Richard Blumenthal

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay my respects to the victims, survivors, and heroes of the Holocaust. April 19, 2012, marks Holocaust Remembrance Day, which is observed during a week-long memorial, the National Days of Remembrance, created by Congress in 1980 and led by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Through this year's theme, ``Choosing to Act: Stories of Rescue,'' we remember the courageous men, women, and children who stood up and saved lives, at grave risk and sometimes deadly consequences to themselves. On the anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising and the liberation of European concentration camps, we honor all who embraced their own humanity to save others, abandoning self-interest for selfless bravery. This week of commemoration that spans Sunday, April 15 to Sunday, April 22, is deeply personal. My father came to this country in 1935 to escape persecution. Speaking barely any English, he set down my family's roots with very little but memories of loved ones who had perished in the Holocaust and faith in the American dream. The Days of Remembrance is a living memorial, altered by every citizen who dares to speak up and open their mind and heart. It is more than an oral history project. It ties the past with our present, inspiring proactive, positive transformation in our daily lives. We recall that the brave individuals whose stories we bring to light were acting out of loyalty to their neighbors. Small communities held each other tightly. Each year, we come together at a national ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda, but this collective power is also felt through smaller groups, including State and local governments, civic organizations, places of worship, schools, offices, and military bases. Organizations such as the Holocaust Child Survivors of Connecticut document the personal histories of living survivors--children of the Holocaust. Sadly, as time goes on, our future generations will not have the privilege of hearing from them. We must work to perpetuate their messages beyond words. We must teach our Nation's children the lessons we have learned--about human betrayal, war crimes, and genocide, about heroes, hope, and honor--through our own activism. This Wednesday, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is awarding Aung San Suu Kyi the Elie Wiesel Award at their 2012 National Tribute Dinner for ``her exceptional courage in resisting tyranny and advancing the dignity and freedom of the Burmese people.'' By honoring a woman who is a living hero for victims of a present-day dictatorship, the Holocaust Memorial Museum seamlessly unites history with the persecutions of today to create a new space of memory and action for generations to come. As we soberly recall those who were not rescued, we can remain hopeful through the memory of the rescuers--those who followed their heart, beliefs, or religion to help victims in desperate need. This compassion is inspirational for me, and I hope for all those who witness human suffering and confront feelings of helplessness. As we gather this week to remember, we are choosing to be actively compassionate. Memories of the Holocaust inspire us to live today and every day with kindness, generosity, and an undying commitment to strengthening our bonds as human beings.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I honor New Haven open chief executive officer Mike Davies, who was named a 2012 inductee of the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Museum, a nonprofit organization founded in 1954. The official induction ceremony will take place this summer, and so, very appropriately, the outdoor tennis season provides an opportunity to honor a man who has significantly influenced the game of tennis. He is truly an athlete and sportsman for all seasons. Other 2012 inductees include U.S. Gold medalist Jennifer Capriati, Brazilian top athlete Gustavo Kuerten, Russian star Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and three-time Paralympic medalist Thomas ``Randy'' Snow, all recognized in the Recent Player Category. Snow, who passed away in 2009, was a tireless leader for the disabled, inspiring many as a champion of wheelchair tennis. Spanish superstar Manuel Orantes and Australian champion Thelma Coyne-Long will be inducted in the Master Player Category. Nick Bollettieri, legendary coach and entrepreneur, and Eiichi Kawatei, a strong promoter of tennis in Asia, will join Mr. Davies in the Contributor Category. I was not surprised when I read that Mr. Davies taught himself how to play tennis and has used the same self-invented grip to swing his racket for the past 65 years. This anecdote is a perfect metaphor for how he, as an innovator, has transformed a game that so many Americans cherish. Although we remember him as a great player battling to the top as No. 1 in Britain today, I recognize his perhaps lesser known contributions to tennis. He dedicated many years to leading our world's major tennis organizations, including the World Championship Tennis, WCT, serving as its executive director for 13 years, the Association of Tennis Professionals, and the International Tennis Federation, where he made the Davis Cup a tournament worth watching. In these capacities, he changed parts of the game that we take for granted and made playing and watching tennis more enjoyable, competitive, and exciting. Mr. Davies developed and implemented tie-breakers, allowed players to wear color, changed the ball from green to yellow for the benefit of television viewers, added time between points and games, and suggested the use of chairs during breaks in play. Remarkably, Mr. Davies is responsible for the first public broadcasting of a tennis match, facilitating the airing of the 1972 WCT final match between Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall on NBC. In addition, while at WCT, Mr. Davies implemented the first, multimillion world tour. These two big ideas made the sport more accessible to all Americans. As showcased by these accomplishments and many others, Mr. Davies has been a tireless advocate for diversifying tennis and supporting all players, regardless of class or race, who had the potential to rise through the ranks. Most recently, Mr. Davies has dedicated his talents to the incredibly successful New Haven Open tournament at Yale University. He has brought big-time tournament tennis competition to the city of New Haven and helped to create an arena where athletes of all ages can be inspired to be strong, fight hard, and work to their full potential. In their own backyards, they can experience the incredible energy of skilled players who are only a few games away from the U.S. Open. I congratulate Mr. Davies for this remarkable honor and would like to recognize the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Museum for its outstanding work in preserving the legacies of these cultural icons and motivating new generations of young athletes and entrepreneurs to strive for greatness every day.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the New Haven Lions Club as they celebrate their 90th anniversary and nearly a century of community service, civic involvement, and charitable contributions to the city of New Haven, the State of Connecticut, and the increasingly interconnected international community. Lions Club members are connected to the heart and soul of their local cities and towns, following the proactive philosophy: ``community is what we make it.'' Through their extraordinary service and generosity including weekly meetings, annual volunteer events, and fundraising the 46,000 Lions Clubs and their 1.35 million members change the world around them. Following their historic practice of activism and participation, they touch countless lives. Founded in 1922, the New Haven Lions Club is the second oldest Lions Club in Connecticut. The members--or Lions, as they aptly call themselves--come together four times a month at the New Haven Long Wharf to plan the community outings that have become well known and anticipated events. Their impact is felt when they hand out free hot cider at the New Haven tree lighting or deliver food donations to the Connecticut Food Bank. Since its start, the club has raised more than $717,000 in charitable contributions. Responding to a call to action by Helen Keller in 1925, one of the hallmark services offered by Lions Clubs around the world is assisting the often-marginalized blind and visually impaired communities. In 1975, the One to One Program was created in New Haven, where partnerships are formed between a blind and a seeing person. Together, these pairs attend events together throughout the year. In addition, free eye screenings have been offered on the New Haven Green since 1998, serving as a practical resource as well as symbolic gesture that the Lions Club of New Haven is dedicated to inspiring the vision of New Haven residents, helping them to see better lives for themselves. The Lions of New Haven also offer valuable opportunities for children and young adults in New Haven, understanding their specific needs and then aiming to fill the void, whether providing recreational fun, mentorship, or the teaching of life skills. They have partnered with local schools in New Haven throughout the years, most recently with Nathan Hale School, to sponsor Leo Clubs, which lead students to spend time volunteering and giving back to their communities. Last July, the Lions Club of New Haven offered $2,500 in scholarship funds for graduating Leos. The New Haven Lions Club is also known for Camp Cedarcrest, 42 acres of grounds in Orange, CT, enjoyed each summer by thousands of Connecticut residents. Together, the New Haven Lions, along with four other service organizations and the New Haven Department of Parks, Recreation and Trees, provide this spot for the community to enjoy. Even though the New Haven Lions Club has held and participated in many newsworthy events such as hosting a Benny Goodman concert in 1958 and volunteering over 150 hours during the 1995 Special Olympics World Games held in New Haven--what makes this service club special is its members' dedication to each other, their community, and their legacy. Since its birth, then only the second of its kind in New England, the Lions Club of New Haven has evolved and adapted while always keeping the tradition of service, companionship, and civic duty as the foundation of every step together. I wish the Lions of New Haven all the best as they continue to listen to the pulse of the city of New Haven and represent Connecticut in the many Lions Club happenings around the world. I have the greatest confidence that steadfast progress, tender human connections, and far- reaching impact will be made by this invaluable organization over the next 90 years and more.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, for 50 years, the United States Senate Youth Program, USSYP, has selected 2 remarkable high school students from each State, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense Education Activity program to visit our Nation's capital for an inspiring week-long immersion in the workings of the Federal government and a mirror into public service. The students that participate in the USSYP have gone on to dedicate their lives to our country, including Senator Susan Collins, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and former presidential advisor Karl Rove. Started in 1962 through the adoption of S. Res. 324, this program is as crucial now as it was when it was first created. The USSYP acknowledges our country's need to encourage inspired and proactive youth. It takes a stand against complacency and apathy when it comes to learning, gives students a chance to see firsthand the hard work and dedication of appointed and elected officials, and sustains and heightens their passion for helping others after the program is finished. It also aims to instill a true understanding of the democratic process ``and the vital importance of democratic decision making not only for America but for people around the world'' (S. Res. 324), creating a cadre of young ambassadors who promote representative government in their own communities. I wish to recognize the partners of the USSYP, most especially the Hearst Foundations, and my Senate colleagues who participated in Washington Week a few weeks ago. I thank the Hearst Foundations for their generous offer to fund this program as long as the Senate keeps it alive. Also, I express my gratitude for nonprofit organizations that are innovatively addressing the deficit of civic knowledge and public responsibility in our Nation's students. For example, iCivics, a project started by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, aims to use video games and other web-based tools to engage students and teach them about our government on all levels, including the importance of participation as a citizen, the power of a vote, the checks and balances of our three branches, and our founding documents. We must continue to remain invested in the knowledge and ideals our future generations bring forth. The USSYP understands the importance of fostering the genuine interest in public service held by our Nation's youth, and only selects high schoolers to participate who have demonstrated a commitment to their student government or local civic organizations. I hope the USSYP's strong 50 years can serve as a model for similar programs-- especially to reach those who may not have the support or resources to define or act on their passion for public service. The USSYP has created an alumni fund to assist delegates, who are entering college or the work force in a low-paying, public service capacity, by providing scholarships. This great first step provides support to our young constituents who are striving to realize their dreams, but are worried about the costs involved. I enjoyed meeting with the Connecticut delegates during the annual Senate reception during Washington Week and appreciated our thoughtful dialogue. Their visit has left me inspired and hopeful about our country's future. I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing the importance of the United States Senate Youth program for the next 50 years.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am seeking from the Attorney General that this task force be proactive and effective by beginning investigations and taking whatever action is necessary to combat illegality in these markets. I believe if the Attorney General of the United States makes vigorous and effective use of his task force's broad investigatory and regulatory authorities, he can send the signal to speculators that manipulation and fraud in the oil futures market will not be tolerated. These gasoline prices are on the minds of Americans across the country. They have economic effects, but they also have effects on consumer confidence and on the lifeblood of economic recovery. Even more than the share of dollars that go to pay for gasoline at the pump, there is an effect on consumer confidence. This obligation on the part of our law enforcers is one that goes to the core of their credibility--not just popularity. Credibility of law enforcement demands that the Attorney General of the United States take this action to reenergize and revive the task force. I am hopeful, knowing of his reputation, that he will act accordingly to assure all of us that illegality, whether it is price-fixing or price-gouging or cornering the market, will not be tolerated and that effective action will be taken against it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, yesterday the average price of gasoline in Connecticut topped $4 a gallon--the fifth highest average price in the country. Across the Nation, prices are fast approaching that amount for every American. The rising cost of gasoline is a real, harsh, and unacceptable fact of life for ordinary Americans. It is crushing to the average consumer, it is stifling economic growth, and it is hurting our businesses. For people across the country, ordinary Americans or middle-class, these dramatic increases are not a luxury. It is more than an inconvenience. It threatens their ability to go to work, to do their work, and it drives up the prices of goods for all kinds of commodities, not just gasoline. It threatens to derail our economic recovery. Many factors contribute to the price of a gallon of gasoline. There is no question that it is complex. There is a growing consensus among energy analysts that a large part of the reason has to do with speculation. I am mindful of the fact that there are a lot of experts and a lot of debate on different sides of this issue, but there is a powerful and growing consensus that speculation is a major cause of the rising cost of gasoline. In fact, there is a list of businesses, government organizations, and trade associations that have undertaken their own study and investigation of the oil futures market. Let me list them for you: ExxonMobil, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, Goldman Sachs, the American Trucking Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Delta Airlines, the International Monetary Fund, the St. Louis Federal Reserve. What do they all have in common? They have all indicated that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gasoline prices. In fact, according to a recent article in Forbes--that is based on a report from Goldman Sachs-- excessive oil speculation ``translates out into a premium for gasoline at the pump of $.56 a gallon.'' The Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has stated publicly that Wall Street speculators now control more than 80 percent--in fact, as much as 85 percent--of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the last decade. In short, people are buying contracts for future delivery of oil or gasoline they have no intention of ever taking delivery of. Something is not working in the markets. Demand has dropped; consumption has been reduced; supply is at least at the level it was last year; yet prices are rising. The excessive oil and gasoline speculation is clearly causing market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand. It is vital that the government use every available resource to protect Americans from markets that are not working, from price-gouging or price-fixing or illegal manipulation. The causes of the market disruption must be confronted. Last April, the Attorney General announced the formation of a Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force working group--I will repeat that--Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force working group--that was specifically empowered to combat illegality in these markets. I wrote to the Attorney General last May in the wake of the appointment of that task force, telling him respectfully that ``announcing investigations and beginning to issue subpoenas could curb some of the worst speculative activity that may well be underway at this very moment.'' I believe now that this task force has the authority, it has the mandate, it has the responsibility, and it has the obligation to be effective. We have heard virtually nothing about it over this last year. We have heard of no investigation, no action, and certainly no prosecution. Now is the time it should be active. That is the reason I have again written to the Attorney General, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, consumer protection has been a priority for me throughout my career, as I know it has been for the Presiding Officer. Both he and I served together as attorneys general, and now as Senators he and I have worked to give consumers a voice against companies that harm them through deceptive and dangerous or abusive practices. This month we recognize consumers in two ways. National Consumer Protection Week, recognized the week of March 4 through 10, is led by government and nonprofit groups and its focus is to encourage consumers to take full advantage of their consumer rights and make better informed decisions for themselves in the marketplace. This month we also recognize that many of the same consumer issues affecting Americans every day in their lives impact consumers in every corner of the world. So today we celebrate World Consumer Rights Day. Every day ought to be Consumer Rights Day because, as President Kennedy once said, we are all consumers and we are consumers every day of every year. Organizations here in America such as Consumers Union and other consumer groups around the world celebrate World Consumer Rights Day as members of Consumers International, the nonprofit organization representing over 220 consumer groups in 115 countries. Today also marks the 50th anniversary of a very special day in American history for American consumers. On March 15, 1962, President Kennedy sent a message to Congress calling for a national commitment to protecting consumer interests. Fifty years ago today, President Kennedy spoke about the consumer right to safety, to be informed, to choose, and to be heard. These rights are the foundation of what we now know as the Consumer Bill of Rights. The Consumer Bill of Rights has grown to include eight specific guarantees: the right to satisfaction of basic needs; the right to safety; the right to be informed; the right to choose; the right to be heard; the right to redress; the right to consumer education; and the right to a healthy environment. Today, I wish to propose another right, a ninth right: the right to privacy. There is a growing need to defend individual rights to privacy in a multitude of areas. This country was founded--its basic bedrock-- on a desire for personal privacy, on the right to be left alone. It is the reason people came to this country, avoiding unwanted and unwarranted intrusion on their personal space and on their rights and liberties. They came here out of a desire for religious freedom, economic liberty, and the security of their person and property against intrusion. It is a unique, bedrock American right--the right to privacy. Concerns about governmental invasion of personal privacy go back literally to the founding of our Republic and the protections guaranteed under the third amendment when the British lodged troops in our homes without permission, and the fourth amendment, when they searched our homes and seized goods and property from them. I have heard numerous complaints from Connecticut residents who are concerned about their privacy. They are concerned about Federal and State intrusion into women's health care decisions. They are concerned about government efforts to combat terrorism through tracking of individuals by a GPS or cell phone tower location. Those potential invasions of privacy are by the government, by official forces. But people today are also understandably and rightly concerned about corporate intrusion into their privacy. They are concerned about companies crawling the Web to collect consumers' personal information and selling it to marketers. They are concerned that mobile device apps can access and acquire the device owner's photos and address book without his or her knowledge or consent. They are concerned that credit scores are being created from their use of medications, and that those scores are being used to set personal health insurance premiums. They are concerned about companies that are compiling dossiers on their use of social media sites and blogs and selling those reports to prospective employers. They are concerned because they are powerless to prevent the distribution of their contact information to marketers who then deluge them with advertisements in the mail and by e-mail, and they are concerned about companies who don't secure their personal data and the damages that result from improper breaches and disclosures with the risk of identity theft and worse. The Constitution was written to protect Americans from government intrusions into their privacy. I understand the difference between government intrusions and private sector invasions. But if the government were treating its citizens the way some companies are treating their customers, people would be outraged. They would be up in arms. They would be dumping tea in the Boston Harbor. The Supreme Court has just ruled that it is not OK for the government to track people via GPS in their car without a warrant, so why would it be OK for a company such as OnStar to track drivers who canceled their subscriptions and sell that information on their movements to marketers? Americans--many of us, and others--were questioning the PATRIOT Act and its provisions that allow government to access records of what books citizens borrowed from the library and what Web pages they visited while they were there. Yet, companies are tracking consumers' every movement on line, through dozens--even hundreds--of cookies that are secretly installed on consumers' computers whenever they visit a Web site. We would be horrified if the government as a routine matter monitored pictures people take and who they interact with. Yet, according to news reports, mobile devices and apps are doing exactly that. I believe it is time we protect Americans from intrusions into their personal privacy by companies or educational institutions or others who may not be part of the government. Big Brother or Big Sister no longer need wear a police uniform or a badge or a military uniform. It may well be under the guise of a corporate seal or insignia, and I believe it is time we protect against those intrusions, as well as others. In fact, it is a bipartisan concern. One of the few areas where there is agreement in Congress is the need for better protection of consumers for online privacy. We may differ on the substance; we may disagree as to what the contours and the specifics should be. I am concerned about this issue and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support for attention to it. I was heartened by the President's recent call for a consumer privacy bill of rights--a great beginning, a very positive step forward. I believe our approach to privacy must be comprehensive and robust. As a threshold matter, companies that collect or share information about consumers should be required to get consumers' affirmative opt-in consent for collecting or sharing that data. Not an opt-out but an opt- in--specific, informed consent. That should apply online as well as offline. We have seen a lot of attention paid to Internet tracking and behavioral advertising. I think we ought to protect consumers from privacy invasions that come from the mail or over the phone. They particularly affect our seniors. If a company wants to collect, aggregate, share, sell, or by any other means, it should get consumers' permission; otherwise, it shouldn't be permitted. We also need to pay attention to the collection of information through consumers' use of mobile devices. As we have seen recently, some mobile apps or operating systems are capable of tracking not just consumers' Web browsing but also their text messages, what they photograph, who they contact. Mobile devices need a systemwide, do-not- track option to allow consumers to control the distribution of their information. Finally, the consumers' right to privacy also must encompass the right to prevent unauthorized distribution of that information. To that end, we need to establish requirements for companies that possess consumers' personal information to ensure they have security features in place to prevent data breaches. Those protections must be accompanied by remedies, by fines and penalties that make those rights and protections real so that consumers have a private right of action as well. Congress is working on these issues. There have been numerous hearings and legislation has been proposed. Having the President add his voice to the call for privacy will only help. As with food safety, product safety, and Wall Street reform, companies themselves are demonstrating the need for legislation and some of them are joining in this effort very constructively. So as we mark the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's call to action, let us heed the importance of his message to Congress. He said: ``As all of us are consumers, these actions and proposals in the interests of consumers are in the interests of us all.'' We should be proud in this body of having continued the fight for consumer protection. It should be full-throated and full-hearted. Americans went West to the Presiding Officer's State and to other States seeking open spaces, economic opportunities, as well as personal opportunities, including the right to privacy and being alone. That American right--that American spirit--is very much with us today. It is 50 years after President Kennedy first articulated it, but I believe it is as real and necessary today as ever. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored today to speak 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 violations of human rights. These violations are brutal, tangible, and real in their impact on individual lives in that country, and our hearts go out to the people of Iran, particularly the individuals there fighting for freedom and democracy. The world has watched the Arab spring bring down dictators in Tunisia and Tripoli, and the people of Iran continue to be denied those basic human rights that we hold dear and which should be universal. I also want to thank Secretary Clinton for her tireless work in this region. She arrived in Tunisia shortly after we left to consult with all nations interested in aiding the Syrian people and she showed, again, her dedication to this same cause of human rights through her leadership there. I saw in our meetings with a new generation of leaders that is emerging in the Middle East how dramatic the statements we make here and the actions that we take impress them in their fight for basic human rights. How we are speaking out here for universal suffrage and freedom has an impact on what they do, and perhaps many in our own country need to be reminded about the importance of what we say and do here. The parliamentary elections that will occur on Friday in Iran will be neither free nor fair. They have already taken actions to assure that it will be, as one observer said, the fakest one yet. But the brutal oppression in human rights going on there is too real for those who suffer at that government's and that regime's hands. As the resolution makes clear, Iran has already disqualified 2,200 candidates from actually running for office simply based on their political views. It maintains severe restrictions on the press, strangling a free press, preventing even the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe from reaching the people of Iran, having created a sham election, a travesty, and a tragedy. The Iranian regime now will force Iranians to vote at the polls in an effort to show popular support, and force them to vote simply to show this sham support. The truth is it has no such support. Allowing international monitors to bear witness, as we demand in our resolution, would reveal these acts of oppression for what they are and for the world to see. The last nationwide election held in Iran, on June 12, 2009, was widely condemned throughout the world. Following the election, there was brutal repression documented all too dramatically by the videos and other evidence that, in effect, was smuggled out of Iran, although in real time. That large campaign of politically motivated violence, intimidation, repression, torture, cruel and degrading treatment, including rape, executions, and extrajudicial killings, and indefinite detention is all well documented. On December 26, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious human rights abuses occurring in Iran. The Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution lets the people of Iran know we are with them, they are not alone; that we side with them, and we stand and speak out on their behalf because they are not forgotten in their effort for democracy. The future of the Middle East will be determined first and foremost by the people of the Middle East themselves, but American strength, vision, and leadership are absolutely essential. So in that regard I am very proud and grateful for the 62 cosponsors of this resolution--now 63 with Senator Klobuchar--and I again thank the Senator from North Dakota. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on this very important issue. I want to thank him for his perseverance and his vision in seeing the importance--along with Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and Senator Sessions--of this kind of effort, which had its genesis in the trip that we took to Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, Tunisia, and Libya. What impressed us so much is how democracy is growing and starting there, and in that part of the world how the dictatorship and tyranny of Iran are such contrasts with the hopeful, burgeoning democracies that are growing there. That is the reason so many of our colleagues--I believe that over 60--have joined. I want to ask unanimous consent that Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would say, yes, indeed. I was extraordinarily impressed by their eagerness to see what democracy looks like as it works. Remember, some of these individuals have been in prison for long periods of time, some of them under the most brutal conditions, many of them tortured while they were there, with little exposure to the real world of democracy. In answer to the question of the Senator from Arizona, it would be very helpful to them. In fact, on a number of occasions we invited them to come to this country. But I would ask the Senator from Arizona and perhaps my other colleagues who are on the floor today to look ahead and to comment perhaps on what we can do to move in a positive way from here, because I think all of us feel Egypt is a linchpin for our relationship to that area of the world going forward. So much that is exciting is happening in that part of the world, and Egypt is so critical to it. So I would ask my friends from Arizona and South Carolina and North Dakota what they feel perhaps are positive steps we can take to build on this good step forward.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. It was an extraordinary moment but even more so because Senator McCain asked a number of them--one in particular--about the impacts on their families and in that case, I believe, the impact on his wife. We tend to forget in this country--all too often we tend to take for granted the immense protections we enjoy in this country, the value of our freedoms. That moment was profoundly moving for me, and his reaction in the realization of how far he has come as a leader in his country, how much he has endured, how much pain and travail for him and his family. It was a striking reminder about the importance of democracy and freedom and the protections we often take for granted and the great work being done by those nongovernmental organizations in fostering freedom and democracy, sometimes at peril or risk to themselves. The Senator from South Carolina has hit a very important point, and it ties to what Senator McCain said about the suppliers conference in Egypt. These principles and the growth of democracies in that part of the world are important, not just because we like democracy and not just because of the strategic value, militarily, and the interests that our national security has, but also they are potential markets for our exports. The Senator from South Carolina used that word. People should understand that there is an important interest that we have in promoting jobs in those countries because it will be jobs for us. That is, at a very basic level, one of the values of this trip, trying to promote and expand those markets, as Senator McCain did in speaking at the suppliers conference in Cairo to hundreds of Egyptian businessmen wanting to do business, buy our products, and expand their markets. I yield.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleague from Arizona who led this trip. Very enthusiastically and emphatically I would say the answer is, yes, we should be encouraging these nongovernmental organizations that are committed to the cause of democracy and human rights and civil society. Their work in Egypt and in places such as Tunisia and other areas of the Middle East, as well as around the globe where democracy and freedom are at risk and sometimes at great peril, has been enormously important. I was so proud and grateful to be part of this trip led by Senator McCain, and to hear and see the kind of respect there is in the world for his views, for his leadership, as well as for Senator Graham's. And ``receptiveness'' is probably an understatement that Field Marshal Tantawi, leaders of Parliament, and others in Egypt had for his statements about the importance of allowing these Americans, these seven Americans, who committed no crime, to leave that country. The power of his and Senator Graham's statements, the ability of our colleagues such as Senator Hoeven and Senator Sessions to speak--not on behalf of the United States, because we were not there to negotiate-- but on behalf of public opinion in the United States I think was very instrumental and shows the importance of the interchanges and the relationships that can be built when we interact face to face, on the ground, with our peers and contemporaries in foreign countries. Not that we were speaking as military people or as diplomats, but simply in reflecting the opinion of people in the United States that these Americans, innocent of any crime, should be permitted to leave the country.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with sadness and reluctance because we are actually debating an extraordinarily worthwhile, even historic bill that would not only improve our infrastructure--our roads and bridges and highways in the State of Connecticut and throughout the country--but also provide jobs, enable more economic growth, and promote the effort to put Connecticut and our country back to work. My reluctance is we are debating an amendment that distracts from that essential task, the work that the Nation elected us to do, to make our priority creating jobs and promoting economic growth. We are debating an amendment that seems fundamentally flawed. I am respectful, as is everyone in this body, of the moral convictions and religious beliefs that others may hold. I believe this amendment is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It is unacceptably flawed in the way it is written because it essentially gives every employer-- anytime, anywhere, with respect to any medical condition, any form of treatment--the right to deny that essential health care and those services based on his or her undefined religious beliefs or moral convictions--quoting from the language itself, ``religious beliefs'' or ``moral convictions''--without any defining limits. Insurance companies can even deny a person coverage for mental health treatment or cancer screening or HIV and AIDS screening simply because that employer or insurance company may believe the causes of those conditions somehow violate his or her religious beliefs or moral convictions. This amendment would threaten access to a number of clinical preventive services such as diabetes screening, vaccinations or cancer screenings, essential preventive services that have been proved to reduce health care costs and save lives. Those services should be guaranteed to every American without cost. In my home State of Connecticut, one of the smallest States in the country, approximately 270,000 women would lose access to preventive care if this amendment is agreed to. Around the country some 20 million women would lose that kind of access to preventive care. That is a result that simply is unacceptable. The amendment goes too far. It would endanger the lives of millions of Americans, would completely undermine the progress--and we have made progress--in providing crucial health care services to millions of individuals. I oppose this amendment because of its practical implications, because of its apparent unconstitutionality, and because it flies in the face of sound public policy. At a time when we are considering a bill, the transportation measure that deservedly has broad, widespread, bipartisan support in this Chamber and across the country, we are again polarized, Republican against Democrat, regrettably divided and potentially gridlocked because of an amendment that has nothing to do with transportation or putting America back to work. That should be our task. It is my priority. It should be the priority of this Chamber at this historic moment when we are reviving a still struggling economy, when people are hurting, striving to find work, and when we should be doing everything in our power to put America and Connecticut back to work and enable economic growth. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today after my distinguished colleagues have spoken on this issue so powerfully and eloquently, but I do so reluctantly because I rise in the face of a continuing assault on women's health care in this country--an assault on women's health care that is unworthy of our political system because these health care decisions involving women should be made by them. They are a matter of their conscience and their choice. Politics has no place in health care decisions. This assault is waged by a group on the radical right. It is an ideologically based attack on personal health care decisions of women and their families, and they are wasting taxpayer dollars doing it. This ideologically based stand on women's health care over these years is nothing less than unconscionable and unbelievable. I have only been in this body for a short time, but one of the first votes I cast was on H.R. 1, which wasn't about growing jobs or strengthening our economy, it was known best for completely eliminating the funding for responsible family planning programs. The fact is family planning can prevent unintended high-risk pregnancies, reduce abortion rates--reduce abortion rates--and they are cost-effective. They provide $4 of return for every $1 that is spent on family planning, invested in those programs. But there are some on the radical right who would rather have the people of our Nation pay $11 billion a year in unplanned pregnancies rather than receive a nearly threefold return on investment for family planning services. This debate is about more than dollars and cents, and it is about more than cost. It is about protecting the right of every woman to receive good-quality preventive care and equal access to preventive health care benefits from the provider they trust. And these decisions should be made between the provider a woman trusts and herself. In 2010, Congress took a great step forward, as my colleague Senator Mikulski has described so powerfully. A decision was made to require health care plans to cover a core packet of preventive health services, moving our country dramatically and historically toward a trend of overall lifetime health. The Institute of Medicine--an unbiased scientific organization--was tasked with evaluating the most important preventive services to include in the best health outcomes for women, seeking those best health outcomes for every woman in America. This scientific organization named birth control as one of those core benefits--birth control. Let's be very clear. We are talking about birth control--the pill that 99 percent of women use as part of their daily preventive health care. At some point in their lives, 99 percent of women use it. That very same benefit--coverage for it--is guaranteed by 28 States around the Nation. They already require health care plans to cover it. And more than half of the women of our Nation live in those States. Now the radical right would seek to take away that guarantee--that coverage, that basic health care outcome. They would take away that right--repeal it, restrict it, remove it as an option for women. That is unacceptable. Women spend an average of $500 per year for birth control--a cost men will never have to incur. That is why the Institute of Medicine recommended that birth control be included as part of the package of preventive services without copays--because costs should not be a barrier to those 99 percent of women in the United States who use birth control. Yet the radical right has decided that the politics of taking birth control away from women is more important, and they have used every tool in their arsenal--creating misunderstandings--to try to take this right away from women, including misrepresenting what the administration has decided to do. One of these mistruths they are spreading is that churches will be required to offer birth control. Not so. Another is that institutions affiliated with churches will be required to provide those services. Not true. What any institution is required to cover is, in fact, the coverage, not necessarily provide the service, and that is a key distinction. The majority of Americans agree that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost. The majority of Americans believe that is true. Nearly two-thirds of young Americans of childbearing age agree that employer health care coverage should include birth control at no cost. In short, this decision should be a matter of conscience, a matter of choice for individual women. Politicians should not be permitted to exploit it, as some are doing now. I stand for women making choices about their own health care, and I stand against politicians telling them what they should do. This issue before this body and this Nation is one of the critical issues of this time, and politics has no place in these health care decisions.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy and his leadership on so many issues. Mr. President, I want to particularly say to my colleague from Vermont how much I appreciate his leadership on the Judiciary Committee, where I serve. Leadership is the mark of his work there. He brings together Members of both parties on so many issues, including this one involving the Federal judiciary. It is, as he has said so eloquently, one of the marvels of the world, one of the historic accomplishments of our republican democracy, that we have a truly independent judiciary that exemplifies the qualities of professionalism, scholarship, integrity, and, yes, independence. We are here today because we have a crisis in our judiciary. It is a crisis not created by our judges but by this body. It is a judicial vacancy crisis because nearly 1 out of 10--I repeat, 1 out of 10-- judgeships in this country are now vacant. The vacancies are double what they were at this point in President Bush's first term. Every time I go back to Connecticut--as I am sure happens to the Presiding Officer in his State of West Virginia and to Senator Inhofe in Oklahoma--people ask me: Why can't you do better in Washington? Why can't you bring both parties together and avoid the waste and the acrimony and rancor and the gridlock that is the reason for this judicial vacancy crisis? We need to come together and avoid the kind of paralysis that has such lasting and damaging effects on our judiciary. The President has done his work in recommending qualified nominees to this body. The Judiciary Committee has done its work in reporting many of these judicial nominees to the floor, in many cases with unanimous support. Despite that unanimous support, those nominations languish here. As we speak, 19 judicial nominations are still pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar. Mr. President, 16 of those nominations were reported unanimously to the floor and all but 2 of them are consensus nominees who received strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. They have been blocked by the Republican minority. They have been blocked from up-or-down votes. They have been denied those up-or-down votes. That is unfair not only to them but to the American people. It is damaging to this country. It undermines the independence of the judiciary, its credibility and respect. It causes delays in the decisions on cases that vitally affect ordinary men and women who come to our Federal courts for justice. The old saying ``justice delayed is justice denied'' holds true whether it is the great historic cases of this country or the ordinary, mundane, routine cases that involve injuries to individual plaintiffs or defendants. And it discourages qualified people from permitting their names to be placed in nomination. The uncertainty of those delays, the need to put their lives on hold, when they are lawyers in private practice or judges serving on the bench now, causes a severe disincentive that deters qualified people from beginning this uncertain process. Outside of Washington, there is a clear consensus that the Senate must do better. Outside of the Senate, there is a clear consensus that we need bipartisan cooperation. Not just among politically elected leaders, but the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, members of the bar on both sides of the aisle all agree we must move these nominations. So I call on my colleagues, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done, to do better. President Obama has nominated qualified members of the bar to serve on our district courts, including, most recently, Michael Shea of my State to replace Judge Droney, who has just been confirmed as a member of the court of appeals. Judge Droney's nomination waited here on the Senate calendar for 130 days, despite the clear consensus in his favor. Eventually, he was confirmed by a vote of 88 to 0. That delay, in turn, caused a delay to the nomination of a district court judge to replace him. I am hopeful Michael Shea will be confirmed expeditiously. We should never minimize the importance of careful vetting and scrutiny when it comes to these nominees. But once that process is complete in the Judiciary Committee, blocking these nominees can only be bad for the American people, as well as for the 160 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies whose nominees are sitting on the Senate calendar. They should not have their ability to access justice denied or delayed. We should reduce the burdens on our courts as quickly as possible so our system of justice will continue to be--and justifiably--regarded as one of the great marvels in the history of democracy, of governance in this world, on this planet. Our nominees deserve prompt and fair consideration by the full Senate, and I am hopeful the Senate will do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I wish to join in acknowledging Senator Kirk's contribution to this amendment. The reason I have offered it is very simply to send a message and have the effect that no corrupt elected official, no official convicted of a felony in connection with his official duties as a Member of Congress should receive one dime of taxpayer money. And that breach of law should have consequences. I join in asking for a voice vote.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from New York, and my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Brown, for their superb leadership on this issue, and I am very pleased to strongly support the underlying bill. Amendment No. 1498 to Amendment No. 1470 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1498.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, essentially this amendment, very simply and directly, assures that Members of Congress who may be prosecuted and convicted of the offenses specified in the amendment also should see their pensions revoked, along with potentially other crimes that they may have committed. The purpose essentially is to assure the credibility of Congress by revoking pensions of corrupt Members of Congress, not only those who may be convicted under this pending bill--insider trading--but also a variety of other public corruption offenses. In fact, the amendment adds 22 new public corruption offenses to existing law that merit the cancellation or revoking of congressional pensions. I have worked with Senator Kirk, who, unfortunately, could not be with us today. He and his staff have been integral. It is a bipartisan- proposed statute that is similar to one I worked to enact in Connecticut when I was the attorney general there. The guiding principle is absolutely crystal clear, consistent with the basic measure we are considering: not one dime of taxpayer money should go to corrupt elected officials. Over the past 50 years, Members of Congress have been convicted of 16 separate felonies. So the need for this measure is considerable, even if it is a small minority of the Members of Congress. In fact, right now, approximately $800,000 a year is paid to Members of Congress who have been convicted of these kinds of felonies. So I wish to particularly thank Senator Kirk and quote him since he could not be here today. He said, earlier this year, of this legislation: American taxpayers should not be on the hook for the pension benefits of convicted felons. Expanding current law to include additional public corruption felonies will block pension benefits for Members who fail to honor their pledge to defend the Constitution and uphold the laws of the United States. Once you have violated the public trust in that way, I think that the taxpayers should not be supporting your retirement. In short, very simply, a breach of law by an elected official is a serious offense that should have consequences. Taxpayers should not pay for the retirement benefits of elected officials convicted of a felony--Members of Congress, anyone else--especially as the United States faces the soaring deficits that it does now and the crippling debt that grows even higher. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. In closing, people speak through their legislature. The judiciary struck down a measure through which the people spoke to place those limits on the ability of corporations to shape results, and the judiciary now should be overturned through a constitutional amendment that restores the Democratic voice of the people as a whole. I yield the floor.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to follow the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington who has spoken so powerfully on this issue, which is especially appropriate at this time because we do mark the 2-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous and misguided decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision strikes at the core of democratic ideals and principles, not just because it opens the floodgates for money that can drown out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans in the political process, but it also demonstrates the results of judicial activism at its worst. In that case, the Court, by a 5-to-4 margin, held that corporations have a first amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money in the service of political candidates and that those rights cannot be abridged by placing limits on their independent spending for political purposes. This decision not only expanded the ability of wealthy individuals and large corporations to flood out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans, it also reversed nearly a century of existing law and struck down the validly approved--by this Congress--Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, approved in 2002. The purpose of that act was to limit the corrosive influence of money on our political process that has been discussed and denounced by Members of this body again and again and again and by the President of the United States as recently as a couple nights ago. This decision, in my view, was wrong as a matter of law as well as policy. It enables unlimited anonymous money to be contributed in support of or opposition to candidates. It allows the wealthy and powerful to have a disproportionate voice in the most important and fundamental aspect of our democracy--a free and fair election that counts everyone's vote equally. The shock waves of that decision in Citizens United are reverberating now with increasing impact throughout our political system. We can see them every day, literally, in the ads that appear on TV in major markets in the primary States and throughout the country that could and would--might as well be in the voices of the candidates themselves. Outside groups spent four times as much money in the 2010 midterms as in the 2006 midterms--nearly $300 million. Nearly half of the money spent in the 2010 elections was spent by just 10 groups. Outside spending per race tilted in favor of the winning candidate in 60 of the 75 contests last year where power changed hands. This impact is visible and tangible, undeniable in our political process. It is right before us, as visible as the desks and people in this Chamber. That impact can be expected to grow dramatically in 2013, as spending in the Presidential years is typically much higher than in the midterm elections. According to opensecrets.org, which tracks political spending, as of today, 296 groups organized as super PACs have already reported spending nearly $41 million on the upcoming election. These super PACs are banned from explicitly coordinating with the candidate they support, but they are operated and controlled by supporters, many of them former staff members. Their collaboration and confederacy are no less impactful because of that rule barring explicit coordination. We must act to limit the destructive effects of Citizens United before it permanently alters the nature of our political system, undermining it forever and eviscerating the fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by our Constitution. I am a strong proponent of legislative proposals to force corporations and individuals to disclose their enormous donations and expenditures to the public--a number of them have been mentioned by my colleagues--and I support them. The Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United naively argued that voters could readily learn the identity of companies behind these corporate-funded political advertisements. But the fact is otherwise. Nearly half of the $300 million spent by outside groups in 2006 came from groups that did not disclose their funding source. We must pass disclosure legislation immediately to at least allow sunshine to rein in the worst excesses of this new system, to give ordinary Americans the knowledge they need so that disclosure protects their freedom. But I also believe we need to go further, and that is why I am a cosponsor of the constitutional amendment that would reverse this decision. The amendment, S.J. Res. 29, would reiterate what we all believed the law to be before Citizens United. That resolution clarifies, and the amendment would do so, that Congress does indeed have the power ``to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections and that States have the authority with regard to State elections to do the same.'' I know that amending the Constitution is not easy, and supporting a proposed amendment is not something I do lightly. But, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has clearly demonstrated that it will permit unchecked corporate power over elections, and the task is then for Congress and the States and the people to restrain such spending and thereby rein in the Supreme Court. Many have seen Citizens United as an expression of the U.S. Supreme Court's judicial activism in favor of well-funded and well-lawyered corporations, often at the expense of vulnerable Americans, and there is support for that view of the Supreme Court trend in decisions. In AT&T v. Concepcion, it expanded the ability of companies to force consumers into secretive binding arbitration agreements. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, it restricted the ability of similarly situated persons, including female employees who faced discrimination in the workplace, to ban together and seek redress against a powerful company. In PLIVA v. Mensing, a case involving a woman who sustained injuries from a drug company's failure to properly disclose the risk of a generic drug, the Court sided with the drug companies, holding that a generic drug company is not liable under State law for failing to notify the FDA or the consumer about newly discovered risks of the drug. In Sorrell v. IMF Health, the Court overturned a Vermont law intended to prevent improper and invasive practices of drug companies tracking doctors' prescriptions to patients. Just 2 weeks ago, in CompuCredit v. Greenberg, the Court halted a class action lawsuit by consumers who signed up for a credit card marketed to individuals with poor credit histories. Each of those decisions and others has been interpreted as part of a pattern that led the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing a few months ago entitled: ``Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings will Affect Corporate Behavior.'' But more important than that perception and the appearance of that favoritism in judicial activism is the activism itself, the potential overreaching that undermines the faith and confidence of people in the Court. Citizens United exemplifies judicial activism at its worst. People want limits on the corrosive and corrupting influence of money. They want restraints on the power of corporations and wealthy individuals to fund----