Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his very powerful and eloquent words, and I particularly want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague from Rhode Island for his leadership on this issue. I also thank others who have been at his side and working with him. I have been proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. I would like to thank Senator Schumer, who introduced a similar measure in 2010. The DISCLOSE Act of 2010 has been, in fact, considerably narrowed and tailored to target the anonymity of huge donations--increasingly large donations today--and it is the kind of tailoring and narrowing that reflects the care and precision and hard work that my colleague from Rhode Island and others--and I am proud to be among them--have given to this matter. As I rise at this late hour, we can't know--we can only hope--that America is listening or that our colleagues are listening, but I do know we should be listening to America. I am listening to Connecticut, and what I hear from Connecticut, the people of my State--as so many of my colleagues are hearing from their constituents and citizens--is they are losing trust in the greatest democracy in the history of the world. The greatest country in the history of the planet is losing the confidence and faith of its people. I am hearing from people such as Catherine Sturgess of New Canaan, CT, who says: Undisclosed campaign money influences candidates, elections and undermines the role of the voter. In turn, the election process is corrupted. Only a few cannot be allowed to impact a system which is intended to represent us all. Lawrence Poin of Fairfield tells me, and I am listening: Right now, foreign governments, oil tycoons, and Wall Street banks can spend millions to buy our democracy, and the American public will never know. And I am listening also to Garrett Timmons of Brooklyn, CT, who says: I think campaign and election reform should go much further and include a constitutional amendment in light of Citizens United, but I know how unrealistic that is. At least this act-- He is referring to the DISCLOSE Act of 2012-- is a step in the right direction, and I hope a no-brainer for our Congress. The people of this country are losing their representation in government to special interests and the funders of political campaigns. And to make matters worse, we don't even know who are stealing our elections. I am listening to those people who are watching. They are watching what is happening in this country, and they are losing faith because they believe Washington is failing to listen to them. There are millions of other hard-working families who are struggling to put food on the table, stay in their homes, and find jobs who believe the system is not working for them and not listening to them as much as it is to the people who can afford to give to political campaigns, let alone who can afford to give tens of millions. If we listen to the people of America--and I am listening to the people of Connecticut--we will pass the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. All this bill requires is openness and disclosure and accountability. It places no limits on what can be contributed, on what can be done, on what can be said. It is completely consistent with Citizens United. I am not here to relitigate that case. The Supreme Court, in the Bullock decision, recently indicated it would not relitigate that case anytime soon. It invalidated a Montana State law that prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures. We are not going to relitigate whether a corporation is a citizen or whether any of these entities can contribute or in what amounts. The DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is completely consistent with Citizens United. In fact, in a certain very true sense, Citizens United, in its majority opinion, presumed disclosure. The Supreme Court, in the majority opinion in that case, made clear the first amendment protects political speech when it said: . . . and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. The framework, the reasoning, the logic of Citizens United is no limits on speech but disclosure of who is speaking and who is funding and supporting that speech. That basic premise is one that runs through the precedence of this Court and of others who have litigated these cases. It is not too much to say that the DISCLOSE Act of 2012 is an essential predicate to the framework, the legal framework, that Citizens United presumes. I would rather go further as well. As one of my constituents said, I would favor a constitutional amendment that would enable some limits consistent with the Constitution. Money is corrosive. Too much money in the system corrupts. But, again, we are not here to set limits, we are here to deal with secrecy, with anonymity. Secrecy and anonymity not only corrode, they destroy the essence of our democracy. By opening the system to the sunshine that will eliminate that secrecy, we are helping to restore trust and faith in government, and we would be showing that Washington will listen to the American people, including the people of Connecticut. The Supreme Court decisions, like elections, have consequences, and Citizens United certainly has shown that it has consequences. During the 2010 midterm elections, the first election season after Citizens United, outside groups spent nearly $300 million--four times as much money as in the 2006 midterm election before the Citizens United decision. Nearly half of the money spent in the 2010 election after Citizens United was spent by just 10 groups. Think about it. Ten groups spent more than half of that $300 million. As spending has quadrupled, transparency has been lessened. Nobody knows where this money is coming from. In 2006, only 1 percent of political spending by outside groups was anonymous. In 2010, 44 percent--nearly half--was anonymous. We know anonymity on the Internet or in the public sphere breeds negativism, it breeds deception, and often it breeds outright lies. Accountability is one of the watch words of our democracy, and the anonymity of this spending, of these contributions of tens of millions--indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars that are contributed by a handful of people and entities, whether it is corporations or business associations or unions, is corrupting to the process. The majority opinion in Citizens United dismissed concerns about unlimited political spending by claiming that prompt disclosure would make these entities and individuals accountable to shareholders, voters, consumers, and the public at large. Yet elections have been inundated with secret money. Citizens United had consequences unintended and unanticipated by the Supreme Court. People may say: Well, the Justices were naive. But the fact is this body, the Congress, must compensate to ameliorate and remedy the unintended consequences of that decision. The American people have shown in polls as well as those letters I mentioned earlier that they expect us to do so. Seven in ten Americans believe super PACs should be illegal, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. This issue is not partisan. It should be bipartisan. It has been bipartisan in the past and must be again. More than seven in ten Americans feel there is too much money in politics, including, again, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Seven in ten Americans, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, believe there should be limits on contributions to political campaigns. One in four Americans say they are less likely to vote because of the super PACs and these anonymous donations. Finally, seven in ten Americans agree that ``new rules that let corporations, unions, and people give unlimited money to super PACs will lead to corruption.'' Let the Senate listen to the people of Connecticut and America. Let them say: We respect what you are saying again and again, and we will act in a bipartisan way to protect our democracy. Americans want their choice of candidates to be an election, not an auction. At the very least, we should tell them and make possible for them to know who is doing the bidding in those auctions, who is doing the buying, and who is doing the selling. Nobody wants there to be an auction, but if contributions are not limited, the auction at the very least should be in the open so that the public can see who is buying, who is selling, and who is bidding. That view of American democracy may not be a very elevating one, but we deal with practical reality, and as we speak, tens of millions of Americans are watching what we will do. Maybe not tonight, perhaps not at this hour, but at the end of the day, at the end of this debate, they will hold the Senate accountable for what it does or what it fails to do. I urge my colleagues to reconsider and approve the DISCLOSE Act of 2012. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am reminded today of the old saying that we campaign in poetry but we govern in prose. We are in the midst of a campaign season when we hear a lot of rhetoric perhaps posing as poetry, but we have an obligation to govern. I rise today in support of S. 2337, which is most certainly simple, straightforward prose in dedication to the art of government. It is the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act. It is about as simple and straightforward as it possibly could be. It has two compelling, concise concepts. The first is a tax credit of 10 percent on new payroll. It can be either new hiring or increased wages in 2012 as compared to 2011, and it is capped at $500,000--pretty simple, straightforward prose in aid of jobs, in aid of employment. It also extends for 1 year the 100-percent bonus depreciation allowance to stimulate economic investment--again, to create jobs. It is a very simple and straightforward extension of the accelerated depreciation that boosts gross domestic product and will benefit 2 million businesses--it is estimated 2 million businesses--most of them small businesses across the United States. In fact, this measure is very specifically targeted and aimed at small businesses creating jobs. They are the backbone of our economy. They are the source of the majority of new jobs. It economizes, very prudently and practically, the aid that is designed to boost new jobs, as well as overall output in our economy. It is supported by a broad consensus of economists, including Alan Blinder, who has endorsed this idea as a job creator, saying: The basic idea is to offer firms that boost their payrolls a tax break. As one concrete example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills. . . . No increase, no reward. That is the concept: ``No increase, no reward.'' But the reward and the incentive are a powerful potential driving force to aid small businesses in increasing the numbers of jobs they provide. I thank Leader Harry Reid for this very targeted and profoundly meaningful proposal. But when I think about the impact of this legislation, I do not think of the folks who are gathered in this Chamber. I think of people in Connecticut--13,000 people in Connecticut--who will have jobs if we move forward on this bill. I think of a man named Hector Hernandez. I met Hector at a jobs fair I hosted in East Hartford this past September. After 25 years of working for the same company--as they say, working hard and playing by the rules--Hector lost his job. He is willing to do most anything to find a new job, but he cannot find one. There are simply no jobs for Hector. This measure will help to provide him one. At that same jobs fair I met Ty Wagner. Ty took a very smart path. He decided he was going to get all the education that could possibly be accessible to him. He got a technical degree from a top university. He wanted to work in the State when he graduated. His dream job was to give back, to provide public service. He has not been able to find any job, let alone his dream job, and he is every bit as lost as Hector Hernandez. That situation faced by Hector and Ty is only one aspect of the crisis in America's job market. I think of Jodey Lazarus who moved to Stamford 5 years ago in search of economic opportunity. She put her two kids in local schools, signed up for college classes, started to get her finances in order, and today she makes barely enough to feed her family. She receives no benefits. She has been looking for a job that will pay her more and give her more security, but in this economy her efforts have come to nothing. Every week she hopes and prays her income will be enough to provide food for her family. People like Jodey and Hector and Ty deserve better. As I travel across Connecticut, I hear often that there are jobs and employers cannot find people with the skills to fill them. We need to provide those skills to develop our workforce, to make sure education and training are available so people have skills to fill the jobs that exist. Washington can do more for them. This kind of targeted, practical approach--not Republican or Democrat, not conservative or progressive-- simply provides the tools small businesses need: a 10-percent payroll tax cut, accelerated depreciation--simple, straightforward prose, not poetry, prose--that will put people back to work in Connecticut and around the country. I urge that my colleagues come together--as the American people want us to do desperately, are seeking for us to do--and to govern in prose that makes a practical difference in their lives, a tool for small business--not as a panacea but as a practical aid so small businesses can put people back to work across the State of Connecticut and the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank the Senator and the Chair.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, my distinguished colleague, for those very generous remarks. Actually, I had four arguments in the Supreme Court. The rest was similarly exaggerated as to my qualifications. But I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. Most importantly, I thank him for his extraordinary work on this issue and for his leadership and vision as well as his courage. I wish to emphasize a number of the points he made so powerfully in his remarks earlier. First and most significantly, the United States is under cyber attack. The question is, How do we respond? It is our national interests that are at stake. Every day this Nation suffers attempted intrusions, attempted interference, and attempted theft of our intellectual property as a result of the ongoing attacks we need to stop, deter, and answer. National security is indistinguishable from cybersecurity. In fact, cybersecurity is a matter of national security and not only so far as our defense capabilities; our actual weapons systems are potentially under attack and interference, but also, as my colleague from Rhode Island said so well, because our critical infrastructure is every day at risk--our facilities in transportation, our financial systems, our utilities that power our great cities and our rural areas and our intellectual property, which is so valuable and which every day is at risk and, in fact, is taken from us wrongfully, at great cost to our Nation. The number and sophistication of cyber attacks has increased dramatically over the past 5 years. All the warnings--bipartisan warnings--say those attacks will continue and will be mounted with increasing intensity. In fact, experts say that with enough time, motivation, and funding, a determined adversary can penetrate nearly any system that is accessible directly from the Internet. The United States today is vulnerable. To take the Pearl Harbor analysis that our Secretary of Defense has drawn so well, we have our ``ships'' sitting unprotected today, as they were at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Our ships today are not just our vessels in the sea but our institutions sitting in this country and around the world, our critical infrastructure, which is equally vulnerable to sophisticated and unsophisticated hackers. In fact, the threat ranges from the hackers in developing countries-- unsophisticated hackers--to foreign agents who want to steal our Nation's secrets, to terrorists who seek ways to disrupt that critical infrastructure. It is not a matter simply of convenience. We are not talking about temporary dislocations, such as the loss of electricity that the Capital area suffered recently or that our States in New England suffered as a result of the recent storms last fall; we are talking about permanent, severe, lasting disruptions and dislocations of our financial and power systems that may be caused by this interference. One international group, for example, accessed a financial company's internal computer network and stole millions of dollars in just 24 hours. Another such criminal group accessed online commercial bank accounts and spread malicious computer viruses that cost our financial institutions nearly $70 million. One company that was recently a victim of intrusion determined it lost 10 years' worth of research and development--valued at $1 billion--virtually overnight. These losses are not just for the shareholders of these companies, they are to all of us who live in the United States because the losses, in many instances, are losses of information to defense companies that produce our weapons, losses of property that has been developed at great cost to them and to our taxpayers. We should all be concerned about such losses. As Shawn Henry, the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, has said: ``The cyber threat is an existential one, meaning that a major cyber attack could potentially wipe out whole companies.'' Those threats to our critical infrastructure, as we have heard so powerfully from my colleague from Rhode Island, are widespread and spreading. Industrial control systems, which help control our pipelines, railroads, water treatment facilities, and powerplants, are at an elevated risk of cyber exploitation today--not at some point in the future but today. The FBI warns that a successful cyber attack against an electrical grid ``could cause serious damage to parts of our cities, and ultimately even kill people.'' The Department of Homeland Security said that last year they had received nearly 200 reports of suspected cyber incidents, more than 4 times the number of incidents reported in 2010. In one such incident, more than 100 computers at a nuclear energy firm were infected with a virus that could have been used to take complete control of that company's system. These reports, these warnings, go on. In summary, the Director of the FBI said it best: ``We are losing data, we are losing money, we are losing ideas, and we are losing innovation. `` Those threats are existential to our Nation, and we must address them now--not simply as a luxury, not as a possibility but as a need now. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, as well as my distinguished fellow Senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, and others on the other side, such as Senators McCain, Collins, Graham, and Chambliss, as well as other colleagues on this side, for their leadership in this area. They have started this effort with great dedication. There has been substantial work done already. No one here has ignored this threat. We must move forward for the sake of our Nation's security. Our cybersecurity must be addressed as soon as possible. Cybersecurity is not an issue we can wait to address until we see the results of failure. The consequences of a debilitating attack would be catastrophic to our Nation. I hope we can continue to fill the consensus, which the Senator from Rhode Island has been working to do, with other colleagues, so we can come together, as he said--not whether but how--and do it in a bipartisan way. This issue has elicited, very commendably and impressively, colleagues from both sides who have been working on this issue with dedication and diligence. I hope the body as a whole will match the vigor that is appropriate. Again, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. Part of our challenge will be to elicit better agency coordination. If the Senator from Rhode Island wishes to comment further, I hope perhaps he can respond to the question of how soon we should come together and work on this issue. Is it a problem we can delay until the next session or should we try to address it during the coming months of this session before we close?

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am delighted to honor one of our Nation's most dedicated, talented, and influential teachers. Wendy Nelson-Kauffman, a humanities teacher at the Metropolitan Learning Center in Bloomfield, CT, was recently named as the 2012 Magnet Schools of America's National Teacher of the Year. The Metropolitan Learning Center is part of the Capitol Region Education Council, which recognizes annually a teacher who ``exemplifies excellence in academic achievement through innovative programs that promote equity and diversity for students in Magnet Schools.'' This award spotlights the exceptional teachers and schools, especially our Nation's magnet schools, dedicated to equal opportunity. The Metropolitan Learning Center, open to students in 7th through 12th grades in the Greater Hartford Area, is one of Connecticut's finest centers for secondary education. Since 1966, the Capitol Region Education Council has helped lead in reforming how we educate our Nation's children. Active in 36 areas of Connecticut, administering 120 programs in 20 facilities to more than 100,000 students annually, this network of dedicated administrators, educators, and education reformers has made tremendous impact, especially in underserved communities. Ms. Nelson-Kauffman is renowned at the Metropolitan Learning Center. She has received many awards, including 2003 Connecticut Teacher of the Year, 2005 State History Teacher of the Year, and 2011 Capitol Region Education Council Teacher of the Year. But she is most respected for her generous energy and passion for changing the lives of our next generations. More telling than awards are the students who frequently share stories about the time Ms. Nelson-Kauffman dressed up as Rosie the Riveter or traveled with them to Africa and then formed the popular afterschool group Student Abolitionists Stopping Slavery. For almost 20 years as an educator at Hamden and Bloomfield High Schools and adult education centers, Ms. Nelson-Kauffman has used project-based learning with tremendous success. Her passion for journalism fosters an experiential, interactive teaching method. As Metropolitan Learning Center's social studies teacher and personal project coordinator for the prestigious International Baccalaureate Program, Ms. Nelson-Kauffman embraces a lifelong love of the past by placing it into the context of the present. She shares her own genuine love of history with her classrooms. In 2003, invited to attend the Harriet Beecher Stowe Center Teacher Institute, she studied primary resources that unearthed stories of 19th-century women reformers. With this new background as inspiration, she introduced sensitive topics like abolitionism and racism to her high school students with tact and grace. As an ambassador to educators around Connecticut, Ms. Nelson-Kauffman has demonstrated the effectiveness of multicultural teaching methods, to include travel, activities, group interactions, concerts, and dance. Her authenticity is rare and a real treasure. She is a stellar role model for anyone who mentors or teaches our future leaders. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Ms. Nelson-Kauffman, who has helped mitigate apathy and promote enthusiasm for the study of humanities.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jewish Family Services, a philanthropic treasure in Connecticut. This year marks a momentous 100th anniversary of community service. Founded June 1912, Jewish Family Services was built to assist European immigrants coming to this country to seek the American dream and escape persecution. These new residents of Connecticut confronted the challenges of their new lives with hope and determination. Jewish Family Services has touched all generations, giving unconditionally to all those in need. Following the value of Tikkun Olam--``healing the world''--their mission is truly boundless. Their courageous staff of experienced social workers has helped facilitate new lives for many citizens, empowering their first steps towards change. Jewish Family Services has recently focused on programs to support new careers and combat long-term unemployment. Through the Jewish Employment Transition Services, JFS has helped ease the desperation of joblessness. These programs complement many others including a food pantry, mental health services, care for the aging, children, and Holocaust survivors, counseling for life transitions such as divorce, and financial tutoring. To celebrate its 100th anniversary while preparing for the next decades, Jewish Family Services has created three new funds--one dedicated to our children, the Changing Children's Lives Fund, another for those confronting emergency situations or personal crisis, the First Responders Fund, and a third, aptly named the Future Fund. By giving help and getting help, Jewish Family Services has formed a family for the Greater Hartford area. It embraces community assistance as a given and disperses inspiration and hope. Its one hundred years are a prelude to future accomplishment and contribution.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, I wish to congratulate the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, which was awarded the 2012 Bronze Award by the Council on Foundations this past Spring as part of their Wilmer Shields Rich Awards Program. Every year, the Council on Foundations recognizes foundations around the country that have engaged in strategic communications strategies and innovative projects that inspire and inform other grantmakers. Since 1925, the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving has been a thriving philanthropic institution where Connecticut nonprofit organizations can seek financial support and connect with givers throughout the State. This highly professional, industrious, and dynamic institution singularly impacts the Capitol Region of Connecticut, having granted $532 million since its beginning to address community needs. It fosters partnerships, assists nonprofits in developing their long-term plans and funding strategies, and hosts informational forums for the sharing of fresh perspectives. The Foundation is unique in its broad and diverse support for the Greater Hartford area, showcasing families on their website, who invite others to join them, advising ``We're not the Rockefellers. We're just a normal family . . . willing to take this step.'' The Council on Foundations recognized the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving specifically for its 2010 Annual Report, Creating Brighter Futures, which focused on the Foundation's efforts towards effective childhood development and education through its Brighter Futures Initiative. The great success of the Brighter Future Initiative has strengthened existing early education programs as well as inspired the development of innovative strategies around the country. In the report's introductory letter, President and Chief Executive Officer Lindy Kelly eloquently shares the groundbreaking changes she has witnessed in our Hartford-area schools. She tells the story of Lavarey--then a second-grader at Rawson School at risk for illiteracy. Through the Hartford Haskins Literary Initiative, he learned to read with joy. Ms. Kelly writes of her memory of Lavarey on stage during their annual Celebration of Giving ceremony, waving confidently at the 400-member audience, who in turn, mirrored Lavarey's happiness, proud to be part of the journey of a young boy who will soon become a contributing member of their community. The Hartford Foundation's 2010 Annual Report--a large, comprehensive document that expertly weaves stories, accomplishments, and statistics--reflects the rich tapestry of the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving. By seamlessly inviting families, all levels of government, schools, nonprofit organizations, professional advisors, volunteers, and donors to join their mission for change, they evoke and provoke humanitarianism and patriotism. I invite my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving for bringing hope and help to Connecticut's institutions, programs, and citizens that need it the most.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize the important work of House of Heroes--a growing organization that honors veterans with dignity, gratitude, and an improved quality of life. Over Memorial Day weekend, I had the great opportunity to witness the Connecticut chapter of House of Heroes' first projects as it fixed, renovated, and remodeled the homes of three of our country's most deserving veterans. Over $30,000 of materials and time were donated by local organizations and generous individuals. House of Heroes is on a mission to help the service men and women of our previous wars and their families--heroes who may not always receive the recognition they deserve. Frequently, our courageous veterans are unable to maintain their homes due to physical disability or financial limitations. During their inaugural build, the founders and volunteers of Connecticut's House of Heroes chose to honor three Americans, who have continued to dedicate their lives to serving our country and preparing for our future even after their war service. Frederick Joseph Miller served as a Sergeant in the U.S. Army Air Corps during World War II-- and in 1945, searched the legendary crash of Flight 19 in the Everglades. Upon leaving the service, he dedicated his talent and skills to Pratt & Whitney as an equipment and facilities engineer. On Memorial Day in 1991, Miller's wife passed away from cancer, and maintaining his Hamden house has been a challenge. Private First Class Maura Rettman of Meriden served in Germany between 1977 and 1979 where she suffered a life-altering car accident. Now, she takes care of her grandson with the hope that he can have a bedroom of his own. Sergeant Rudolph Pistey of Stratford served in the Army National Guard during World War II. Now, at 93, he is well-known in his community, always ready to lend a hand or shoot a smile to his neighbors. Since 2000, House of Heroes has spread influence and awareness from its founding chapter in Columbus, GA, across the country. In Connecticut, cofounders are Steve Cavanaugh of Biltmore Construction and Billy May, a U.S. Army Veteran, Black Hawk test pilot, and business development and strategy leader at Signature Brand Factory. They seek to complete 10 projects in 2012 and to double this number each subsequent year. Both Mr. Cavanaugh and Lieutenant Colonel May bring experience, skill, and dedication to House of Heroes. Their hope is that general contractors and subcontractors across the state and country will donate several hours a week to helping our Nation's veterans. Amidst the sound of repairs, there were tears in all our eyes when the veterans were serenaded by Nashville singer and songwriter, Tim Maggart. The song--both solemn and celebratory with spiritual music and grounded lyrics--conveyed eloquently the emotion of everyone gathered: You were young, scared Willing to go anywhere/ When your country called, you stood tall You came home, scarred/Didn't think it would be so hard, You don't like to talk about what you saw/ Beyond what I can comprehend/ The sacrifice of the women and men who gave so much without applause/ I don't know you and you don't know me, but thanks to you, I wake up safe and free/I hope you never feel forgotten, because Chorus: You've got a home, in the house of heroes/ Your name will live on in the house of heroes/I want to honor you/ it's been long overdue/You're right where you belong in the house of heroes In a world, where Life's not always fair/ And sometimes we have to fight for what we believe There's a price, paid I can't help be amazed /By the brave who gave their all for you and me. At each House of Heroes project, the spirit of volunteerism, patriotism, and human connection was unwavering. As the tremendous energy of the House of Heroes' Connecticut chapter spreads across the country, this theme song will be an anthem for a national movement that touches the lives of one veteran at a time. The volunteers and donors of House of Heroes convey a tremendous spirit--America's boundless appreciation and spirit. Through this great work, and its anthem, we show our veterans-- who fought for our security--that America will join together to pay back our debt of gratitude by helping our veterans feel secure and safe. Appreciative but slightly uncomfortable receiving rather than giving, these men and women were shown by House of Heroes how much we treasure and owe them as a Nation. Donning House of Heroes t-shirts and bobbing along to the music, fellow veterans and citizens showed their thanks--a fitting spirit now and in the future.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan for her extraordinary leadership on a milestone bill. I am so proud to be supporting this bill and to be in this Chamber speaking with her on issues that affect every American, not just farmers or those in States that may be recognized as farm States. The kind of leadership that has just been heard, I think, is a model for all of us, and I thank her. S.J. Res. 37 Mr. President, I want to talk today about two issues that directly affect the health and safety of Americans of all ages, but particularly our seniors, and begin by associating myself with the remarks made earlier by Senators Whitehouse and Boxer with respect to S.J. Res. 37. I strongly oppose efforts underway to roll back Clean Air Act provisions that are critical to the health and safety and well-being of every man, woman, and child in this country. Last December, the EPA finalized a rule aimed at reducing mercury and other toxic emissions from electric-generating units by about 90 percent. This rule affects the most toxic emissions in the United States--mercury, acid gas, nickel, selenium, cyanide. These rules are more important than ever. The effort to roll them back should be resisted and rejected, and I hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing the Senate joint resolution that would not only stymie but stop efforts to protect Americans against the most toxic emissions. I fought for these kinds of protections as attorney general. In fact, I took action as attorney general to compel these kinds of rules, and I believe the EPA is acting responsibly now in promulgating them. World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, on behalf of myself and Senator Kirk, for approving, Tuesday, a resolution designating tomorrow, June 15, as ``World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.'' The resolution Senator Kirk and I submitted, and that this body agreed to, recognizes the scourge that elder abuse represents here in America and around the world. I thank my colleagues for supporting it overwhelmingly, and I thank the President of the United States for proclaiming tomorrow, June 15, as ``World Elder Abuse Awareness Day,'' and I thank Secretary Sebelius for announcing today that $5.5 million in funding for States and tribes will be available to test ways to prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. This initiative helps to implement the Elder Justice Act which was enacted as parted of the Affordable Care Act. I believe this kind of initiative brings together in partnership local, State, and Federal authorities and private groups to combat this epidemic. The abuse of elders is a spreading epidemic. We have statistics that indicate how it is, in fact, spreading. Elder abuse incidents have increased by 150 percent in the last 10 years alone. A recent study of the GAO shows that every year 14 percent of all noninstitutionalized adults are victims of abuse or neglect or exploitation, whether it is physical or financial or even sexual. So the statistics show a trend that is undeniable--not only in the 2 million adults who are maltreated every year but in the $2.9 billion taken from older adults each year as a result of financial abuse and exploitation. That is $2.9 billion every year taken from older Americans. But the statistics only tell a fraction of the story because the fact is only 1 out of every 44 incidents of financial abuse is reported. Mr. President, 43 out of 44 incidents are unreported. In fact, of all incidents of abuse, 22 out of 23 are unreported. And the reasons are diverse. They may be because of shame, embarrassment. In fact, one of the most common reasons for underreporting is that the victim is related to the perpetrator. Sadly, shamefully, tragically, all too many victims of elder abuse suffer at the hands of relatives. It may be a daughter or son. It may be a brother or sister. All too often they are victims at the hands of caregivers who are entrusted with their care, literally in positions of trust for people who may suffer physically from debilitating illnesses or from dementia or other kinds of afflictions. So this population is among our most vulnerable, and we must take stronger steps to protect them. As attorney general, I sought to lead such efforts. In fact, Connecticut now has stronger measures against elder abuse, such as more thorough background checks as a result of these initiatives. As a member of the Committee on Aging, I held a hearing in Hartford very recently to document this spreading epidemic and the way it affects all of us--all of our relatives, all of our friends. It cuts across all lines of geography, race, gender, even income group. So this epidemic must be stopped. That is why this resolution is important in calling attention to the problem. The President's proclamation enhances awareness, and I thank my colleagues for their continued effort and their involvement in this cause. What is required at the end of the day is more resources--more resources for law enforcement authorities who have such a critical role in protecting those who suffer from it, and deterring those who would commit it, and having partnerships among State, local, and Federal authorities. Those partnerships must seek out and encourage greater reporting so that efforts can be taken to stop and deter it. I will continue this battle. I thank my colleagues for joining me and for agreeing to this resolution and for demonstrating that we care. We care as a body and as an institution. It is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is truly bipartisan because this generation has worked hard, accumulated savings, counted on security, and is depending on us, trusting us for their safety. We know the number in this age group will only grow--in fact, double--within the next years. That is why we must address it. I thank, again, my colleagues for doing so. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to be a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Hurwitz is already an experienced judge, having served for almost 10 years as a member of the Arizona Supreme Court. He has disposed of hundreds of cases and has received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, ``well qualified.'' Most important to my support, I have known Justice Hurwitz for literally four decades, so I am exceptionally familiar with his professional and personal background and am certain that he will be an outstanding addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I first met him at Yale Law School, where we worked together on the Yale Law Journal. He attended Yale after graduating from Princeton University in 1968. Our lives intersected again when I followed him as a law clerk to Judge Jon O. Newman and then as a law clerk on the U.S. Supreme Court, although in different years and for different Justices. At every step of his career as a litigator and judge, as well as student and law clerk, he has been a paragon of intellect and integrity. Justice Hurwitz has built a distinguished record while serving on the Arizona Supreme Court. Time and again, he has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for analysis, thoughtfulness, and insight when facing the most complex and challenging questions of law. He has the qualifications, both professionally and personally, to be a great Federal judge. His reasoning is often of such a caliber that even on highly contested or controversial issues he has been able to build consensus on the court. Indeed, many of his most significant opinions were joined by all members of the Arizona Supreme Court. Before his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Hurwitz spent 25 year in private practice in Arizona, where he represented a wide range of interests--from AT&T and the American Broadcasting Company to the city of Phoenix and the Arizona State Compensation Fund. He also developed a specialty in Native American law, representing, among others, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Hopi Tribe. Much of the work he did during his years of practice involved complex appellate litigation, including numerous arguments before the Ninth Circuit and two before the U.S. Supreme Court. This experience gives Justice Hurwitz familiarity with a broad swath of Federal law. Equally impressive is Justice Hurwitz's commitment to pro bono work and public service. While in private practice, Justice Hurwitz argued and won a groundbreaking death penalty Supreme Court case, Ring v. Arizona, to vindicate the rights of death row inmates sentenced by judges rather than juries. He also took time out of his successful practice to work in Arizona government. Among other projects, Justice Hurwitz was responsible for creating the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, a program designed to rein in State Medicaid costs. He also worked with the Reagan administration to implement greater control over transportation and education for State agencies. He served from 1988 until 1996 on the Arizona Board of Regents, including as board president. During his tenure, he led an effort to require annual reports from universities certifying they had reached mandated educational goals. His commitment to public service work shows a dedication to the legal system that I believe should be shared by all members of the Federal bench. Throughout the 40 years I have known him, Justice Hurwitz has always been open about his passion for the law. From private practice to government to serving on the Arizona Supreme Court, he has shown unparalleled legal acumen and a devotion to public service. I have no doubt that his adherence to precedent, coupled with his passion and his wisdom, will serve this Nation well. President Obama has made a truly excellent nomination that will benefit the cause of justice in our Nation for many years to come.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for debate only on S. 3240 be extended until 5:30 p.m., and that the majority leader be recognized at that time.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, commonly in advocating or introducing bills, Senators will have photographs or digital aids, and I thought about doing that today, but then realized that the photographs appropriate for this bill are of mangled, cruelly torn animals that have died in the midst of torture from a blood sport that has no place in any of our American towns or cities or countrysides. This blood sport involves animal fighting. This activity is not only cruel and inhumane, it is also a sport that fosters, promotes, and encourages illegal activity, including drug dealing, gangs, and gambling. It is a source of the worst instincts. It encourages the worst in the human condition and the worst in the individuals who participate and come to watch it. Congress has recognized this fact in the past, as recently as 2007, by upgrading the Federal law against animal fighting. It is prohibited, and the act of 2007 made the interstate transport of fighting animals, or cockfighting tools, a Federal felony. In 2008, in the wake of the Michael Vick case, Congress again improved the law, making possession and training of fighting animals a felony and enhancing the upper limits of jail time for anyone engaged and convicted of it, so the Federal law now is very comprehensive and very powerful. It prohibits exhibiting, buying, possessing, training, and transporting an animal for participation in a fighting activity. It is comprehensive and powerful except for one loophole, and that is the one I propose to cover through this amendment to the farm bill. This legislation would prohibit knowingly attending an animal fight by setting penalties that include a fine or imprisonment of up to 1 year or both. It would also extend stricter penalties for any individual who knowingly brings a child to an animal fight, and the penalty for engaging in that activity would be a fine and prison sentence of up to 3 years or both. So the loophole here is that spectators are not covered and bringing children to these events is not covered, and that is why this legislation is absolutely essential. Why spectators? Well, spectators are commonly participants. In fact, the sport would not exist without spectators. They are the ones who gamble, engage in other criminal activity, and who go there simply to engage in that activity. They are there not only to watch but to bring their own animals to fight or to gamble illegally or for drug dealing illegally or gang activity illegally. Spectators are the source of financing, and they make it profitable. They must be subject to Federal law and Federal prohibitions in the same way as anyone who actually engages in already prohibited activity. This type of criminal element-- gathering of dogfights or cockfights--ought to be subject to the same kinds of prohibition. Why children? Well, without stating the obvious, coming to a cockfight or a dogfight, which is a blood sport, leads to other kinds of violence. I don't need to cite the scientific evidence for anyone who is a parent and a Member of this body. Right now there is no law that applies to bringing children to such an event, and we need to close that loophole. Again, if I had photographs here, one would be of a small girl literally crying at the sight of one of these animals mangled and cruelly torn apart before death. This bill would in no way apply to innocent bystanders because it would require proof that the person is aware they are at such an animal fight. It would not intrude on States rights. In fact, 49 States already have similar laws. We need a Federal law because many of these activities are in interstate commerce and the power of the Federal Government as an enforcer is irreplaceable. The Federal Government ought to be on record against the crimes involved that are committed by spectators and against bringing children to this kind of event. When animal fighting involves players from a number of different States, a county sheriff or a local law enforcer simply lacks the power to deal with it and to root out the entire operation--not just to make arrests at the site but to root out the whole operation so that the penalties are more comprehensive and the organized criminal activity is ended. These crimes are a Federal matter and the Federal response ought to be overwhelming. In the Michael Vick case, as an example, the local Commonwealth attorney refused to take action and Federal authorities had to prosecute this case. This measure has law enforcement endorsements not only from sheriffs but from others who care about this problem, such as the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the Fraternal Order of Police. It is supported as well by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Humane Society of the United States, which has been a strong partner in this effort and does so much great work to protect animals in this country and around the world. My thanks to the Humane Society for its courageous leadership in this area. It would be no cost to the Federal Government, to answer a question that is always raised. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation and found it has zero cost to the Federal Government. So let me say the legislation is bipartisan, it is commonsense, it is humane, it is right, and it will cost zero dollars to close this last remaining loophole, this last remaining refuge for a blood sport that has no place in a civilized society. It gives Federal law enforcers the tools they badly need to stop it, and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am here today to speak about a bipartisan amendment I have offered to the farm bill. It is an amendment that incorporates a bill I offered, the Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act, and is cosponsored by Senators Kirk, Cantwell, Brown of Massachusetts, Wyden, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tejal Shah, a fellow in Senator Mark Udall's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's session this week on June 13 and June 14, 2012.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate National Cancer Research Month, honoring the courageous and determined researchers, clinicians, and patients, who contribute their energy and talent to our Nation's progress in cancer prevention and treatment. In May, we recognized their bravery and unfaltering commitment to fighting a complex, multifarious disease that affects millions of Americans. This year, I particularly acknowledge the prevalence and continuing scourge of tobacco-related cancers and efforts made to combat them through innovative research, prevention measures, and programs for the cessation of tobacco use. Lung cancer is the second-most diagnosed cancer and the most commonly fatal form of cancer for both men and women in our country. Through comprehensive efforts of leading institutions our Nation teams up in the quest for more information, campaigns for prevention awareness, and researches and disseminates improved treatments. The American Association for Cancer Research, AACR, is the oldest and largest scientific organization in the world dedicated to cancer, and it has led to the creation of several other leading cancer research centers in Connecticut and throughout the nation. The work of these cutting-edge institutions--guided by dedicated leaders in clinical research and education awareness--advance our understanding of cancer treatment and prevention every day. They are improving quality of care, enhancing our ability to reach a larger national audience, and developing personalized treatments. Connecticut has been on the frontlines of pioneering novel methods of researching and treating tobacco-related cancers. For example, Yale Cancer Center, under the direction of Dr. Roy Herbst--Associate Director for Translational Research and the Chief of Medical Oncology-- has focused on lung cancer research and clinical care, spearheading a vast number of anticancer drug studies. He has placed original DNA research into the traditional scientific method and used this framework to discover cancer treatments that are catered to the individual patient. In this way, the type of tumor becomes less important than the underlying genetic driver. He is a role model for our Nation's researchers and physicians and an inspiration to current and future medical students. Today, I also commend the bravery of patients who participate in novel clinical trials. By assuming risk and embracing the unknown, these cancer patients help to further medical research and look out for future generations. Throughout Connecticut and the nation, we have seen the positive effects of national organizations with engaged, local arms, such as the AACR, the American Lung Association, and Tobacco Free Kids. These institutions have shown Americans of all generations the carcinogenic effects of tobacco products. The AACR's Task Force on Tobacco and Cancer drives the message that cancer research and the dissemination of this new information to Americans are equally important in fighting our national cancer epidemic. The American Lung Association creates a forum for Americans and their families, empowering smokers--and those with loved ones who are addicted to tobacco--with the tough truth while offering proactive ways to integrate what we know about tobacco and cancer into daily life. Tobacco Free Kids keeps watch over Federal, State, and local government initiatives against tobacco addiction, building and maintaining momentum for a national tobacco policy and cancer prevention campaign. These three organizations--as well as a number of other groups--host critically important forums for policy experts, lawmakers, and the public. They explain the science behind tobacco-related cancers and teach Americans how to care for their long-term health and the well- being of our future generations through smoking-cessation techniques and treatments. Today, the National Cancer Policy Forum is hosting a workshop on ``Reducing Tobacco-Related Cancer Incidence and Mortality'' at the National Academy of Sciences. I applaud this exemplary conference of panel discussions, new ideas, and collaboration--that brings together physicians, administrators, researchers, and organizations to foster proactive measures that inspire healthy futures. At a time when Federal and State investment into prevention programs is at an unfortunate low, these leading institutions prove we can save lives through education and awareness. We must also continue to support robust medical research funding through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Federal Drug Administration, to maintain and continue to improve upon our Nation's comprehensive and effective approach to fighting tobacco-related cancers. In the face of this truly devastating disease that takes one American per minute, those that work fastidiously towards prevention and a cure, are true heroes. Their quest for knowledge gives us hope. I am especially proud of the great progress made in Connecticut, and hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these efforts and those around the nation as we unite in the fight against cancer--which continues to be the second leading cause of death in America.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Maurice Sendak, famed children's book author and illustrator, who passed away on May 8 in Connecticut, where he spent most of his life. He would have turned 84 yesterday. Tucked away in an 18th century home in Ridgefield, CT, Mr. Sendak drew inspiration for his widely read, uniquely bizarre illustrated stories from his own memories and contemplations. His fantastical realism--experienced by most American families through the eyes of Max, the central character in ``Where the Wild Things Are''--changed the way children grew up. Mr. Sendak created a new genre of children's literature full of vestiges and memories of the horrors he and others faced maturing during World War II, the Holocaust, and the Great Depression. Many of us have read Mr. Sendak's phrases to loved ones and puzzled over his intended meaning. Stories like ``Chicken Soup with Rice,'' ``Pierre: A Cautionary Tale,'' ``In the Night Kitchen,'' ``Seven Little Monsters,'' and ``Outside Over There'' are now legendary. He committed himself to being an artist, beginning as a window designer at FAO Schwartz, and from there adding illustrator, author, producer, animator, and costume and set designer to his repertoire. He collaborated with many famed creators, including Jim Henson, Carole King, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, the Houston Grand Opera, the Los Angeles Music Center, the New York City Opera, the Chicago Opera Theatre, and Tony Kushner. Most recently, Mr. Sendak teamed with the Yale Repertory Theatre, in conjunction with the Berkeley Repertory Theatre and the New Victory Theater in New York, to produce a contemporary English version of a 1938 Czech children's opera about the Holocaust called ``Brundibar.'' Mr. Sendak's emotional intelligence, visual expertise, and way with words have produced over 100 works, some of which have been celebrated with several prestigious literary awards. In 1964, ``Where the Wild Things Are'' was given the Caldecott Medal from the American Library Association. In addition, Mr. Sendak received the Hans Christian Andersen award for Illustration in 1970, National Book Award in 1982, Laura Ingalls Wilder Award in 1993, and was presented with a National Medal for the Arts by President Bill Clinton in 1996. The New York Times has selected 22 of his titles as best illustrated books of the year, and an elementary school in North Hollywood, CA was even named in his honor. Mr. Sendak was a lover of life and forever faithful to the artistic process. In a public and deeply personal National Public Radio interview in 2011, he shared vulnerable emotions, ending simply, but profoundly and quite tellingly with mantralike poetry: ``live your life, live your life, live your life.''

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Reverend Bonita Grubbs, a community leader who has given so faithfully and generously to New Haven and Connecticut. Reverend Grubbs has been recently awarded the 11th Annual Reverend Howard Nash Community Leadership Award by Community Mediation, CM, an extraordinary organization that helps individuals and organizations resolve conflict through mediation and dialogue. Since 1988, Reverend Grubbs has served as Executive Director of Christian Community Action, CCA, leading a set of well-established and crucial programs and social services for the poor and under-privileged in the Greater-New Haven area. CCA prides itself on providing emergency solutions with the underlying intention of proactive education for long-term sustainability and self-sufficiency. In addition to offering emergency services, CAA also runs education, housing, food, mentorship, after-school, and youth summer programs. However, this role is only one dimension of Reverend Grubbs' contributions to her community. She is a champion of social justice, conscious of laying the foundations of sustainable lifestyles that will last for future generations. Reverend Grubbs has made tremendous impact through the Greater New Haven Community Loan Fund and as President of the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, Co-Chair and member of the Steering Committee of New Haven's Fighting Back Project, columnist for the New Haven Register, Board of Trustee for the Hospital of St. Raphael, and Board Member for both Connecticut Voices for Children and Connecticut Center for School Change. Very appropriately, Reverend Grubbs has been given an award named after Reverend Howard Nash, who was renowned in New Haven as an omnipresent peacemaker and founder of the Dialogue Project--an interfaith effort by CM and Interfaith Cooperative Ministries, ICM. Although ordained within the American Baptist Church, Reverend Grubbs' public service transcends religion and race. In addition to this most recent honor, she has been lauded by several community organizations, receiving the Public Citizen Award from the Connecticut Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, the Consultation Center's Prevention Award, the Women Who Make a Difference Award by the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, and the Greater New Haven Community Loan Fund's Good Egg Award. Reverend Grubbs' generous spirit and loving care for her community make her a role model for all. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking Reverend Grubbs for her contributions to humanity.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me join so many of my colleagues in thanking the Senator from Maryland for being such a steadfast and strong champion and a model for me as a newcomer of leadership in the Senate. I thank all the women who have spoken today-- the women of the Senate--who are, on this issue and so often on other issues, our conscience in this body. They are cutting through the unfounded--indeed, counterfactual--arguments made against this measure, which is simply a commonsense fulfillment of the American precept that people who work equally hard and equally well should be paid equally. The question before this body is, are women worth less than men? The answer today and every day should be no. They are worth every bit as much as men when they work as hard and well, and they should be entitled to equal pay for equal work. Yet in too many jobs in Connecticut and around the country, women continue to earn substantially less than men. In Connecticut, the number is 78 cents on the dollar, and that fact is unacceptable. This issue goes beyond the women who are affected individually. It is about their families. Because, on average, mothers in Connecticut contribute 40 percent to their family's earnings. Closing the pay gap for women would strengthen the finances of families around Connecticut and across the country. This issue is about more than just women and families; it is about children. The burden of wage discrimination weighs heavily on the 549,000 Connecticut children in households dependent on the money earned by their moms. The victims of this gender pay gap are the children of families whose mothers are discriminated against. This issue is about the economy. Those women who are denied equal pay have less to spend. If the wage gap were eliminated, working women in Connecticut would have additional earnings to purchase 109 more weeks of food for the average family, make 7 more months of mortgage payments or purchase 3,000 additional gallons of gasoline. I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history. As Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. Let us do justice today in this measure and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent during today's votes on the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act due to my daughter's high school graduation. I supported this bipartisan legislation earlier this year when it was before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and had I been able to attend today's votes, I would have voted in support of final passage of this important legislation. Additionally, I would have voted to support the Bingaman amendment No. 2111, the Murkowski amendment No. 2108, the Sanders amendment No. 2109 and the McCain amendment No. 2107. I would have voted against tabling the Durbin amendment No. 2127 and voted to table the Paul amendment No. 2143. During the Senate's debate on S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act of 2012, I would have opposed the Alexander amendment No. 2153 and supported passage of S. 2343.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to follow Senator Harkin, one of the chief authors of the FDA bill, and to thank him and Senator Enzi for this truly bipartisan, monumental work on a measure that is essential to the future of the health of our Nation as well as our economic security. This bill is a big one. It is a big bill with complex provisions and an essential purpose: to safeguard the public, to protect patients, and encourage innovation and invention, which are so important to treating and curing diseases in this country as well as other problems. This measure is revolutionary in many ways. It contains complex new provisions with bipartisan support. Truly, the bipartisanship in support of this bill makes it noteworthy as well. I am pleased to say it includes the GAIN Act, which I helped to author and champion with my colleague, Senator Corker, and 15 other Senators who have joined in this effort to incentivize the development of new antibiotics, to treat, stop, and conquer the superbugs, as they are known, germs that are resistant to antibiotics that now exist. To provide more drug security, the supply chain needs greater safeguards. I have worked with Senators Burr, Bennet, Harkin, Grassley, and Whitehouse on this measure. I am proud to say it is in here. The bill includes provisions on treatment and research on pediatric diseases and conditions that is the work of Senators Reed, Alexander, and Murray. I have been very proud to add to their efforts. Of course, it includes the work on medical device innovation and safety, which I have done with Senator Grassley and Senator Kohl. This measure, in a way, epitomizes the approach we should take to FDA regulation, which is to enable devices to reach the market more quickly, to make sure they are safe but available more promptly, to guarantee surveillance and oversight after they reach the market, and reporting by industry so we enlist industry as a partner and make the FDA an ally, not an adversary, with industry in innovation and patient care. Nowhere is this approach more necessary than in addressing the drug shortage problem in this country. It is a problem, it is a crisis, it is an outrage. The United States should be embarrassed and outraged that the greatest country in the history of the world, the strongest on the planet, having developed lifesaving medicines and devoted extraordinary research and development to make those medicines available to the people of this country, still has shortages, crisis shortages in those very pharmaceutical drugs. That crisis is inexcusable and unacceptable. The bill takes a step in the direction of addressing and solving this crisis. It is a first step. I leave no doubt, as I stand here, that I will continue to work on this problem, to advocate other steps--some that I will suggest today and others that will be forthcoming in measures I will propose later. I first became aware of the drug shortage problem through contacts with people from Connecticut, patients who suffer as a result of these drug shortages and doctors who are hugely concerned about the choices they have to make and the dilemmas they face every day in their practices, and hospitals that engage in what they call triage, trying to find drugs to substitute for the ones that are in shortage so they can care for patients who are literally dealing with life-and-death situations. We are not talking about just one or a couple of drugs. Methotrexate was recently the subject of a New York Times front-page article. It provides cancer treatment, but there are other cancer-treating drugs that are also in short supply, essential for both prolonging life and giving life to patients who otherwise would lose it more quickly. We are talking about Mitomycin, about Doxil, about Cytaraline. In other areas of treatment we are talking about epinephrine, which is important for allergy treatment, zinc injections, which are necessary for nutrition deficiencies, Propoful, a workhorse medicine commonly used in emergency rooms across the country when people arrive in need of anesthesia. For these drugs and hundreds of others, literally hundreds of others, to be in shortage is unacceptable and inexcusable. What illustrates this problem perhaps most dramatically are the faces and voices of the people in Connecticut and in every State around the country who suffer because of these drug shortages. They are your neighbors, your friends--my colleagues' constituents. They are coping with pain, anxiety, sadness, grief, anger--and there are drugs available to them that would provide relief and remedies. Their docs cannot get them because they are in shortage. We are talking about people of great courage and fortitude, such as Susan Block. She is just illustrative. I have her picture here. My office helped her to get a drug called Doxil to treat her cancer because halfway through her chemotherapy treatments for ovarian cancer she arrived at the hospital one day to learn from her doctor that Doxil would no longer be available. She called my office in a panic upon learning that information. Ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system and Susan was unwilling to settle for half a treatment. She was right, and her doctor supported her and my office supported her in securing an emergency delivery of Doxil for Susan, allowing her to complete treatment. She has allowed me, graciously, to share this photo with you today. I am pleased we have been able to help constituents in Connecticut again and again to secure these medicines when they have been in shortage, working with manufacturers as well as hospitals in that effort. But it should not have happened at all. Not everyone has been this lucky. Stephen Hine of Bethel wrote to my office after he lost his wife Ann. She died of terminal ovarian cancer. Ann was also on Doxil. While the drug was not going to save her life-- these drugs do not always save lives--it could have prolonged her life expectancy. But she could not get Doxil in time and she lost her battle with cancer. Stephen, her husband, understood that the drug would not have cured her but it would have helped her live longer to spend more time with her family, her daughter, who was going to graduate that spring. It would have meant so much for Ann to see her daughter graduate. We have a right to ask what kind of nation allows patients to go without these drugs and forces doctors to make decisions about who needs them the most. I thank Senators Klobuchar and Casey particularly for championing this effort even before I arrived in the Senate and later, personally, the Chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Ranking Member, Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi, for their support. There are proven measures that will help solve these issues. More needs to be done, but the drug shortage provisions contained in the bill before this chamber, which provides for a requirement of notification in the event of a discontinuance or interruption of the production of life-supporting, life-sustaining drugs or drugs intended for use in the prevention of a debilitating disease or condition or a sterile injectable or a drug used in an emergency are critical. The reasons these drugs are in short supply was illustrated and documented by a GAO study. It showed that drugs are in short supply--not just once, but they are chronically in short supply, some of them many times--it showed definitively that these drugs are old, sterile, often injectable, and generic. The market simply is not working for these drugs. The profit margins are not sufficient to sustain the supply. The market for these drugs is broken. If these drugs--to draw the analogy to a utility--were electricity, the lights would go out. We would not accept that situation. The lights are going out for patients in Connecticut and across the country because the markets are not working and the government, the FDA, is failing in its responsibilities--under great pressure, perhaps with good intentions, but still not working effectively enough. The President of the United States recognized it when he issued an Executive order that required the FDA to use its current powers of notification more effectively and to refer price- gouging cases to the Department of Justice when there is evidence of them. The markets are not working so there is now a gray market that involves markups of 200, 300, 500, 800 percent, sometimes even higher, in the prices of these drugs as they are resold in secondary markets. Beyond this requirement of notification that is contained in the bill, there are other measures that are important or necessary so that we do more to address these problems. I have refiled my amendment from the HELP Committee markup, along with Senators Franken, Schumer, Cardin, and Klobuchar, to impose penalties, tough penalties for manufacturers who fail to notify. Notification is fine but it will be less effective if there are no penalties for failure to notify. We may try to walk a balance between enforcement and incentives, but enforcement in this area is critical, and this measure imposing penalties for failure to notify is critical as well. The amendment is a fair one. It provides for penalties of up to $10,000 per day--up to $1.8 million per violation--for failure to notify the FDA within a reasonable time frame of known discontinuance of a lifesaving drug. I am proposing as well an amendment that would require critical manufacturing reinvestment. I have worked with the manufacturing industry to create a public/private partnership to incentivize the development of additional manufacturing capacity. The root of the drug shortage problem is that these products are old and generic and difficult to make so that we need more capacity, we need more plants making more of these drugs. Over the long term, this kind of partnership will strengthen the markets and strengthen our capacity. It says the Secretary of Health and Human Services has authority to implement an analysis of the root causes of the drug shortage and to proactively seek these kinds of partnerships with manufacturers to produce more of the drugs that may be in shortage right now, but to predict, to forecast, what will be in short supply in the future. Market manipulation must be addressed more effectively and I have proposed an amendment that will stop the gray market so far as it is possible to do, to prohibit market manipulation of drugs that are in shortage and prohibit the distribution of false information. It gives the FTC authority to assess penalties for these actions. I thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, Chairman Rockefeller, and also thank Senator Schumer for his leadership, because he has shown a similar commitment to addressing these issues. Our doctors and our health care providers deserve some recourse from market manipulation. The gray market must be stopped and the FTC must immediately establish a reporting mechanism for price gougers and gray- market profiteers. These measures are a beginning. The notification provision now in the bill is a start. I thank, again, Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi for their leadership and the FDA for its cooperation. The work cannot stop with this bill. Drug shortages are unacceptable and inexcusable, and the people of America, if they are aware of it, will demand that we heighten the fight toward a comprehensive solution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.