify the quintessential values of this quintessential New England town that make us proud to be American. Thirty-two members of the victims' families at the massacre wrote to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Through their unspeakable pain and suffering, they asked Congress to honor the memory of their loved ones by supporting measures to stem and stop the epidemic of gun violence. They wrote, ``In the midst of our anguish we are compelled to speak out to save others from suffering what we have endured.'' These brave families have come to Washington to tell their stories. They sat in this very gallery. They met with colleagues. Some of our colleagues refused to meet with them. I urged them to share some of their hurt and meet with them, to hear their stories. We owe them tremendous respect and gratitude. They enabled us to come to this point where we are close to making fundamental changes in the law. But in April, that day of the vote was a day of shame because the Senate turned its back on the families of Newtown while some of them watched in this very gallery. How to explain to those families or try to explain how 90 percent of the American people could be in favor of reasonable, commonsense measures that we proposed--background checks on all firearms purchases and a ban on illegal traffic and straw purchases, on assault weapons, and on excess capacity magazines--how 90 percent of the people could be in favor of those kinds of commonsense measures, most especially the background checks, yet the Senate failed to pass it. Those families have been resolute and resilient at every turn. Mark Barden, whose son Daniel was killed 6 months ago at Sandy Hook, wrote: We are not defeated. We will always be here because we have no other choice. Despite their profound and harrowing loss, those parents, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, grandmothers have kept faith and they have inspired us to keep faith. They uplifted us and their determination has meant the world to colleagues who have heard them, and as an example of grace under pressure and courage and strength, they have refused to give up. They will not give up, nor will we. We are coming back for another vote. We will not allow that vote to be the final one. It may be the first one, but it is not the final one, and we will win the last vote, which is the one that counts. In the meantime many of my colleagues have stood up to the special interests and most especially the NRA, which was accustomed to having its way and holding sway in this body, in Congress, just as a schoolyard bully would. My colleagues have stood up to that bully once and will do it again. This time we will win. What happened in Newtown could happen anywhere in America. If it happened there, it can happen in any town or city, and it has, in fact, claimed the lives of 4,900 people since Newtown. Gun violence has claimed their lives. I am constantly shocked and saddened by how quickly that number rises each time I speak about this topic. Just last week a man armed with semiautomatic AR-15 assault rifle and more than 1,300 rounds of ammunition, opened fire at a Santa Monica college and killed five people. The stories about Newtown, about all of the massacres since and before--whether Columbine or Virginia Tech or Arizona and Tucson-- affirm that these laws can help save lives. These laws can help save lives. Six months ago I left the firehouse at Sandy Hook to attend a vigil at a church in Newtown. The church was St. Rose of Lima, presided over by Father Bob, Msgr. Robert Weiss. The church was filled. It was a powerful and moving experience. People listened to the service through the windows and the PA system outside. I said that evening the world is watching Newtown. In fact, for 6 months the world has watched Newtown. It has seen a story of unparalleled and unprecedented courage and fortitude. Now we will continue to watch Newtown. But the world is also watching the Senate. We need to be worthy of the courage and strength that Newtown has demonstrated in moving ahead. I thank the majority leader Harry Reid and all of my colleagues who have determined that we will bring this bill back, not only to honor the memories of the Newtown victims and keep faith with them but also to make this country better and safer, worthy of these children, beautiful and innocent at the time of their passing with all of their future ahead of them. There were educators who worked for their whole professional lives, trying to help children such as these young people. Out of that grief and pain we can make America safer and stronger. We can make America better. That is the potential legacy of these lost lives, a better and safer America. If we achieve it, they will not have died in vain. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I rise to honor a true patriot and native son of Canton, CT. After more than 3 years of service as the legislative assistant to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Brig. Gen. Steven R. Rudder is deservedly moving up to assume the responsibilities of commanding general, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing. On this occasion, I wish to recognize General Rudder's noble service and dedication to fostering the warm relationship between the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Senate. Commissioned in June of 1984, General Rudder is well-known and respected as a true leader and warrior. In addition to serving as a weapons and tactics instructor, he has distinguished himself in combat and effectively commanded HML/A-167 and Marine Air Group 26. Over the last 3 years, General Rudder has been instrumental in facilitating the oversight responsibilities of the Senate. Known for his comprehensive knowledge of legislative issues and the operational requirements of the Marine Corps, he ensured that the Senate Armed Services Committee was armed with timely information on Operation Enduring Freedom and other forward-deployed Marine forces, as well as numerous Marine Corps programs to include the Joint Strike Fighter, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, and the MV-22 Osprey. Moreover, General Rudder worked to recognize the contributions of the Montford Point Marines--the first African Americans who entered into service with the Marine Corps during World War II--with a Congressional Gold Medal. In 2011 I had the unique privilege of being the guest of honor at the U.S. Marine Corps Sunset Parade, hosted by General Rudder. It was a glorious display of military precision and a truly enjoyable and moving event. I join many past and present members of Congress in my gratitude and appreciation for General Rudder's outstanding leadership. I invite my Senate colleagues to wish him well, along with his wife Holly, as he transfers to Okinawa, Japan.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the 48th anniversary of the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision. Nearly 50 years ago, the Court greatly expanded women's access to health care by legalizing the use of contraception by married couples, basing this decision on a fundamental right to privacy in family planning decisions made between a man and a wife. We have come a long way since 1965. Today, options for birth control are safer, more effective, and available to far more people than just married couples. The simple facts are that 99 percent of women will use contraceptives over the course of their lifetime, and the vast majority of Americans find the use of contraceptives morally acceptable. This progress shows just how important contraceptive products and services have become to our country. Preserving this access should be a noncontroversial, bipartisan issue. And yet access to contraceptives and to Federal programs such as title X that support reproductive health care services are under attack not only by the loud voices of a small minority but also by some Members of Congress and in the courts. We have an alarming situation on our hands. Now more than ever, it is important that we continue to fight back against these outrageous attacks and talk about these issues in terms of the proven scientific facts. As a U.S. Senator, I have remained dedicated to helping protect a woman's right to direct her reproductive health care, a battle that I also fought for years as attorney general in Connecticut. I challenged both the Bush administration and the Obama administration on their policies related to a Federal rule that interfered with State laws protecting access to birth control and reproductive health services. Having served on both the State and Federal levels, I see how critically important the right to contraception is to our economy, our families, and our society as a whole. Whether the threat comes from a Federal law overstepping States' jurisdiction or from a State law violating constitutional rights--as was the case in Griswold v. Connecticut--we must continue to protect the right to safe, comprehensive birth control.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to this cause, his perseverance and persistence in support of democracy. This resolution, in fact, is all about democracy in a land that has been deprived of it for far too long. Unless Americans think this cause of democracy is far removed and inconsequential to their lives, Americans know elections have consequences. In this instance, the consequences have ramifications across the world because it is the authoritarian, undemocratic regime of Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons without regard to the well-being of its people. If it does not answer to its people, if it is undemocratic and authoritarian, it can continue to pursue this nonsensical, thoughtless, lawless course of seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons. That is bad not only for the Iranian people but for the American people and for the people of the world. I rise today in support of the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran and condemning the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its ongoing violation of human rights. On June 14, Iran will hold what looks to be yet another round of elections that are not fair, not free, and certainly not democratic--a sham, a charade that demeans even the pretense of democracy. On June 14 Iranians will elect a new president, but they will do so in an environment filled with systematic fraud and manipulation. They will be faced with a ballot hand-selected by the Supreme Leader, because he and his aides have prohibited literally hundreds of candidates from running. They have accepted only eight candidates for this election. They are doing so in a country with severe restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly and without media freedom. We ought to note and, as my colleague Senator Hoeven says so well, remind the world that the real power in Iran continues to rest with the Supreme Leader who controls foreign policy and defense and can veto any decision made by the President or the Parliament. The Supreme Leader has been in power since 1989. He has never been subject to an election or popular referendum of any kind. That is why Senator Hoeven and I are again offering this resolution supporting political reform and freedom in Iran, and strongly siding with the Iranian people on behalf of the American people in the struggle for democracy. I thank Senator Hoeven and so many of my colleagues who worked with us before when we sponsored a similar resolution last year condemning the 2012 elections which were neither free nor fair. We rise again to speak this truth to power. The Iranian people are denied basic and fundamental universal human rights and continue to suffer a repressive leadership that denies the validity of their views. As a global leader on human rights and a beacon to the world on democratic values, this body has an obligation to stand with the people of Iran and demand accountability from their leaders. Other countries around the world are struggling for democracy, and our ally in the Middle East, Israel, exemplifies it as a shining model. I am reminded of how many people in that region are denied rights and freedoms. But we should reaffirm at every opportunity our commitment to democracy and urge the Iranian Government to hold free elections, end arbitrary detentions, stop harassing people who fight for basic rights and freedoms, and reform their political process. I also want to commend President Obama for tightening sanctions on Iran's currency and auto industry, which should prevent the government from procuring some equipment used in nuclear programs. I support continuing efforts to show Iran that we are serious when we say they must halt their nuclear weapons development program. People look to the United States for democracy and freedom. They watch what we do and what we say on this floor of the greatest deliberative body in the world. We must be unequivocal and remind the world how important it is to stand with the people of Iran, which is what the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution does. I thank again my colleague Senator Hoeven. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Crime Victims Rights Act of 2013. There are 26,000 victims of sexual assault in the military every year; at least last year there were that number estimated. But only a fraction, some 3,000-plus, were reported. This measure encourages more accurate and complete reporting of all kinds, by guaranteeing all victims of crimes in the military the basic rights that victims have in civilian courts under current law. These rights are not a matter of discretion, they are a legal right that victims of crimes in our Federal courts enjoy. My proposal is essentially to apply these same rights, guarantee them, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice fails to afford these basic rights. They are rights of decency and fairness to crime victims. It requires many of these victims to endure humiliating and insulting obstacles in their quest for justice, so it naturally discourages them from coming forward and reporting these acts, most especially the act of sexual assault. Those rights that I believe should be applied under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are, for example, the right to protection from the accused, notice and opportunity to speak at trial, the right against unreasonable delay in trial proceedings. Those are a few of the rights that would be guaranteed. They are standards of decency and fairness that are essential to effective prosecution and the goals of good order and discipline in the military. These fundamental rights are well-established in the civilian courts and well-esteemed by prosecutors and defendants as well as the victims, because they enable the justice system to function more fairly and effectively. Few would imagine going into a civilian court in a criminal trial without the statutory right to be protected from the accused, protection against physical threats or intimidation. Few would imagine going into a civilian court and being denied the right to appear and to speak when one's history, one's personal and sexual history is an issue in the trial. Few would imagine the denial of a right to be heard in the course of sentencing. Few would imagine unreasonable delay and permission for the accused to actually leave the country and be unavailable for the trial and thereby have that unreasonable delay. Yet in the military court, these events are routine and expected. This bill would correct that failing. There is no reason military sexual assault victims should be given less respect or fewer rights than civilian victims of the same offense. The key to deterring crime is prosecuting and punishing it effectively, which requires reporting by victims. More than reporting, it requires cooperation. We know for a fact that victims denied rights and respect will simply not report sexual assault in the military. They fear retaliation and discouragement of many kinds in reporting serious crimes of all kinds. If sexual assault is not reported, it cannot be prosecuted. If it is not prosecuted, it certainly cannot be punished or deterred. I became involved in this issue of victims rights in the military because of a constituent who came forward to me. I became involved in her case because she was denied basic justice. Her case was delayed. She was a victim of sexual assault in the apartment of an officer stationed in Rhode Island. She never had the opportunity to speak in court in a timely way. Her credibility was directly put at issue. She had no opportunity to rebut, in effect, the charges brought against her. So often the victim is the one on trial. So often she or he is forced to relive that brutal, vicious predatory act of criminal conduct simply to bring charges and seek justice. She is seeking justice not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the Nation, because it is clearly the experience, as proven by solid evidence, that a sexual offender repeats that offense. The rate of recidivism is higher for sexual offenses than any other kind of crime. Last year I requested that the Department of Defense investigate both their failures to afford victims the right to be heard during public proceedings and victims' rights to be free from unreasonable delay and the lack of remedies available to victims. The report I received as a result of that request explained, in February, that the Department of Defense does not include the full list of crime victims rights in its directive because it references a repealed statute, one from 1990, rather than the more recent one passed by Congress, the United States Justice for All Act of 2004. That is why still today our military services, each of them, is operating on out-of-date and inadequate victim protection. The reason is not military necessity; it is simply ignoring the law that exists right now in spirit if not in letter. My bill would correct the letter of the law to guarantee these rights. I appreciate the investigation conducted by the Department of Defense General Counsel Robert Taylor and the military's commitment to revising their out-of-date directives and instructions, but we need a statutory remedy now, so people whose rights are violated will have a remedy, so they will have a recourse and relief when their rights are violated. This victims bill of rights has proved feasible and effective in the civilian justice proceedings involving the very same offenses. The rights are not novel or untested, they are well established and esteemed. I ask today for support from my colleagues in passing this measure. It is a basic, commonsense measure. It requires a military judge--just like their civilian counterparts--to take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's rights right away. It requires an ombudsman within the Department of Defense just like the ombudsman for crime victims' rights in the Department of Justice. It requires training for judge advocates and other appropriate members of the Armed Forces and personnel of the Department to assist them in responding more effectively to the needs of victims' rights. It requires trial counsel in a military case to advise the victim that he or she can seek the advice of their own attorney with respect to these rights. We have an opportunity and an obligation to stand for those who stand for us and defend us, and I refuse to disappoint them. I look forward to working on enacting this proposal with my colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. military. And I would welcome the views of the response systems panel established by Congress when they have views they wish to impart. We have the best and strongest military force in the history of the world, in the history of our Nation. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military justice system worthy of their excellence.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Military Crime Victims Rights Act of 2013. There are 26,000 victims of sexual assault in the military every year; at least last year there were that number estimated. But only a fraction, some 3,000-plus, were reported. This measure encourages more accurate and complete reporting of all kinds, by guaranteeing all victims of crimes in the military the basic rights that victims have in civilian courts under current law. These rights are not a matter of discretion, they are a legal right that victims of crimes in our Federal courts enjoy. My proposal is essentially to apply these same rights, guarantee them, in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Uniform Code of Military Justice fails to afford these basic rights. They are rights of decency and fairness to crime victims. It requires many of these victims to endure humiliating and insulting obstacles in their quest for justice, so it naturally discourages them from coming forward and reporting these acts, most especially the act of sexual assault. Those rights that I believe should be applied under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are, for example, the right to protection from the accused, notice and opportunity to speak at trial, the right against unreasonable delay in trial proceedings. Those are a few of the rights that would be guaranteed. They are standards of decency and fairness that are essential to effective prosecution and the goals of good order and discipline in the military. These fundamental rights are well-established in the civilian courts and well-esteemed by prosecutors and defendants as well as the victims, because they enable the justice system to function more fairly and effectively. Few would imagine going into a civilian court in a criminal trial without the statutory right to be protected from the accused, protection against physical threats or intimidation. Few would imagine going into a civilian court and being denied the right to appear and to speak when one's history, one's personal and sexual history is an issue in the trial. Few would imagine the denial of a right to be heard in the course of sentencing. Few would imagine unreasonable delay and permission for the accused to actually leave the country and be unavailable for the trial and thereby have that unreasonable delay. Yet in the military court, these events are routine and expected. This bill would correct that failing. There is no reason military sexual assault victims should be given less respect or fewer rights than civilian victims of the same offense. The key to deterring crime is prosecuting and punishing it effectively, which requires reporting by victims. More than reporting, it requires cooperation. We know for a fact that victims denied rights and respect will simply not report sexual assault in the military. They fear retaliation and discouragement of many kinds in reporting serious crimes of all kinds. If sexual assault is not reported, it cannot be prosecuted. If it is not prosecuted, it certainly cannot be punished or deterred. I became involved in this issue of victims rights in the military because of a constituent who came forward to me. I became involved in her case because she was denied basic justice. Her case was delayed. She was a victim of sexual assault in the apartment of an officer stationed in Rhode Island. She never had the opportunity to speak in court in a timely way. Her credibility was directly put at issue. She had no opportunity to rebut, in effect, the charges brought against her. So often the victim is the one on trial. So often she or he is forced to relive that brutal, vicious predatory act of criminal conduct simply to bring charges and seek justice. She is seeking justice not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the Nation, because it is clearly the experience, as proven by solid evidence, that a sexual offender repeats that offense. The rate of recidivism is higher for sexual offenses than any other kind of crime. Last year I requested that the Department of Defense investigate both their failures to afford victims the right to be heard during public proceedings and victims' rights to be free from unreasonable delay and the lack of remedies available to victims. The report I received as a result of that request explained, in February, that the Department of Defense does not include the full list of crime victims rights in its directive because it references a repealed statute, one from 1990, rather than the more recent one passed by Congress, the United States Justice for All Act of 2004. That is why still today our military services, each of them, is operating on out-of-date and inadequate victim protection. The reason is not military necessity; it is simply ignoring the law that exists right now in spirit if not in letter. My bill would correct the letter of the law to guarantee these rights. I appreciate the investigation conducted by the Department of Defense General Counsel Robert Taylor and the military's commitment to revising their out-of-date directives and instructions, but we need a statutory remedy now, so people whose rights are violated will have a remedy, so they will have a recourse and relief when their rights are violated. This victims bill of rights has proved feasible and effective in the civilian justice proceedings involving the very same offenses. The rights are not novel or untested, they are well established and esteemed. I ask today for support from my colleagues in passing this measure. It is a basic, commonsense measure. It requires a military judge--just like their civilian counterparts--to take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's rights right away. It requires an ombudsman within the Department of Defense just like the ombudsman for crime victims' rights in the Department of Justice. It requires training for judge advocates and other appropriate members of the Armed Forces and personnel of the Department to assist them in responding more effectively to the needs of victims' rights. It requires trial counsel in a military case to advise the victim that he or she can seek the advice of their own attorney with respect to these rights. We have an opportunity and an obligation to stand for those who stand for us and defend us, and I refuse to disappoint them. I look forward to working on enacting this proposal with my colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. military. And I would welcome the views of the response systems panel established by Congress when they have views they wish to impart. We have the best and strongest military force in the history of the world, in the history of our Nation. Our men and women in uniform deserve a military justice system worthy of their excellence.