Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to proceed with remarks on the student debt and loan issue, and I will be brief because I know it is late. There have been some very remarkable and eloquent remarks and personal stories about the meaning of college education.

My dad came to this country in 1955 at the age of 17 without even a high school degree. He never had one. He spoke very little or no English and had virtually nothing more than the shirt on his back and knew no one. Throughout his life one of his highest aspirations was for his children, my brother and me, to have a college education. He valued it almost more than anything else that he could hope for us to have. It was part of his dream. For him and countless immigrants and countless working men and women born in this country for decades, a college education has been part of the American dream, part of the fair shot that every American should have, an economic opportunity at self- fulfillment and developing their full potential because that is what education helps us to do. That is the reason why Americans are going into debt at unprecedented levels, because they believe in that American dream and the fair shot that it gives people through opportunity in this greatest Nation in the history of the world. It is part of our DNA as Americans that we aspire to educate and fulfill all of our potential, which benefits not only us but the whole country and all of our society.

The average level of debt in Connecticut is about $27,000-- calamitously bad not only for those individuals but also for our Nation. For the individuals it means that financially crippling burden stops them from marrying at the time they wish, having children when they might like, starting businesses, buying homes, and moving forward with their lives. Who can start a small business with tens of thousands of dollars of debt? Risk taking is constrained and straitjacketed. People's personal lives are affected and changed forever.

Student debt today has increased concurrently to approximately $1.2 trillion in this country. What we are doing in this proposal by providing a fair shot to those folks who have debt now and those who will incur it in the future is simply enabling them to do what people are able to do with other kinds of debt, whether it is their homes or their cars--to refinance so that they get the benefit of lower interest rates so they avoid that financially crippling burden saddling their lives so that they are able to buy homes, start families, and begin businesses in ways that benefit them and everyone in our society.

There is another dark side of this conversation which is that the American government profits off the backs of students who have incurred debt and who are beginning their lives in debt right now. In fact, the United States profits from these loans even at 3.86 percent. So the stark crass fact is that even with this relief that we are suggesting and proposing and agitating to

give to these students who have debt now, graduates that are out there with debt with 8, 10, some 11 or 12 percent interest rates, the U.S. Government will still make money from those loans--less money but the loans are still profit-making.

We should regard higher education as an investment in the future and not a revenue source or profit source. We should regard students as an investment--a personnel investment, a human resources investment, to put it again in crass business terms--that will pay off for years, not as immediate profit centers. That kind of wise investment looks beyond this quarter or next quarter. It looks to the human revenue in quality of life and contributions and new inventions that will change our lives for the better, in a more productive workplace that will make our companies more successful and profitable.

I hear from people all around the State of Connecticut. I got a stirring and moving email today from Bob in Naugatuck who told me his granddaughter has a student loan that he has cosigned and therefore he is potentially liable for it. Dean told me about his master's degree and that he is $55,000 in debt, struggling to support his family with his wife. Between them they have four jobs.

Alese, a mother of three, went back to school when her children were young because she ``wanted to make sure they had an example to follow when they finished high school.'' She is now $46,000 in debt.

As much as our economy is recovering, these folks are in danger of being left behind.

There are other measures that we should adopt, such as the uniform forms for college costs that will fully inform people about what debt they are incurring, the Pell grant expansion, the bills mentioned for net price calculated, and expanding other types of grants. We should take a step forward to provide a fair shot for all Americans in this measure that enables refinancing of loans that otherwise will crush our human potential and leave us poorer as a Nation.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin.

Madam President, I think many of my colleagues feel very at home with this image, which is a reminder of a household name-- Ramona and her father. It is a great story written by Beverly Cleary. In fact, it is a prize-winning story, part of a series, and my favorite of the series, Ramona the Pest, was written in 1968.

In 1968 and in this story Ramona's dad is struggling, along with his wife Dorothy--his name is Robert--to get by and keep the family together on a minimum wage job, which in 1968 paid $1.60 an hour. Today the minimum wage, if it had kept pace with inflation, would be $10.71 an hour.

We know, many of us--and probably many of my colleagues who have read this story--that Robert and Dorothy Quimby are engaged in a quiet struggle to make ends meet. Even as Ramona is engaged in all kinds of antics and play, he is working as a grocery bagger at a local store. Ramona's mother is working too--an early example of a two-family household and two-income family. They are able to keep their family afloat on that minimum wage in 1968--$1.60 an hour in 1968.

For millions of Americans who read Ramona's story today, the idea of a minimum wage enabling a family to stay afloat, keep a roof over their heads, and food on the table is a storybook fiction. It is very difficult today to believe that Robert Quimby, as a bagger in a grocery store, could enable his daughters, Ramona and her sister, to have the life they did then. In fact, it would be impossible because today the minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. The minimum wage today is $7.25--nowhere near what it would need to be to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living.

That is why we are here today--to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, which is still below the $10.71 it would have been for Robert Quimby, making minimum wage in a grocery store, if it had kept pace with inflation. In fact, it is well below what is necessary to enable families to continue a normal life. That is why they are living in poverty--working men and women living in poverty--despite being paid the minimum wage. That is a travesty and a mockery. It is a moral outrage. It is bad for our economy, it is bad for our families, it is bad for the fabric of our society, and it is bad for America.

I am proud to support an increase in the minimum wage. I am proud Connecticut has decided it will raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour--still below that $10.71 that is needed to get by today.

We know the impact on families. We know the impact on children. We see them in our schools--millions of children, 14 million children--in families who are paid less than a minimum wage. We know the impact on our veterans. Half a million or more are paid less than the new minimum wage our bill would establish. That is itself an outrage. Men and women who have served and sacrificed for our country come back to civilian life to be paid less than what they need to stay out of poverty. They are working and working hard but still making less than a minimum wage. These are veterans who have served our country, who have put their lives on the line, have put themselves at risk, coming back to a society that rewards them--rewards them--with less than what they need to survive.

I have talked to a lot of businesspeople. Some of them are apprehensive, no question about it, but a lot of them say: Our workers are more productive because we pay well above the minimum wage.

Many who will be impacted by this law if it is passed say it is the right thing to do, and they support it. I am talking about, for example, Max Kothari. For 25 years he, along with his wife Parul, has owned and operated Star Hardware in Hartford--one of the oldest hardware stores in the State of Connecticut. He supports this measure to raise the minimum wage to $10.10.

So does Doug Wade, who operates one of the oldest dairy companies in the State, started by Doug's great-grandfather in 1893--Wade's Dairy in Bridgeport. He supports raising the minimum wage.

A thousand businesspeople have signed a statement and petition--we mentioned it this morning--that supports raising the minimum wage. They say it is a fairness issue. It is simply a

way to give folks a fair shot at the American dream, a fair shot at a quality of life that is good for their families and children, good for our society, and, by the way, also good for our economy.

We know that $35 billion would be added to consumer demand because folks who make minimum wage, if it is raised to $10.10, are not going to put the difference under their mattresses. They are going to spend it. They are going to buy more food, clothing, and gas for their cars. They are going to buy things that drive the economy. They are going to purchase stuff that creates demand and more jobs and business for Max Kothari at his hardware store and for Dough Wade at his dairy.

This kind of reasoning is not advanced economic theory; it is basic common sense. Americans understand it. That is why Americans support raising the minimum wage as a matter of fairness and enlightened self- interest economically. It is the right thing to do.

The arguments made against it are without basis rationally and economically. The ones who suffer from the minimum wage as it exists right now are not teenagers. I know there is a myth that they are part- time workers or teenagers. That is just not true. Nearly ninety percent of minimum wage workers are adults. They are disproportionately women and people of color and workers with disabilities, and they will be helped disproportionately by raising the minimum wage. But they are not teenagers or part-time workers. They are deserving, for the hard work they do, of fair pay and a fair shot. That is all the minimum wage would really do, is give them a fair shot at economic opportunity.

And those veterans, they deserve more than a fair shot. They deserve a hand up, not a handout. There is nothing about the minimum wage that is an entitlement. It is simply fair pay and a fair shot. We have trapped half a million of those veterans in poverty--3,800 veterans in Connecticut alone who will benefit from the $10.10 minimum wage.

But we should guarantee that in this great land--the greatest in the history of the world--people such as Ramona's dad, Robert Quimby, and Dorothy Quimby and her sister are being paid at least what they were getting back in 1968 in today's dollars. That is the way to keep families together. That is the way to keep faith with the dream all Americans have that they will have a fair shot.

No one who works full time should live in poverty. No one who works should be so poor that they can't put food on the table or provide clothes for their children, or give them the erasers that Robert Quimby gave his daughters as a gift.

To enable 14 million children in America to have a better life, let's pass this measure. And let's make sure that if it fails this week--and it shouldn't, but if it does, we bring it back, and we continue to bring it back as long as necessary to ensure a fair shot for all Americans who work hard and play by the rules.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in just a couple of hours in Milford, CT, at 7 p.m. this evening there will be a vigil that will bring together many different members of the Milford community to celebrate, mourn, and grieve the life of a beautiful young woman who suffered a senseless and brutal death last Friday morning. In this inexplicable act of violence, she was killed by a fellow classmate shortly after 7 in the morning.

Jonathan Law High School was turned into a crime scene as members of the emergency responder team--first the police and then the medics-- sought to save her life. Tragically and unfortunately, they were unable to do so. The evening that was to be their junior prom instead became a vigil.

We will perhaps never know what prompted this horrific and unimaginable act of brutality. This horrific event has united and brought together people who are now mourning Maren's death.

We know with certainty what a wonderful human being Maren Sanchez was, and we also know this community has shown strength and courage by coming together and uniting to help each other--particularly those students who knew her. We also know with certainty how gifted, talented, compassionate, and caring she was as

the manager of sports teams, a gifted singer, an athlete, school president, and an honor student. Her whole future was ahead of her. Most remarkably, she was a person of consummate caring and compassion for her fellow students. Those students struggle today to make some sense of this violence, to derive some meaning and maybe some comfort.

I went to Jonathan Law High School yesterday for part of the afternoon and spoke with Chief of Police Keith Mello, whose men and women have helped the community so deeply; the mayor of Milford Ben Blake, who has demonstrated leadership in this crisis; the superintendent of schools and principal of Jonathan Law High School; and the many teachers and parents and students and the grief counselors and therapists who came to speak with those students and help them to think and live through this horrible tragedy.

What is remarkable and so impressed me yesterday was the love and caring that people from disparate parts of this community showed for each other and continue to show in this testing time. This is a time of extraordinary adversity and tragedy. People who might otherwise be strangers are drawn together by the thread of grief and will reform the fabric of a community by simple acts of caring. They are united today in their grief and bewilderment. They are seeking to honor Maren's legacy and sustain it with the very qualities of courage, strength, caring, and compassion she demonstrated throughout her life. Those qualities of caring, compassion, courage, and strength will see them through this tragedy as they come together for the vigil tonight.

We can all honor the legacy of this remarkable young woman by looking for ways to make the world better, as she sought to do, and filling it with song and color, the lust for life, and the joy and pride in her contemporary accomplishments.

We need to search for steps we can take to make our schools better and safer. The time to talk about policy or steps to better school safety will come, and I hope we will all be a part of that continuing effort in exploring how to protect anyone and everyone who comes to school, which should be a haven of safety and insulated from violence-- particularly against the most vulnerable members of our community. But those policy responses can wait until after the days of grief and mourning have passed as we celebrate this remarkable young life. She was described by members of her class as an angel. Her cousin Edward Kovac said on Friday:

Maren should be celebrating at her prom this evening with

her friends and classmates. Instead, we are mourning her

death and we are trying to understand this senseless loss of

life.

He said:

She was a bright light full of hope and dreams. In fact,

she was among the brightest of lights, full of the most

wondrous hopes and dreams.

So today my heart and prayers are with her family, her friends, the Milford community, as they gather for this vigil tonight. Separated by distance, I will be with them in spirit, as I know my colleagues who know of this tragedy will be as well. This kind of tragedy is indecipherable, incomprehensible to young men and women--16-year-olds-- but equally so to all of us of any age. My hope is that we will honor Maren Sanchez's legacy, that our hearts and prayers will go to her family, her parents, and all who knew her and all who would like to have known her because she was such a remarkable and wonderful human being.

Thank you. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the life and legacy of Paul Pawlak, Sr. I knew Paul from my work in Connecticut State government. He was a dedicated public servant and family man who worked on behalf of the town of Seymour and the State of Connecticut for his entire life.

Living in Seymour, the town where he graduated from high school, Paul worked as an electrician for more than 40 years. During that time, he also tirelessly served his community in public office, serving as first selectman for 4 years, as second selectman for 8 years, Chairman of Seymour's Board of Education for 12 years, and a member of the Connecticut House of Representatives for 12 years. In the State legislature, he placed particular importance on protecting our natural environment, serving as chair of the Water Resources Committee and helping to fight pollution with the Clean Waters Act.

Paul also believed in the importance of public health and of strong and responsive public institutions to maintain it. He was the first chairman of the Lower Naugatuck Valley Public Health Department, as well as a member of the board of directors of the Public Health Nursing and Homemaker's Services. And he understood that all these institutions needed to work together and cooperate in order to accomplish their missions. He helped to form the Valley Council of Governments and served as its first chairman.

Paul's passing is mourned by all those who knew him and the many people whose lives he affected for the better through his work. Of course, however, those who will miss him the most are those who were closest to him: his wife Mildred, his brother Andrew, his children Paul Jr., Joseph, David, and Richard, and the many other family members and friends he leaves behind.

For his service to Connecticut, and for the legacy of good work and family loyalty that he created, I honor Paul Pawlak, and I know that he will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, I want to begin by remarking on the extraordinary and remarkable triumph of the UConn men's basketball team last night--a victory that is beyond my words to describe--and the achievement it represents for those players, for the school, for coach Kevin Ollie, and for the entire university, particularly in the face of last year's disqualification--unfair and unjustified, in my view.

I am so proud of our team and the University of Connecticut for its steadfast and relentless pursuit of this national championship, which last night culminated in a huge and joyous triumph felt throughout Connecticut and, in fact, throughout the country.

I will be commenting in greater length and depth on how this achievement reflects on the University of Connecticut, what it means to college athletics, and what lessons we can take from this great triumph.

In the meantime, I am wearing my University of Connecticut tie with the emblem of the Huskies because last night's triumph is only a prelude to tonight.

UConn is rolling with momentum toward two national championships. The women, I believe, will prevail tonight, and I expect to collect on another debt--the debt owed to me already by my colleagues from Kentucky I think will be supplemented tomorrow--and I will ask that my Kentucky colleague, Senator Paul, wear this tie, if only for a brief moment, to demonstrate who was the better team last night. They are both great teams, but Connecticut was the greatest.

Mr. President, I am here this morning on a very serious and important subject--the Paycheck Fairness Act. I thank my colleagues who were with me earlier today at an event we attended. The President is doing an event right now. He has announced he will require all Federal contractors to follow the rule that there should be no retaliation against people in the workplace who share information about their pay. It sounds like a basic principle of fairness but, unfortunately, the law has gaps that permit discrimination--gender discrimination, unequal pay for the same work. So today on Equal Pay Day, I am here to advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will help fill some of those gaps.

This issue is not a man's issue, it is not a woman's issue. It is a family issue. It is not about women, it is about paycheck fairness. So it is as much about men as it is about women. Right now 40 percent of all our families are supported by women either as the sole or primary breadwinner. That means the children in those families, and the men, depend on that income and on the fairness of their paychecks to keep a roof over their head and to keep food on the table.

Paycheck fairness is about a fair shot--a fair shot for every woman and

every person in American society. It is part of a larger agenda which includes raising the minimum wage, which we still have to do, and restoring unemployment insurance, which the Senate did yesterday but we still have to do in the House. That larger agenda about a fair shot goes to the core of the American conscience about what is right, but it also happens to be what is economically smart. Paying women equal to men for the same work means that women will come to jobs and they will work better in those jobs, more productively. Women have so much to contribute in jobs where they serve equally or better than men.

Unfortunately, the promise of the Equal Pay Act, signed in 1963 by President Kennedy, has yet to be achieved. That promise was that equality would prevail in the workplace. Yet 51 years later the disparities are glaring, the gaps between gender pay are unacceptable and inexcusable. Women make only 77 percent of every dollar earned by men. The disparity is even greater in certain professions. In the janitorial profession, among supervisors, and among CEOs, women make 70 cents or less on the dollar. The same is true among financial advisers and among product inspectors. So the disparities cut across all professions. In fact, in 97 percent of all professions, women make less on average than men. That is why we must work to change the law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would accomplish a number of very simple straightforward goals. No. 1, it would enable workers to share information without fear of retaliation. Right now, a worker can be fired or demoted if he or she shares information about what they are making. The Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009 advanced these goals and made some progress, but this threat of retaliation is real and completely unconscionable and it should be directly prohibited by law.

Second, the burden should be on the employer to establish that pay disparities are business related or job specific. Those disparities ought to be the job of the employer to justify, not the employee. After all, it is not the employee who makes those decisions, it is the employer. So the employer ought to be the one to present a justification based on objective and real business-related or job- specific factors.

Finally, the Paycheck Fairness Act provides for punitive damages. Only by establishing punitive damages can the evil and harm done by pay discrimination be effectively deterred. The economic penalty will discourage employers by providing real consequences for their discrimination.

This issue is really an American issue that has resonance coast to coast, job to job, and person to person, but mostly it has resonance among families. The estimates are that eliminating the gender pay gap will reduce poverty among families headed by single working mothers from 28.7 percent to 15 percent. It will reduce poverty, most importantly, among children. It will give those children a leg up that they lack now. It will give their moms a sense of justified dignity and self-respect. It will make a practical difference in the lives of families, raising the self-respect and dignity of men as well as women. If they are the beneficiaries of false factors, simple gender discrimination, how can they justify the additional pay that they as men make?

Discovering and proving discrimination is a formidable, daunting, sometimes insurmountable challenge. Discovering it is difficult enough. That is why sharing of information is necessary. Proving it is sometimes virtually impossible without the kind of law the Paycheck Fairness Act will provide, the rights and making those rights real that can be achieved, ending systemic pay discrimination that undermines and disserves our entire society. It demeans all of us. It fails to give people a fair shot when that is the ethos, the core conscience of American economic profit. A fair shot is not only fair, it is smart. It will promote jobs and economic growth, which all of us deeply want and deserve.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 9:45 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Advanced Biofuels: Creating Jobs and Lower Prices at the Pump.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Taxpayers from Incompetent and Unethical Return Preparers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``National Security and Foreign Policy Priorities in the FY 2015 International Affairs Budget.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 8, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.

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

Madam President, yesterday's hearing of the commerce committee's subcommittee on consumer safety provided a powerful and important moment in our legislative process, and I want to thank my colleague, the chairman of that subcommittee, Chairman McCaskill, for enabling us to come together, as well as my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Senators Klobuchar and Boxer and Ayotte, for their very insightful and significant questions and comments on a challenge that should unite us on both sides of the aisle--the tragic events, death and life-changing injuries to unsuspecting drivers who were victims of a defective ignition switch in automobiles manufactured by GM; a car defect that should have been fixed, disclosed, and remedied before these deaths occurred.

I want to thank the families of the victims of these defective cars for coming forward and being at that hearing yesterday and sharing their stories with me and others. They are doing a great public service through their courage and strength.

I want to also thank Mary Barra, the CEO of GM. As I said to her then, and I will repeat now, I admire her fortitude and her service in coming forward to face the questions of our committee and be the face of General Motors on the issues that confront us now in car safety. I admire her career at GM--an engineer who has risen through the ranks, a second-generation employee at an iconic, great American manufacturing company.

I have long admired that company and the products it has produced. They have enriched the lives of so many Americans over the years. My hope is this hearing and this process will be a turning point for the company in facing these car safety challenges.

I admire greatly also its dealers and employees. Some of them have contacted me, especially Connecticut dealers, telling me how they are reaching out proactively to the drivers of these defective vehicles, asking them to bring them to their company so they can be repaired before they do further damage.

This great company can reclaim its iconic brand and luster by breaking with its past, and Mary Barra has the opportunity for this historic contribution. As I said to her yesterday, she may be surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers and public relations people who will advise her to be cautious, to be timid, and to be reactive, but now is the time for her to seize the initiative and take three simple steps as a beginning.

No. 1, establish a compensation fund for all who have suffered damage from this defective ignition switch which caused cars to crash, some of them to burn--victims who have suffered injuries and death as well as economic damage. No. 2, provide a warning--a clear, strong warning--to drivers still behind the wheels of vehicles that still have this defective ignition switch. The cars are under recall but unrepaired. People are still driving them, many not knowing the full risk they have undertaken by continuing to drive. A strong warning to ground those vehicles until they are repaired is what is needed now.

Third, support our legislation. Senator Markey and I have offered legislation that would provide for better reporting by car companies, a stronger accountability system, and better disclosure through a database to consumers so they will know what the risks are before they take them and can make informed choices about what they drive and when.

These steps are well warranted by the past misconduct of GM, but they are also potentially a model for other companies in doing the right thing--facing the truth, telling truth to power, and making sure innocent consumers are protected against harms that may not be known to them.

She had the opportunity to break with the past culture--a culture of deniability and of deception. Deception is what happened at GM. These ignition switches were known to be defective. As early as 2001, year after year there were reliable and material facts indicating to GM it had a responsibility to fix these vehicles. Yet they took no action to repair them, to recall them, to inform consumers. And the fix was not a major costly one. It was $2 per vehicle--easily done. Yet in 2005, 2006, GM made a business decision that the price was too high, the time was too long, and it continued to provide those vehicles for sale to consumers.

Then it deceived the U.S. Government. I have already spoken on the floor about section 612 of the agreement GM signed that indicated there were no material adverse facts at the time it was bailed out in 2009 as part of the reorganization. That deception is bad enough, but what happened as a result of that reorganization was a shield from liability, a form of immunity against legal accountability granted only because GM failed to disclose to the United States and to the bankruptcy court that it might well be liable and in fact was responsible for these defective vehicles. That shield from liability still bedevils the victims of injuries, death, and economic damage as they seek to hold GM accountable because GM itself is invoking that shield in courts today around the country and seeking to dismiss actions brought against it, seeking to return them to the bankruptcy court where the black hole of discharge will prevent recovery.

I welcome the independent investigation GM has undertaken by a very credible and respected former U.S. attorney. I welcome the appointment of consultant Ken Feinberg, also well respected, with experience and expertise in providing compensation. But GM itself has still said there is no compensation fund and it will not commit to one. And as able as these two individuals are, the question remains, what will it take? What facts or evidence will be required to persuade GM to do the right thing?

I think there is more than ample evidence--in fact, abundant evidence now--as to what the path should be, and I urged it yesterday on Mary Barra. GM should very simply do the right thing now: Establish a compensation fund sufficient to seek to make these victims whole. Nothing will erase or even ease the pain and grief suffered by these families and loved ones, but justice has its own virtue. GM has the rare opportunity in American corporate life to do justice and not wait for its consultants and its investigators to ``work through the issues here.'' Working through the issues here means doing right by those victims.

Yesterday I asked Ms. Barra about the safety of the vehicles still on the road. She assured me they were fine to drive--as long as the key was not overloaded, as long as the ignition switch was used alone without additional keys. She assured me there was no more risk to drive one of those vehicles than any other in use today.

I asked her about the contradiction of that statement with the recall notice itself. I am going to display it here. It says that these vehicles are risky to drive, in effect, if your keyring is carrying added weight or--and I emphasize that it is an ``or''--there are rough road conditions or jarring or impact-related events.

Unfortunately, too many of our highways and our byways have rough road conditions or provide the opportunity for jarring events.

Ms. Barra may believe tests and analyses done by her company she referred to yesterday assured her and GM that driving these defective vehicles is safe as long as it is done with only the ignition key, without the added weight of additional keys, but she must know, because she has children--as do I and most Members of this body--that they will drive with additional keys on that ignition switch. In fact, hundreds of thousands--millions of Americans have no idea that driving these vehicles with

added keys provides that kind of potentially fatal risk. When these cars lose power, they lose steering, they lose their brakes, and they lose their airbags. Losing power, brakes, and steering is terrifying, but airbags are essential if power is lost and the car crashes, as victims of these crashes have discovered, to their sorrow and the grief of their families.

This kind of pothole, a rough road condition, a potentially jarring event--how common are they? This photograph is from Surf Avenue in Stratford, a beautiful town along the coast of Connecticut. I could take hundreds of these photographs from Connecticut, which has better roads than many other places in our State or country. They are as common as the roads themselves.

Those risks are GM's responsibility to warn. It has failed to do so. I asked Ms. Barra what evidence or facts would persuade her to issue a stronger warning. The recall notice itself said that risk increases if your keyring is carrying added weight--such as more keys or the key fob itself; the key fob alone adds additional weight--or your vehicle is experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact-related events. What would persuade her to issue this warning to consumers: Stop driving these cars until they are repaired.

I specifically asked her whether evidence about drivers who have, in fact, experienced the power loss without adding additional weight to their keyrings--if they encountered these kinds of conditions and their cars shut down--would persuade her to change her view. She answered to me:

Senator, if I had any data, any incidents where with just

the key, or the key and the ring, there was any risk, I

would ground these vehicles across the country.

Ms. Barra, let me tell you about Laura Valle. In March of 2014, Ms. Valle, who owns a 2007 silver Chevrolet Cobalt, received GM's recall letter instructing her to remove all items from her keyring, leaving only the vehicle key. As the recall notice instructed, she continued to drive her vehicle using only the vehicle key. Yet, while driving with a friend, she lost power. Fortunately, she was on the right side of the road and she was able to pull the vehicle to a stop.

There will be other instances. I know they will come forward to me, to my colleagues, and to lawyers who may represent them.

Today I call on GM to issue that warning. There is more than ample evidence or, as Ms. Barra said, ``data,'' ``incidents'' where the key or just the key and the ring led to the vehicle stopping not because there was added weight but because they encountered rough road conditions or jarring events, which could consist of simply leaning the wrong way or the driver's knee moving.

These vehicles create unacceptable risks before they are repaired. The advice GM should give to people is this: Bring these cars to be repaired immediately. Stop driving them. In the meantime, use the loaners GM has offered.

GM has the opportunity to avoid another business decision. It may be more costly to provide loaners, but in the long run they will save lives and dollars.

Finally, I ask GM to do the right thing again by supporting the legislation Senator Markey and I have introduced. This legislation is critically important to the future. It can't correct the past, but it can make sure that accidents are reported; that defects are made known to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration; and that there are not only incentives for reporting but there is increased accountability for failing to do so; and require NHTSA to establish a publicly accessible, searchable database that will allow drivers and consumer safety advocates to connect the dots. Companies that are unwilling to connect those dots will be brought to justice, will be required to recall these vehicles and find out about defective models in time to save lives.

Ms. Barra has not yet committed to supporting this bill. In my view, it is her responsibility to do so. It is the responsibility of GM to take this action now. She and GM have the opportunity to change corporate culture not only in that company but in others by setting a model--leading by example, not by their words at a Senate hearing or letters of apology but by action. Action speaks louder than words. Action speaks louder than the appointment of a consultant or an investigator whose report may not be made fully public.

Ms. Barra was unwilling to make that commitment yesterday. It is a corporate culture that refused to make a 57-cent change to car ignitions--or a $2 change--even though that change would have saved lives. Now is the time to hold GM accountable, for GM to issue that warning that will help save others from a fate known only too well by those families who came to be with us yesterday.

I look forward to working with Ms. Barra, GM, my colleagues, and with all who are interested in improving car safety and to using this sad, tragic, unfortunate experience as a turning point and a teaching moment--a rare moment--of bipartisan action to make our roads safer.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to follow the Presiding Officer, my good friend Senator Schumer of New York, and my colleague and friend Senator Murphy of Connecticut to talk about an issue that really affects quality of life, our pocketbooks, and our environment.

But first I wish to join my colleague from New York in paying tribute to

one of the great transportation advocates, indeed one of the great public servants of our time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who preceded me as chairman of a critical subcommittee on the commerce committee which has authority and jurisdiction over surface transportation.

I am tremendously honored to have followed him in that role, and my mission and ambition is to be as effective and eloquent and ardent as he was in this cause. It is a cause that brings us together as a nation, as my colleague from New York has so eloquently said. We are better when we come together as a nation and the railroads provide arteries carrying the lifeblood of our economy. Not only is the train used for commuters going to work and riders going to visit relatives and enjoying tourism, traveling, vacations, and other benefits of this great Nation, but it also transports the freight that is critical to carry goods and services.

We know the infrastructure is aging all across the country. We are, in effect, transporting goods and services, products and people, commuters and riders in the 21st century using 20th century equipment, tracks, and other infrastructure. We are talking, indeed, about the economic lifeblood of our Nation, which has linked us coast to coast, north to south, and east to west in ways that are not only economically material and tangible but also emotionally and psychologically vital to our present and our future.

These economic benefits will not continue. They are not an accident of history. They are the result of purposeful invention and investing, and we are challenged as a nation as to whether we will continue to invest to ensure that our railroads carry our freight and our people to places they must go if we are to have economic growth and jobs in this Nation. No one knows this fact better than those who live on the Northeast corridor. It is among the busiest. In fact, the Metro-North line is the busiest in the Nation. It has bridges and tracks that are more than 100 years old, and tragically we have seen the consequences of lack of proper maintenance, management, and inspection of our infrastructure.

My colleague from New York has been a relentless and tireless advocate for improving rail service along the Northeast corridor and most particularly in the area of our region of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

The derailment in Bridgeport was a recent tragedy that resulted in the loss of lives and caused injuries as well as power outages which disrupted travel for as much as 13 days. These disruptions should lead to a new era of leadership at Metro-North, and hopefully it will.

Good management is the key to making this railroad work better than it has and making it safer and more reliable. Good management is vital, but money, along with management, is absolutely necessary. In fact, good management requires investing, and that is why we are here today-- not to talk about money for the sake of dollars and cents but the investment it means in the track, the bridges, the cars, and other equipment vital to make this railroad safer and more reliable.

We know some of this investment is small in amount. The Senator from New York and I have championed the idea of cameras facing inward and outward. Compared to the overall costs of investments, that one is relatively new. Likewise, alerters placed in cabs that operate the railroad cost relatively little, but other expenditures are much more substantial, and one of the problems is that money has been going into the system--money taken from the riders and users in the New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York area along the Northeast corridor has gone to the system as a whole.

As I mentioned at the beginning, far from begrudging the national system this kind of investment, we support it, but we need our fair share, which is necessary to make the investment that is critical to bridges such as Saugatuck, the Connecticut River, and the Norwalk River. These bridges contain movable components. They are important for marine traffic as well as rail. They are frequently opened and closed. They experience more stress than normal, and the resulting corrosion requires trains to use reduced speed. Repair and eventual replacement of many of these bridges will be crucial for keeping train traffic safe and reliable not only along the Northeast corridor but also freight and riders traveling from New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey to other parts of the east coast and indeed across the country.

It is a national investment, not just a Northeast investment. It is an investment we must make as a whole or our infrastructure will crumble and continue to erode.

I am proud to join my colleagues to urge that Amtrak's full funding request for fiscal year 2015 be granted. This amount will allow the Northeast corridor's operating revenue to be reinvested back where it is needed most--the Northeast corridor--and will simultaneously provide much needed Federal support for rail networks in the rest of the country.

A fair share is what the Northeast corridor needs and deserves. A fair share is what we are advocating. As my colleagues have explained, the support we offer and advocate for this Northeast corridor is a benefit to the whole country, and it is consistent with national support for railway travel which eliminates congestion on roads, raises the quality of our air, makes for safer travel, and maybe equally, if not more importantly, creates jobs.

This investment will help create jobs and drive economic growth in the jobs it creates directly and the jobs it enables along the route of travel.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this effort, and I know, in particular, that there is a bridge in New Jersey--a movable swing bridge along the Hackensack River between Kearny and Secaucus, NJ. I believe it is called the Portal Bridge. That Portal Bridge is a key linchpin in the Northeast corridor. Having a functional Portal Bridge is essential to me as a resident of Connecticut. When I go from Washington to New York and then to Connecticut, we are one country. We are united by that railroad, and that Portal Bridge is a key linchpin in the Northeast corridor. It is as important to me as it is to my colleague from New Jersey who has been--similar to Senator Lautenberg-- a tireless advocate for rail transportation, and he has done model work on improving rail transportation in this country.

I am happy to yield for the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.

Mr. President, in January of this year, I came to the floor to talk about and honor one of my constituents, Javier Martinez, who was killed on December 28 of last year, just as 2013 was ending. He was shot while walking to a friend's house in New Haven. He was 18 years old.

In the aftermath of that tragedy, I have spoken with Javier's family and his friends about his life and legacy. As I said on the Senate floor a few months ago, Javier was a kind and intelligent young man, well on his way to becoming a leader in his community. He cared a lot about the environment. He worked with the Nature Conservancy and the New Haven Urban Resources Initiative to plant trees and protect endangered species. His classmates at the Common Ground High School in New Haven would like to plant a tree at the site of his death and dedicate a garden in his honor because of his interest in the outdoors and the natural resources that enhance the beauty of our world, which he loved so much.

Yesterday morning I visited some of Javier's classmates at the Common Ground High School in New Haven. I spoke to a group of young people who were serious about ending gun violence because it is such a serious cause of heartbreak, grief, loss, and sacrifice--not just in New Haven, not just in Sandy Hook, but throughout our country in big and small towns, rural and urban neighborhoods, people from all backgrounds and different walks of life. I spoke to the Common Ground AP U.S. Government class, where the students and their teacher, Brian Kelahan, were kind enough to welcome me and share with me some of their views on gun violence and the justice system in this country. I told them what I firmly believe: that I have a duty to listen to them and to all people who live in Connecticut because they have a unique insight and a depth of understanding and perspective that should be shared here in Washington, DC, in this body and around the country.

It is my job to bring that perspective, those insights back to Washington. So I want to begin by showing my colleagues a picture of those Common Ground students who were Javier's classmates. This photograph was taken at the top of East Rock. Unfortunately, it is somewhat indistinct as to who is pictured here. But it is overlooking a scene that Javier knew well with people who were his friends. They are dedicated to ending gun violence in this country because they know firsthand the toll it takes. They have been no stranger to gun violence in their neighborhoods. Many of them have to travel long distances to come to this school--the Common Ground High School in New Haven--from neighborhoods that are afflicted with gun violence, and they suffer the traumatic, emotional, sometimes physical threats that come with that exposure to violence.

Connecticut also has been no stranger to gun violence over the last year and a half, and I have come to the floor many times with my colleague Senator Murphy to commemorate the courageous and strong people of New Town

and in particular the families who suffered the loss of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators.

What the students who met with me yesterday morning wanted me to hear bears telling and repeating here. They were speaking truth to power. What they wanted all of my colleagues to hear and what I strongly believe is that as tragic as the mass slayings are in this country, no less tragic, no less horrific, no less important is the shooting of one innocent 18-year-old young man like Javier while walking to a friend's house. It may not make the national news. It rarely does anymore because we have come to regard gun violence, in a way, like the background noise of our society. It may not feature prominently in the headlines. Individual gun violence is a plague, still, that affects all of us as it affects any one of us. We cannot let these shootings continue in our urban communities. Many of them are committed with handguns. Many are the result of illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. Far too many are ignored by the news media--simply disregarded background noise.

Gun violence affects all of us wherever we live in Connecticut and the country. If anything positive is to come of these tragedies in New Town and New Haven--and in the 30,000 other deaths that have happened since New Town--as a result of gun violence, it should be the uniting and bringing together of all who have been touched by gun violence, which is all of us. That goal is one that will drive me, and I am sure others here, to seek an end to gun violence with commonsense, sensible measures, such as the ones we considered--background checks, mental health initiatives, school safety.

The Presiding Officer helped to craft a very sensible and commonsense approach to background checks. We prohibit felons, criminals, mentally deranged people, and addicts from having these firearms, but we have no universal background check system to make sure they do not purchase them. How effective can enforcement be if there is no real way of checking who is buying these firearms?

A young woman who is a senior at Common Ground, in fact, asked me what laws can be effective when people are willing to break them, buy firearms even though they are prohibited from doing so. That is an important question. The answer is that no law is perfect, none can be absolutely perfectly enforced, but regulations and restrictions on dangerous people having firearms can reduce the level of gun violence in our society, reduce the number of criminals buying weapons. Background checks especially have been shown--there is empirical evidence--to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands.

Students and teachers asked me about the way our country deals with criminal justice. Systematic disparities continue to plague our justice system, resulting in severely disproportionate rates of incarceration for young men and women of color. They spoke about the overlapping cultures of law enforcement and school discipline and about the need to reduce prison populations and bring about much needed reform in the way sentences are calculated, not only as a matter of fairness but also to reduce the cost in our society of incarceration.

These young people are thinking about where our society should be going. What is our plan and our strategy for making our neighborhoods and communities better places and safer places to live?

I made a commitment to those students pictured here in this picture that I would come back again. And I will. I made a commitment that I would tell their story, which is really Javier's story--a story of hope and promise, dreams and aspirations, cut short by gun violence because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and murdered.

That investigation may be ongoing, but we already know the answer to the fundamental question: Can we do something to reduce gun violence? The answer is yes, in his name, in the name of 30,000 people who have perished along with him from gun violence, needless and senseless deaths that are all our responsibility.

I respect the Second Amendment, as I know the Presiding Officer does. I respect the right of people under the Constitution and the Second Amendment to own and possess firearms and use them for hunting, for recreation, target practice. I will continue to honor the memory of Javier Martinez and the lives and aspirations and homes of the students at Common Ground, and work not only to build that garden but to make the neighborhood around it safer and the community around it a more nurturing and better place to live.

I have made no secret of the fact that I believe this body has a responsibility to act, and its failure to do so is shameful and disgraceful. The students of Common Ground agree. If their aspirations include organizing to make more people aware of the need for this action, I commend them. In fact, I urge them to participate in this effort.

I wish to close with the words from a card they sent me with this photograph. The card read:

Senator Blumenthal, we are so grateful for your help in

remembering Javier Martinez, supporting our Common Ground

community and taking action to stop gun violence. It means so

much to have you by our side as we recover and make meaning

in this incredibly difficult time. Know that we will stay

with you in the struggle to build a safe and peaceful

community.

I know it sounds more like rhetoric than reality. But I will tell my colleagues in the Senate that as long as the young people of Common Ground and others like them are at our side, we will prevail in commonsense measures to reduce gun violence, and we will prevail in the fight to make America a better, safer place to live.

I yield the floor.

I yield back time.

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

Madam President, I am here to express my support for S. 2124, which expresses the American people's support for the sovereignty, integrity, democracy, and economic stability of Ukraine. I also support the Senate taking up a modified version of H.R. 4152 so we can get this measure to the President's desk--something we should have done weeks ago.

I thank and praise Majority Leader Reid for his commitment to this issue, his fortitude, and his patience--as well as our colleagues Senator Murphy, the head of the subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, and my colleague from Connecticut and Senator Menendez, along with Senator McCain, whose leadership in spearheading this measure has been so instrumental.

I believe the people of Ukraine need and deserve the opportunity to determine their own future. This goal is not an exceedingly ambitious one. It is hardly novel. It is the universally accepted principle that forms the basis for the sovereignty of all nations.

Together with our European allies, the United States has encouraged Ukrainians to stabilize their country and hold elections this spring. We have taken these actions not to bring Ukraine closer to the European fold or separate it from its historic ties to any of its neighbors but to affirm the principle of human rights, freedom, and sovereignty, which is the bedrock of our own national security and ultimately the security of our global order and the rule of law.

Russia's territorial expansion into Crimea destabilizes and calls into question the security of Russia's neighbors from Finland to China. Who will be next? What pretext and implausible denials will Russia use next time? Who knows, other than Putin and his inner circle.

The United States needs a productive working relationship with Russia, and the world relies on us to be the one nation that can always be counted on to speak clearly and honestly about world events. Ukraine's deep internal division and chronic economic challenges are exacerbated by Russia's less than neighborly interests.

I support targeted individual sanctions already put in place by the President. I thank him for his leadership. We will vote on those this week. But we and our European allies must do more. These measures must be the beginning, not the end. What we do on this measure is a start, a good step in the right direction, but it must be accompanied by additional action--not

just words or rhetoric on the floor of the Senate but action that speaks louder than words, sanctions that bite, just as the sanctions on Iran had their effect and brought Iran to the table.

Two years ago I worked successfully with my Senate colleagues on the Helsinki Commission to impose sanctions on government officials in Russia who were complicit in the murder and coverup of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer and auditor who died in a Moscow prison after investigating fraud. This law serves as good groundwork and a framework for expanding these types of individually targeted sanctions, which should include travel and banking restrictions on anybody inciting violence and anyone who profits from the theft of state assets.

I believe the legislation before us is an important matter of national security, and we should delay it no further. We have taken a week with extraneous amendments, and delay and time do not strengthen our hand.

The fact is, as we have seen with Iran, we will need strong and strengthening sanctions on Russia to have real effect. This first step must be followed by more, and maybe equally important we need close cooperation with our regional allies to create a really effective deterrent so the Russians know their unilateral seizure of Crimea is condemned by all law-abiding nations and we are taking positive steps to isolate Russia.

Russia's attack ought to be an alarm to the harm of Russian arms exports and military expansion that have brought effects globally and should be a focus of ours and international efforts countering Russian expansion. That expansion takes place at the expense of its neighbors, also sovereign nations, and at the expense of more than 140,000 civilian casualties.

To my dismay and to the sadness of much of the international community, Russia remains the largest arms supplier to the Syrian Government. Russia is a chief obstacle in achieving meaningful progress toward a peaceful resolution in Syria, and they have undermined progress in Geneva, obstructing or watering down efforts at the U.N. Security Council and a variety of international forums to bring humanitarian relief so desperately needed within Syria and in the refugee camps.

The Senate should take meaningful action to sanction Russia's arms exporters. These companies and individuals who benefit from contracts, both for the fuel they provide to the civil war in Syria and the takeover of Crimea, truly deserve not only our condemnation but action. That is why I am cosponsoring an amendment with my colleagues, Senator Cornyn and Senator Coats, to take exactly such action and why I introduced the Syria Sanctions Enhancement Act of 2013, which would create comprehensive sanctions against anyone who finances the murderous actions of Bashar al-Assad or sustains his military.

I have also written the U.S. Department of Treasury urging them to take action against Russian banks that have undermined U.S. sanctions by facilitating transactions with the Syrian Government. That is right--Russian banks facilitating actions with the Syrian Government. Sanctions on them can have an effect because their activities have reportedly included facilitating payments for S-300 missile batteries, Assad's personal offshore funds, as well as payments for crude oil. In my view, these institutions--Russian banks, the financial structure of Russia--are complicit in prolonging the brutal conflict in Syria and should be barred from the U.S. financial system.

Secretary Kerry said in February:

Russia needs to be part of the solution, not contributing

so many more weapons and so much more aid that they are

really enabling Assad to double down.

As the majority leader has said, we need to act quickly on the legislation before us. But let's begin and let this action be the beginning of the Senate working together on a bipartisan basis to push back against Russian adventurism and aggression in all its forms, whether it is in Crimea or Syria, and the institutions--financial, energy, and otherwise--that support those efforts. I look forward to joining with my colleagues in those efforts and approving this important measure.

GM Call for Action

Madam President, there is no question at this hour on the Senate floor that serious and severe defects in the ignition switches in General Motors vehicles have caused at least 31 crashes and 12 deaths. That tragic loss of life--not even counting the damage to cars, resulting in economic loss, and the injuries to people, resulting in suffering and emotional pain--is part of a situation that calls for action. These defects meant that in a car going full speed down the highway, simply bumping or weighing down the key in the ignition could cause the engine to shut down--as well as disabling the airbags.

That situation has prompted leadership on the part of a number of my colleagues, and I want to thank Senator Markey for his legislative proposal on NHTSA, Senator McCaskill for her convening a hearing of our consumer protection subcommittee of the commerce committee, as well as others who have taken action to criticize General Motors.

There is also no question, as the New York Times reported this past Saturday, that GM was aware of that situation--those problems with the switches--as early as 2001. That was 8 years before GM went into bankruptcy. The old GM and the new GM were separated. Now the Department of Justice is investigating whether GM committed fraud when it did not disclose those defects in the context of its 2009 bankruptcy.

I have been a Federal prosecutor, and I can tell you about people who have been prosecuted very severely for lying to banks or lying to the Federal Government--lying to banks when they got a loan sometimes for as little as a couple of thousand dollars and false statements to the Federal Government in connection with a seemingly small matter.

At the time it went into bankruptcy and then emerged, GM signed a document--section 6.12--entitled ``True and Complete Disclosure,'' and it said to the Federal Government that in return for not a couple of thousand dollars, not even a couple million dollars, not a couple of billion dollars, but tens of billions of dollars, more than $40 billion--I am quoting:

There is no fact known to a Responsible Person of any Loan

Party that, after due inquiry, could reasonably be expected

to have a Material Adverse Effect that has not been disclosed

herein.

It also said that the documents that were submitted to the U.S. Government at that time ``do not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements herein or therein.''

And that section is replete with other representations that now pretty clearly were false because those defects and the role of those defects in causing the crashes were known to GM. It knew also that those defects and the death, injury, and damage seem almost certainly then and now to be a material fact and have a material adverse effect on that agreement.

Well, when GM was restructured in 2009, it was split into an old GM, which took most of the bad assets, such as GM's closed-down plants, and the new GM, which took the good assets. Old GM took the liability for accidents that occurred before the bankruptcy, effectively granting the new GM a shield from responsibility but not a shield from criminal liability. That is why the Department of Justice investigation is so critically important in holding GM officials and GM itself responsible.

Although some prebankruptcy claims have been settled, they have a greatly reduced pool of money to draw upon so that the potential claims on the part of those 12 families whose loved ones perished, not to mention the injured parties who are due money for their suffering as well as economic loss and others who may have claims--all those claims will be without recourse unless something is done.

Let's be clear about the 2009 bankruptcy. It was not the kind of reorganization that involved Manville, where a fund was created with a trustee. That kind of reorganization is a way that bankruptcies are often pursued. This was a sale of assets. It was fast and easy because the government wanted it so. And, of course, the old GM and the new GM--GM officials, shareholders, everyone interested--wanted it to be so.

I was serving as attorney general of Connecticut at the time, and I warned

that this bankruptcy agreement would leave many injured victims without recourse. I led a group of eight State attorneys general in warning the Federal Government--which supported and sponsored the bankruptcy plan-- that the situation we see now would come to pass. I don't take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that now we have learned the real facts GM concealed then. I don't take any satisfaction in the potential denial of what is due to the victims of GM's concealment, not to mention its reprehensible and potentially illegal failure to repair those defects rather than conceal them. But, unfortunately, that is what has happened.

Due to GM's failure to disclose that known defect in its vehicles and facts that will continue to come to light in this investigation, everything suggests that this failure to disclose was, in fact, deliberate, fraudulent concealment of information from consumers and from government officials. That is criminal, and that is why the Department of Justice is investigating.

As we stand here, we may be too early to reach conclusions but not too early for the Department of Justice to make things right and for GM to do the right thing.

Yesterday I sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. I told General Holder respectfully that I believe the Federal Government has a moral if not a legal obligation to take certain steps to protect innocent consumers, and I requested that he give it his personal attention. I do that again today--make that request--and urge his personal attention.

Although consumer victims may be barred from seeking relief before the bankruptcy court, the Department of Justice can take steps now in the context of this criminal investigation that could greatly help people who have been injured--innocent victims who were driving that car down the freeway or on a country road when the ignition was bumped, when the key ring had too many keys and their car stopped, the airbag failed to operate, and some died.

I requested the DOJ to have GM establish a fund to compensate injured consumers. It is a civil remedy that can be done as an interim step in a criminal prosecution. The Department of Justice has the authority to request many kinds of relief, and in light of the continuity of personnel between the old GM and the new GM, this kind of remedy would be absolutely appropriate for the new GM and it could simply allocate some of its assets. And fortunately it is doing well. No one begrudges GM its success. We welcome its profitability. But it can do what is right and use some of those profits to correct this wrong.

If necessary, the Department of Justice also could enter into a deferred prosecution agreement, as it did recently with Toyota, and it reached a settlement there of $1.2 billion.

There is also a precedent for criminal investigations of this nature being resolved by settlements in the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A $4 billion criminal settlement was distributed among groups working to mitigate the spill's effects and prevent future problems, including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which has done great work, and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

If such a settlement were reached here, there should be priority on ensuring that funds compensate consumers who suffered the worst losses--the loved ones of people killed as well as the innocent victims who were injured or suffered economic loss.

In addition to the fund, I also requested that the Department of Justice intervene in pending civil actions to oppose GM's effort to deny knowledge or responsibility for damage. What GM has done is to remove State court cases to Federal court and then asked for a transfer to the bankruptcy court, all the while knowing that the bankruptcy proceeding cannot be reopened, and in any event the old GM has vastly insufficient assets to satisfy any real judgment.

I believe there are answers here that will satisfy fairness and justice and enable GM to live up to the integrity and image that befits them. I believe that the Department of Justice, or another consumer protection agency, must ensure that consumers are aware of the potential dangers in this continuing defective series of vehicles, including the Cobalt, the Saturn, and other models over those same years.

I would never let one of my children behind the wheel of one of those cars without a major repair. I don't know that anyone else should--or anyone driving themselves--be behind the wheel of these cars.

When a large national company such as GM markets a product, they have a responsibility. They have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that the product is safe. When one of those companies--any company-- becomes aware of safety issues, it has a responsibility to disclose them.

I joined a bill--with the leadership of Senator Markey--that would require better, faster disclosure by NHTSA, and I will speak on another occasion about the lapses in responsibility on the part of Federal watchdogs who failed to protect the public, failed to detect a pattern of problems in these cars, and failed to blow the whistle.

GM has its own responsibility, and I know that a new era of leadership at GM under a new leader may mean a new day in its acknowledging its moral and legal responsibility, and I hope for that new day.

The innocent victims of defective cars suffered life-ending and life- changing injuries. Many of them could have been avoided but for the purposefully misleading and deceptive conduct by GM. Our responsibility now is to see that justice is done either through ensuring that compensation is made available or through appropriate criminal enforcement or both. The criminal law, as we know in this body, is a means of seeking justice, and it can provide a good outcome if it is properly framed and enforced.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.