Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Arkansas and join him in applauding the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee Senator Mikulski for her extraordinary and historic work on this measure which serves so well our values and goals and our traditions in the Senate of bipartisan service, putting America first over partisanship. I join my very distinguished colleague from Arkansas who has highlighted so well the values served by agriculture in America and served well by this appropriations bill and by the measure Chairwoman Stabenow is seeking to forge, again through bipartisan work involving both Houses of this body.

Agriculture serves so many of our basic values in this Nation-- environmental and consumer values, patriotism and pride in a way of life. In Connecticut, we know deeply and urgently how threatened are these values and traditions, this way of life and the environmental consumer issues at stake.

I am pleased that we are near a compromise, on the verge and the cusp of an agreement on the farm bill that will serve the interests of farmers in Connecticut and around the country.

The dozens of dairy farmers with relatively small farms around Connecticut have said to me again and again that they need help and certainty. That was the message they gave me as I visited their farms around the State of Connecticut time and again, and now apparently help and certainty are on the way.

I am pleased that the farm bill conferees have reached a compromise on the dairy provisions in the farm bill. We are going to be studying them very closely. They have only just been announced. Apparently, the new deal announced by the farm bill conferees would keep the margin insurance program but remove the Dairy Market Stabilization Program. In place of that Dairy Market Stabilization Program, the deal revives the recently expired Milk Income Loss Contract Program known as the MILC Program. The Milk Income Loss Contract Program is a transitional program while the new margin insurance plan is being set up by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Without going into all of the details, I think this agreement represents progress, and I am going to carefully scrutinize it and seek to improve it from the standpoint of Connecticut's dairy farmers. But there can be no doubt--none whatsoever to anyone in this body, which I think we would all agree--as to the importance of the milk industry, beginning with the dairy farmers. Indeed, reflecting the importance of milk to America is the fact that it is the only beverage, other than water, that is permitted on the floor of the Senate, as far as I know.

I am pleased and proud to have a glass of milk on the floor today. This is a first for me in my young experience as a Senator. I am not sure if it is a correct parliamentary inquiry, but I say to the Presiding Officer: Got milk? I'm willing to share.

This issue is a very serious one because the lives and livelihoods of our farmers are at stake. There is the open space that may be sacrificed if dairy farms surrender and are forced to abandon this way of life due to the increasingly high costs of feed, fuel, and labor that are pressing them as they also encounter potential price reductions. So they are squeezed. Dairy farmers are squeezed.

In Connecticut we mostly have small family-owned farms like the Fairvue Farms in Woodstock, Hytone Farm in Coventry, Mapleleaf Farm in Hebron, Fort Hill Farms in Thompson, Cushman Farms in Franklin, and Graywall Farms in Lebanon. I have visited a number of them. I know firsthand how hard these farmers work simply to keep their farms going. These six farms make up the Farmer's Cow, a group of Connecticut family-owned farms dedicated to producing some of the very best milk in America.

Their milk is so good, in fact, they opened a milk bar--that is right, a milk bar--in Mansfield called the Farmer's Cow Calfe & Creamery where you can choose from five or six different types and flavors of milk to help wash down their delicious and fresh sandwiches, salads, cheeses, and ice creams.

Visit Connecticut and visit the Farmer's Cow Calfe. These are the farms we need to support and keep going. These are the hard-working men and women we need to support. We can and must support our dairy farmers in Connecticut and around the country.

In fact, in Connecticut we have more than 150 dairy farms on 70,000 acres--18 percent of our State's land--which translates into $2 billion in economic activity for the State of Connecticut alone. These farmers need help. They need stability and certainty. Unfortunately, some Members in the House of Representatives have delayed the farm bill for far too long, leading dairy producers to wonder whether the Federal Government is a friend or a foe to their businesses.

Even though Connecticut's dairy industry is a significant contributor to the State's agricultural industry and general economy, the industry's strength and survival depend greatly on the support that the Federal Government can and must provide.

In Connecticut, in 1975 there were 817 dairy farms. Today there are 150 dairy farms. I think that experience is probably reflected by every State represented in this body. Every one of my colleagues, perhaps, can attest to the diminishing number of dairy farmers and farmers in general. Connecticut is doing its part and doing its share so that farms in our State are sustained, and the Federal Government ought to do its part as well.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Connecticut ranks 45 out of 50 States in receiving agriculture-related subsidies. Connecticut received $127 million between 1995 and 2010 compared to the $22 billion received by Iowa and the $24 billion that went to Texas. I have nothing against those States. I am not criticizing those amounts, but the amount we received in Connecticut is a fraction--a small fraction--of what is needed to sustain our dairy farmers, and that is why I will be urging and advocating for dairy farmers in Connecticut under this deal. Their interests are shared nationwide. We need to make sure that the agreement announced yesterday by the farm bill conferees--keeping the margin insurance program, but removing the Dairy Market Stabilization Program and reviving the MILC Program--truly serves milk producers in our Nation, not just the processors but consumers and farmers. We must do right by America's dairy farmers, an often under-represented group in this body, and make sure we do right by our farmers and consumers by giving them the certainty and help they need to continue a way of life and a product that is vital to our health and well-being as a Nation.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

I am pleased to yield for a question.

I have milk. I offered to share my milk with the Presiding Officer. I know that Maine has its share of farmers. I understand the Presiding Officer is not allowed, under our Senate rules, to respond in substance, but I would be glad to share with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I am told it is a permissible beverage on the floor. If it is not, I am sure I will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action.

I thank the chairwoman for her remarks. I wish to express to her, as I do to all of my colleagues, that agriculture and farming really are a way of life. We need to make sure our family farms and all farms are sustained. We sometimes tend to neglect or take them for granted.

Again, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for the time and attention she has devoted over the many years she has been here to the farms of Maryland and the farms of America. I think it is a cause we share. Whether it is Alabama or Georgia or Maine or any other State represented on the floor here today, we need to make sure we provide the safety net where it is necessary and the support when it is due but also keep in mind that consumers ultimately are the beneficiaries, the men and women and children, having four children myself. Also, having for a time actually worked on a farm, I know this product is central to the American existence and the American way of life.

I thank the chairwoman, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Chairman Sanders of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I serve, for his extraordinary vision and leadership and join him in thanking the majority leader for his commitment to this kind of comprehensive and aggressive approach to revise and reinvigorate, reinvent and reform, veterans programs in a comprehensive and overarching approach.

I will be speaking at greater length in the days and weeks to come, but I want to join the Senator in committing all of us--I hope on a bipartisan basis--to this effort to fix the flaws and fulfill the vision this Nation owes to the men and women who have served and sacrificed year after year.

This program recognizes a fundamental truth: We are dealing with different populations of different ages, and within those populations, people with different needs and challenges, and a comprehensive program is necessary to address the obligation. It is an obligation we owe them to make sure that we leave no veteran behind and keep faith with every man and woman who has served and sacrificed for this Nation.

It fixes the flaws of the last budget agreement that reduced the cost-of-living adjustment on retirees' pensions. It commits the Nation to economic opportunity and real jobs--training for the jobs that exist now and the jobs of the future. It reforms loan and aid programs for college education and also for noncollege education.

It addresses the gaps in health care, not just by promising but performing. And, of course, it will also necessarily help veterans who may be preyed upon by schemes and scams, legal or illegal, and that is a very desperate and challenging need for this Nation to address, and hopefully it will do so on a bipartisan basis.

There should be no reason and no justification for opposing an effort that is paid for--and I stress paid for. My hope is we will have bipartisan support for this visionary and courageous measure that says to America's veterans: We will keep faith with you. We will leave no veteran behind.

One of the first promises I made 3 years ago in the first speech I gave on the floor of this Chamber was I would work and fight aggressively for the veterans of this Nation. I intend to work for this program--work to improve it--and continue to listen to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and all of the groups that represent our veterans so ably, and speak for them. The voices and faces of Connecticut's veterans have been with me always, and I see them always when I return. I will work tirelessly for this program.

Again, my thanks to all of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who will be supporting this program, and to our chairman Senator Sanders for his great leadership.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Chairman Sanders of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where I serve, for his extraordinary vision and leadership and join him in thanking the majority leader for his commitment to this kind of comprehensive and aggressive approach to revise and reinvigorate, reinvent and reform, veterans programs in a comprehensive and overarching approach.

I will be speaking at greater length in the days and weeks to come, but I want to join the Senator in committing all of us--I hope on a bipartisan basis--to this effort to fix the flaws and fulfill the vision this Nation owes to the men and women who have served and sacrificed year after year.

This program recognizes a fundamental truth: We are dealing with different populations of different ages, and within those populations, people with different needs and challenges, and a comprehensive program is necessary to address the obligation. It is an obligation we owe them to make sure that we leave no veteran behind and keep faith with every man and woman who has served and sacrificed for this Nation.

It fixes the flaws of the last budget agreement that reduced the cost-of-living adjustment on retirees' pensions. It commits the Nation to economic opportunity and real jobs--training for the jobs that exist now and the jobs of the future. It reforms loan and aid programs for college education and also for noncollege education.

It addresses the gaps in health care, not just by promising but performing. And, of course, it will also necessarily help veterans who may be preyed upon by schemes and scams, legal or illegal, and that is a very desperate and challenging need for this Nation to address, and hopefully it will do so on a bipartisan basis.

There should be no reason and no justification for opposing an effort that is paid for--and I stress paid for. My hope is we will have bipartisan support for this visionary and courageous measure that says to America's veterans: We will keep faith with you. We will leave no veteran behind.

One of the first promises I made 3 years ago in the first speech I gave on the floor of this Chamber was I would work and fight aggressively for the veterans of this Nation. I intend to work for this program--work to improve it--and continue to listen to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the American Legion, and all of the groups that represent our veterans so ably, and speak for them. The voices and faces of Connecticut's veterans have been with me always, and I see them always when I return. I will work tirelessly for this program.

Again, my thanks to all of the members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee who will be supporting this program, and to our chairman Senator Sanders for his great leadership.

Mr. President, I am proud to be with public health advocates such as the Presiding Officer, my very distinguished and eloquent colleague Senator Brown, and Senator Durbin, who was on the floor earlier today on this very subject which remains one of urgency and profound importance to the public health of this Nation.

Indeed, if there is a public health threat, enemy No. 1 in the United States of America, it continues to be tobacco use and nicotine addiction.

We talk a lot in this body, throughout the Congress and throughout the Nation, about reducing the costs of health care. If we were to cut tobacco use and nicotine addiction, it would drastically reduce diseases such as cancer and heart disease and lung problems which reduce the longevity of life

in this country but also create enormous costs in treating those medical diseases. Indeed, the cost of tobacco in health care for this country is about $193 billion a year, not only in direct medical costs but lost productivity.

I am proud to have fought--and fought successfully--through many of my years as attorney general of the State of Connecticut, working in alliance with other attorneys general, with private health advocates such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and private advocates throughout the country who have achieved so much.

When we doubt our achievements on this 50th anniversary of the annual Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco and Health, we should remember the days when 43 percent of adults smoked cigarettes and were addicted to nicotine. We should look at ``Mad Men,'' the very popular TV series, where tobacco use and smoking is ubiquitous. There is barely a scene without it. Those were days when doctors in their medical offices smoked cigarettes, the days when Big Tobacco fervently and vehemently denied that tobacco caused cancer or any of those other diseases.

In alliance with attorneys general and eventually the Department of Justice, we fought successfully to bring out the truth and to help not only change the ads and pitches and promotions of Big Tobacco but also eventually to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009.

Yet for all the progress we have made--and, indeed, the rate of smoking has gone from 42 percent in 1965 to 18 percent in 2002 among adults--we are still lagging. We are way behind where we should be in preventing all those diseases that come from tobacco and protecting the public. The state of regulation and protection in this country is anemic compared to the danger and the threat.

Between 2000 and 2012, cigarette use declined nearly 35 percent. But in that same period of time, cigar use rose by 124 percent, and especially among young people cigar use is increasing. There are new fronts and new frontiers in the fight against tobacco addiction, and the public health consequences--the disasters and catastrophic health consequences that come from lifetimes of nicotine addiction and tobacco use.

Big Tobacco continues many of the tactics which caused so many people to become addicted and die. It is the only industry which makes the only product that kills its customer, and so it must replenish its customer base by luring new people, new users, and its target continues to be young people--young people who are lured into cigar use and then cigarettes by the use of flavors and all kinds of pitches and promotions which make these products seem more like candy and fruit than they do like the killers they are.

We must accept that a major part of the responsibility belongs to the FDA and to the Federal Government because there are no deeming regulations, which are necessary to regulate cigars in this country. With 3,000 new people under the age of 18 trying cigar smoking each and every day, the fact that we do not have deeming regulations and strong regulations of tobacco products is simply unacceptable.

Deeming regulations forthcoming from the FDA would allow it to regulate these other forms of tobacco, whether it is cigars or spit tobacco--also known as chewing tobacco--all forms of tobacco and tobacco-like products that threaten the health of young people. I have been consistent, along with many of my colleagues, in calling on the FDA to issue these regulations and hope they will do so quickly.

Let me mention another growing new frontier and threat in this country involving e-cigarettes. These new products offer, in the rhetoric and pitches and promotion of the industry, a way to enable people to quit smoking. Yet they are often pitched to young people with flavors and other gimmicks. For those young people, they are a gateway to smoking and nicotine addiction.

Companies that make e-cigarettes, not coincidentally, are being purchased by Big Tobacco, the makers of tobacco cigarettes. The influence of these companies can be seen in the advertising, marketing pushes, and campaigns of these products which feature celebrities, are candy flavored, and purport to offer a safer alternative to smoking. The ability of big tobacco to market these products, just as they were able to market cigarettes to children, gives them the ability to create a new generation of people who are addicted to nicotine and susceptible to going to other forms of tobacco products.

I call on the FDA to act and to reach a determination that will enable it to regulate e-cigarettes and protect young people and all of us against the dangers and the costs of these new products. They are unknown in their ingredients. Many of them may contain the same or similar carcinogens. Somebody using e-tobacco products has simply no way of reliably knowing because they are unlabeled. The amounts of nicotine are also unknown and unlabeled. Studies of e-cigarettes have found that products claiming not to contain nicotine actually do contain it and the amounts of nicotine may vary widely across products.

What is known beyond any doubt is nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is probably one of the most addictive legal or illegal drug there is today. We cannot sit idly and allow this new product to addict a new generation of American children. I hope this year's Surgeon General's report will remind us of the accomplishments that have been made but the dangers and challenges ahead that we must confront.

I am proud to yield to one of the great public health advocates in this body, my colleague and friend Senator Merkley.

Order of Procedure

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that following our remarks the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

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

Madam President, many of us have come back from a couple of wonderful weeks in our home States, traveling and visiting with families, and had the privilege of spending time with loved ones and sharing our hopes and plans for the new year. Not everyone was so fortunate.

I rise today to honor the memory of yet another tragic victim of gun violence in Connecticut and our country.

On December 28, in New Haven, shortly before the beginning of this new year, one family's time together with their son was cut short when Javier Martinez was shot and killed.

I have his picture here in the Chamber. His memory is with us today, as I ask this body to honor him, along with other victims of gun violence who have died since Newtown, and those who have died before Newtown, and now I ask them to be remembered not only in words but also in action by this body, so that Javier shall not have died in vain.

He was only 18 years old. He was a senior at Common Ground High School in New Haven, one of the really extraordinary educational institutions in our State.

His teachers and classmates describe him as a kind, intelligent young man who was becoming a leader in the school and in his community.

He had a bright future. In fact, he had the whole world, his whole life ahead of him.

At Common Ground, a charter school that focuses on sustainability and connecting students with natural resources in their own communities, he was absolutely thriving.

I have heard that some of his classmates and teachers at Common Ground are perhaps watching right now or will watch at some point, and I want to thank them for joining in honoring his memory and continuing his work to make our planet, our world, our Nation, and the community of New Haven better, and keeping faith with his memory.

Javier cared about his community and the environment and the issues of sustainability and clean air and clean water, and he took action to improve the world around him.

Last summer he participated in a highly competitive internship at the Nature Conservancy, where he worked to protect endangered species. A director of this program regarded Javier as one of the most outstanding participants that the program ever had.

He spent last spring planting trees--planting trees--with the New Haven Urban Resources Initiative. He planted trees that he will never sit under, but the world will be better for all that he did--one small act, one small part of what Javier did to make New Haven and the world better.

This past fall he joined a crew of West River Stewards, identifying and documenting sources of pollution along the West River in the New Haven area.

Not only did he have a bright future ahead of him, but he knew what he wanted. He was pursuing the American dream. He was seeking and working to make America a better place for him and for his fellow students at Common Ground.

By all accounts he was not only dedicated and hard working, but he had a good heart. He had a great sense of himself. He stayed out of trouble. He had no criminal record whatsoever, it goes without saying. He worked hard at his studies.

He was loved in New Haven by his classmates, by his teachers, and by all who knew him. He had a growing dedication to protecting that world. Unfortunately, our society failed to protect him, failed to protect him during the simple act of walking home, failed to protect him from gun violence, failed to protect him in a neighborhood where he thought he would be safe as he walked.

On that early morning of December 28, shortly before 1 a.m., he was found shot to death on the streets of New Haven. In fact, he was walking from his house to a friend's house. He did not have a car, so his only choice was to walk. He sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The police are continuing to investigate. Have no doubt that they are working hard. The New Haven Police have been extraordinarily responsive and responsible in combating gun violence, so I know they are going to get answers. Whether they will ever get enough answers to prosecute someone remains to be seen. But I know they are dedicated to finding out what happened on that night.

The death of Javier Martinez is a tragedy, heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking, as are many of the random deaths in America resulting from gun violence. This young man is a testament to our continuing responsibility, our obligation, and our opportunity to combat and prevent gun violence on the streets and in the neighborhoods across our country.

Just a few weeks ago I spoke on this floor, in this very place, about another promising young person from Connecticut who was killed by a person with a gun whose name was Erika Robinson. The victim of that crime, Erika Robinson, just like Javier, was killed because she was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We ought to remember some of the other victims. We should keep in mind all of the now tens of thousands, just since Newtown, who maybe survived but who are changed and challenged in ways they never could have envisioned. Their lives have been changed forever.

Amber Smith, who worked as a manager in a New Haven Burger King restaurant, was shot on September 15, 2013, when two robbers entered that Burger King.

The robbers demanded that she open a safe in the business, and one of them shot her in the upper hip and through her leg. She was just 19 years old at the time on September 15, 2013.

She remembers thinking that she was going to die and wondering who would take care of her two small children. She almost bled to death but was saved, fortunately, by receiving surgery in the emergency room. So she survived the shooting, but she lives with the psychological and the physical trauma of that shooting every day.

These random acts of violence may not always make the national news, they may not always take a life, but they change lives, and they take lives one or two at a time.

Those shooting deaths of Javier Martinez and Erika Robinson have become all too often the mundane evil of our time. The banality of evil is found in gun violence, and we seem to accept it all too often with indifference as another news item. Yet it should be as repugnant and abhorrent and unacceptable as the deaths of 20 innocent children in Newtown and 6 great educators because every act of gun violence diminishes us as a nation and as a community.

Our country has come to the point that gun violence can happen anywhere. If your life has not been touched by it, there is a near certainty that it will be at some point--tragically, unfortunately-- because far too often communities suffer in silence. We need to end that silence. We need to end the inaction and the acceptance of this mundane and banal evil that lives among us.

While we have failed to act in this Chamber, even though we had a majority of 55 Senators ready to approve very simple, commonsense measures to stop gun violence, the President has done what he can through executive action, most recently on mental health. I commend him for those actions. He has done what he can to strengthen Federal background checks for firearms purchases. I thank him for that action.

These changes are incremental, but they are steps in the right direction.

States have taken the leadership on this issue as well, maybe even more so than the Federal Government. My own

State of Connecticut, laudably, has passed laws to effectively ban, for example, the sale of assault weapons.

But this body and this government need to act. The Federal Government has a responsibility that only it can address, because we know that guns are trafficked across State lines. Stolen and illegally bought guns are trafficked across State lines. No single State can put a stop to it.

We know that without action in this body, mental health will remain an unmet need in this country. We know that without action in this country, background checks for people who buy firearms will be incomplete and inadequate.

So Javier's death should be a reminder and a call to action. As the people of his family and New Haven mourn his death, we should celebrate his contributions in making our planet better, in protecting the precious resources that, unfortunately, he was unable to enjoy, and resolve to protect better the innocent people, particularly our children, who at any moment, at any place, may become victims of gun violence.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in morning business for debate only until 3:15; that the majority leader be recognized at 3:15, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

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

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

Mr. President, I am very proud to follow my colleague from New Hampshire and thank her for her leadership in offering the Military Retirement Restoration Act, which I am very pleased to support as an amendment to the unemployment insurance extension bill.

For all the reasons I have stated, and others have expressed even more powerfully than I, this bill makes sense. We must extend unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless. The merits of this bill are absolutely indisputable and undeniable. This bill offers a critically important opportunity, and we ought to seize it to correct and fix a defect in the budget agreement that was reached by the very excellent work of our colleague Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan, and that was passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority in this body.

It was an agreement that advanced and enhanced economic certainty. It had many advantages, but it also was far from perfect. Its flaws included a cut in military retiree benefits. These benefits were cut by provisions to that agreement that was approved by this body, with many reservations and regrets, and now we ought to seize this opportunity to correct that defect as this measure offers us through an amendment.

We can pay for it. It can be budget neutral, if we simply close a certain egregious corporate tax loophole as Senator Shaheen has suggested. I want to emphasize again what Senator Shaheen said so well. We can think of a lot of different ways to pay for the $6.5 billion that is necessary to correct these cuts in military retiree benefits. What is beyond question is the need to fix this flaw. It is a flaw that not only diminishes in monetary terms the benefits these retirees need and deserve, it also dishonors the service and sacrifice they have made. What better opportunity than now, as we deal with the extension of unemployment benefits in a measure that deserves overwhelming support just as the budget deal received, to correct this flaw.

There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion about exactly what the Murray-Ryan agreement did to military retirement benefits, and there is a need to address in the longer term the system that provides for retiree benefits, to make it serve better the interests of our retirees, our veterans, our patriots who have given so much to our Nation. But right now, in these next few days, beyond any kind of question or doubt, is the need to correct this defect and to follow through on the understanding that many of us had, including myself, that in fact we would correct this defect.

I supported the budget agreement with the understanding, as Chairman Levin of Michigan made clear, the Senate would work this year, as soon as possible, to stop the 1-percent reduction in the cost of living adjustments for military retirees until the age of 62 that would take effect in December of 2015. December, 2015 of that year is a long way off. There may be other opportunities to correct this flaw--the reduction in retiree benefits--but let's do it now. Let's not delay in restoring the benefits that these retirees need and deserve.

So I urge my colleagues to join in this effort, paying for this change by making sure companies managed and controlled in the United States can't avoid U.S. taxes simply by claiming foreign status. Many of us have long advocated closing this loophole. It seems to me a reasonable approach, far better than taking away the child tax credit for poor migrant families.

Ultimately, the pay-for issue, the offset question, should be resolved, and I believe it will be, if not in this act then in the Omnibus appropriations bill we will address next and then make sure we keep faith. We must assure that we will keep faith with these retirees who have given and served so much.

As Senator Shaheen has said, most Americans would agree this kind of tax avoidance is unfair, and we ought to

close this tax loophole rather than reducing military retiree benefits. What all Americans would agree with is that we should keep faith and leave no veteran behind, making sure this amendment is voted on and approved and given legal force and effect so we correct and fix the flaw in the budget agreement that has disallowed and dishonored the obligation we owe these retirees.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Chair and I earlier today were part of a historic majority--a very bipartisan majority--that voted 60 to 37 to extend unemployment insurance for millions of Americans across this country who are struggling to make ends meet, to keep their families together, to keep a roof over their heads--basic essentials not only to continue living but to continue searching for work. These Americans are not without a work ethic. In fact, they are devastated by being out of work for so long with such destructive results for their sense of self-worth and their family.

This measure is limited in its scope and significance. It is only a procedural vote on a temporary measure for 3 months, and only a partial solution to the grave and pressing issue of putting Americans back to work, restoring employment for Americans who want to work and keep their families together, but it is profoundly important.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Reed of Rhode Island and Heller of Nevada, as well as all of our colleagues who voted for it, and even many of my colleagues who may have voted against it but were torn and, hopefully, will vote for it on final passage. I urge all my colleagues to get this job done so we can send it to the House of Representatives and make sure it is approved there.

What is significant about this measure is in fact it was bipartisan. It was overwhelming. It shows Congress is listening; that it is heeding the calls for action from those 4 million Americans, including over 60,000 of them in my home State of Connecticut, who need this measure so they can continue seeking work, hopefully successfully.

It is a temporary fix, but it is a measure with profound significance for those men and women who courageously are facing the searing facts of life during long-term joblessness. One of those individuals, in fact, from Connecticut, very courageously appeared with the President earlier today. Katherine Hackett of Moodus, CT, is the parent of two sons in the military, who herself is struggling to keep the heat on and put food on her table. She described her situation in introducing President Obama when he spoke about this problem earlier today. I am proud she is at the forefront of this fight, and I am proud to be fighting with her so that Americans have the benefit of unemployment insurance when they are unemployed for longer than the 26 weeks that is recognized under the statute.

This story is one of numbers. We can't deny the statistics. The great recession may have ended for a lot of Americans, but it continues for the unemployed, the jobless, particularly long-term jobless. Those numbers have become almost mind-numbing, but they are very significant. According to a report recently released by the Joint Economic Committee, 3 years after the recession ending in 1991, long-term unemployment was at 1.3 percent. Three years after the recession ending in 2001, long-term unemployment was also at 1.3 percent. Today, long- term unemployment is double those numbers, at 2.6 percent.

Here we are, 4 years after the supposed end of the recession in 2009 with double the percentage of long-term unemployed that we had in previous recessions. Our economy simply is not growing fast enough or creating enough jobs to end that persistently high rate of long-term unemployment. About 4 million Americans, more than one-third of unemployed Americans, have been looking for work for 6 months or more.

In my home State of Connecticut, long-term unemployment has become even more prevalent among those who have lost their jobs. In fact, 43.6 percent, or almost half of Connecticut's overall unemployed population, are long-term unemployed. That means over 60,000 people.

But those numbers are less convincing and compelling than the human stories. I was proud and moved to sit with a number of my fellow Connecticut citizens--hard-working, dedicated people of all ages, some of whom have spent lifetimes working for a single employer only to find themselves rejected and released. Many of them told me they expected to find work right away, within a couple of weeks, and here they are--more than 6 months later, many of them--still struggling to find work and working to improve

their skills so they can match the job opportunities that may exist.

Rosa Dicker, who has been out of work for almost a year, is a former health insurance project manager who also has experience with health care reform implementation in Massachusetts, our neighboring State. Rosa has sent out 500 job applications in the past year. I almost misstated that figure. I thought it was 50. It is 500 job applications in the past year. And she has been granted how many interviews? She has interviewed three times.

Nyrsa Cruz, an experienced social worker with a master's degree, has also been unemployed since early 2013. Despite hours and hours she has devoted to countless job applications, she has been unable to find work.

Michael Kubica, unemployed after years of experience in the insurance and publishing industries, went back to school to pursue an MBA. Yet despite his educational experience, despite his degrees, despite his dedication, he has been unable to secure more than temporary holiday season work.

Anyone who suggests the long-term unemployed are somehow content or have decided to stay out of work or have abandoned the search ought to talk to people in their own communities--people such as Rosa, Nyrsa, or Michael, who have struggled and worked to find suitable jobs. They are driven, passionate, and absolutely dedicated.

One woman I met, Erin London, described it this way:

My whole family is impacted. My son asks, ``Am I going to

be able to go to college?'' I don't know how to answer. I

don't want him to know I am scared.

Imagine yourself as a parent thinking--and we have all thought it--I don't want him or her to know I am scared.

Another Connecticut woman, Alicia Nesbitt, was proud to be working and to have worked continuously since the age of 16, until she was unemployed. Now she depends on food stamps and heating assistance.

These stories are powerful and compelling, even more so than the numbers and statistics, shocking as they are. I hope we will heed those human stories when we come back tomorrow and the next day to vote on this bill.

In the long term we need measures such as targeted tax credits and skills training so people can be matched with jobs and so they can prepare for the jobs of the future. Pathways Back to Work is a bill I have introduced that supports creation of new jobs as well as training for the ones that exist. I have introduced it with my colleagues Senators Murphy and Gillibrand, and I think it would do a great deal to address the fundamental underlying challenges that are keeping unemployed people from reconnecting with the world of work. But these measures are for next week or the week after. Right now, the urgency of this week is passing a measure that is fundamentally important to keep people moving forward, searching for work, and to keep our economy moving forward.

Those folks who receive unemployment insurance use it to buy clothes or food or a car that drives the economy, provides for the kinds of consumer demand we need to enable our economy to continue moving forward. So we are helping these folks avoid the precipice of poverty and homelessness, which makes their job search even more difficult, but we are also helping our economy. All of us who want job creation and economic progress want it to be our Nation's priority and success.

I am proud to stand and join Senators Reed and Heller, and thank also our majority leader Senator Reid for their leadership, because our most urgent task is to move our economy forward, provide these unemployment benefits as soon as possible, and then look toward more permanent measures--skills training, the Pathways Back to Work Act, veterans programs that will enable all Americans to enjoy more equally the benefits of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The challenge of our growing inequality is also our growing inequity. This measure is a start--a temporary, limited start--in the right direction toward making America fulfill its great promise for the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to commemorate the dedication of Bataan Corregidor Memorial Bridge in Weatogue, CT, earlier this month.

Crossing over the Farmington River in Connecticut, this bridge will now honor the patriotism and courage of the brave men from Connecticut and across the nation who fought in the Battles of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942 in the Pacific during World War II. From January to April 1942, American and Filipino forces fought Japanese soldiers along the Bataan Peninsula and the island of Corregidor in the Philippines. When both fell to the Japanese, an estimated 10,000 American and Filipino troops were killed and 20,000 wounded. Another 15,000 American and 60,000 Filipino troops were taken prisoner and forced to endure the Bataan Death March.

Dan Crowley of Simsbury and Darrel Stark of Stafford Springs, who were there in combat, are the last two surviving residents of Connecticut who fought in these historic battles in the United States Army following the attack on Pearl Harbor. After Mr. Crowley fought in the Battle of Bataan, he refused to surrender and swam to the island of Corregidor where he was later

taken prisoner by the Japanese and endured 42 months in Japanese prison camps. His story is one of many heroic accounts from this theater during World War II.

The moving dedication ceremony included a flyover, musical performances, blessing of the bridge, ribbon cutting, and a stirring, closing bugle taps. I deeply appreciate the work of Mr. Crowley, State Senator Kevin Witkos, and the Connecticut Department of Transportation in creating this important symbol of our Nation's stalwart gratitude for the tremendous sacrifices of countless men during this series of battles. The Bataan Corregidor Memorial Bridge is vivid in its simplicity and elemental strength. It is not a grand structure, but like the men whose unimaginable courage we celebrate, it is there in its simple, physical strength.

We can never forget the service of the Greatest Generation, who protected our freedom and liberty--all who lost their lives and those who lived to pay tribute to their fellow comrades. This bridge will always be a memorial--a living memorial--used every day by all of us who will continue to remember and thank the brave patriots who fought so gallantly at Bataan and Corregidor.

Mr. President, I support the compromise National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (NDAA). Though this bill has shortcomings, it will be good for our country and for Connecticut, and it will allow us to keep faith with the brave men and women who serve and sacrifice each day in our military.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have the privilege and the important responsibility to honor our men and women in uniform by providing for them while they are training, when they are deployed, and if they are wounded. I voted for the NDAA in committee this year, and I will vote for it on the Senate floor because I know that it will support our servicemembers throughout their time in uniform and beyond. This bill funds the training and equipment our troops need to go into battle. It funds the critical weapons systems that they need to protect our Nation. And it provides for them after they return home--albeit less robustly than it should--through medical care and opportunities to build skill sets for civilian careers.

This bill is good for Connecticut as it supports both our Connecticut National Guard and Reserve and our State's hard-working defense manufacturers. Specifically, it funds two submarines a year. The NDAA maintains robust funding for the Ohio Replacement Program, the Virginia Class Submarine, the Heavy Lift Replacement Helicopter Program, and the Joint Strike Fighter. It funds advanced procurement for the Army's UH- 60 Blackhawk M Model that will be used by the Connecticut National Guard, and it rightly does not authorize a costly and unnecessary round of base realignments and closures.

The NDAA will strengthen our commitment to eliminating the scourge of sexual assault from our military. It includes provisions from my bill to provide victims of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with the same rights to counsel and other protection afforded victims in civilian courts. It rightly eliminates the ability of a commander to dismiss a court martial or reduce a sentence, and it establishes minimum sentencing guidelines in cases of sexual assault. The bill also strengthens rights for victims of sexual assault at pretrial article 32 proceedings and ensures that they will have counsel present when interviewed.

I have been very concerned with properly providing for those wounded warriors who suffer the so-called signature wounds of these recent wars: post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. Just this year, I was saddened by the loss of Connecticut veterans who fought long battles with these illnesses. Though I believe that more efforts are needed, the NDAA will help to provide improved outreach on suicide prevention to Reservists in Connecticut and across the country to hopefully reach additional wounded warriors in need of help.

I have also been very concerned with the lack of interoperability between Department of Defense and VA medical records. Right now, when someone separates from the military, the VA has no complete, automatic access to veterans' service-related medical records, even though the Department of Defense has those records. Defects in interoperability have contributed to the unconscionable backlog of veterans' claims. I have worked with Senator Nelson on a bill to mandate interoperable medical records between the Department of Defense and the VA, and I am pleased that provisions on this subject are in the NDAA. These provisions require the SecDef and the Secretary of VA to ensure the Departments' electronic health record systems are interoperable with integrated display of data, or a single electronic health record, and that each is compliant with national standards.

Additionally, I am pleased that the NDAA includes provision-enhancing mechanisms to correlate skills and training for military occupational specialties with skills and training required for civilian certifications and licenses or IT credentialing. By prioritizing training and certification, not only do we ensure that our military personnel have the appropriate skills to carry out their duties, but we also ensure that our veterans have a path to translate these skills to civilian life and find work that fits their skills once they leave the service.

Finally, this bill strengthens our commitment to ensuring that we do not contract with the enemy. It includes provisions I championed giving combatant commanders greater authority to terminate or void a contract with anyone supporting our enemies,

and it prohibits funding to enter into contracts with Rosoboronexport-- a Russian company financing Assad's cruel war against the Syrian people.

Overall, I am pleased to support this bill to keep our country safe and our military strong. I look forward to voting for this bill and to continuing to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support our national defense.

Madam President, I am pleased and honored to join my colleagues this morning, Senators Blunt, Whitehouse, and Graham. They have been leaders on issues involving national security and defense and particularly in the intelligence and cyber area.

Senator Blunt has a long record of bipartisan leadership in this body, as well as in the House of Representatives and in government generally, in addressing issues without regard to partisan predilections or biases. He has not only led but produced results.

Senator Whitehouse has tirelessly pursued this area of cyber security. To his great credit, he has been with the movement for making our Nation more secure and also making the public more aware about the need for action in this area.

In truth, there is a saying that ignorance is bliss, but in truth, in areas of national security, that is rarely the case. In this instance, ignorance can do great harm and it is a source of peril. Our Nation is largely ignorant about the threats posed by national security and, more importantly, about the potential responses that must be mobilized to secure our infrastructure, our critical innovative information, and many other areas where we are at risk from a diverse source of threats. It is not only foreign governments, such as China; it is teenage hackers in eastern European countries, it is terrorists around the world who mean to do us harm and put their own movements at an advantage, and it is also competitors in the private world who seek competitive advantage against our own private enterprise companies that have intellectual information and assets. As a result of these cyber attacks, intellectual property is lost, identities are stolen, and America is made less safe.

Every day, the United States is under attack--literally every minute of every day--by individuals wishing to steal sensitive information from our government, from our Department of Defense, and from corporate information systems as well as home networks of individual Internet users. The cyber threat has become almost conventional wisdom in some quarters because we know that our military and intelligence communities are certain that this threat must be met. In fact, the next Pearl Harbor will come not from the sky but from a computer network that links to essential sources of intellectual assets and information in this country and degrades or, in fact, destroys them.

Senator Whitehouse and I, along with Senators Graham and Blunt, have introduced legislation that would institute new reporting requirements. These requirements apply to Federal agencies charged with reviewing and responding to cyber attacks. In effect, the Federal Government would lead by example. Leadership is important not only for State and local governments but also for the private sector. The legislation would help us better protect our country from hackers wishing to do harm, and it is based on the simple premise that we need to know about the threats we face.

The President has taken action--and I credit him--with the Executive order he has instituted, but that Executive order leaves great gaps. The legislation introduced by Senator Whitehouse and me--along with Senators Graham and Blunt--will institute new reporting requirements to us by our Federal agencies. This bill will require that information to be submitted from a variety of agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the FBI, and--in my view, most critically of all--the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most Americans have very little idea about what the Securities and Exchange Commission collects by way of information, but, in fact, it is a treasure trove, a panorama and window into the workings of corporate America. Very importantly in this area, they can tell us what corporations--big and small around the country--are doing to protect themselves. It can tell shareholders what they should know. The shareholders, after all, are the owners of these companies, and they will ultimately bear the financial burden of failures by corporate America if they fail in their duties to protect their critical infrastructure.

Not only are shareholders affected but neighbors living near powerplants, as well as customers--banking customers, for example, whose critical financial information is entrusted to financial institutions. A vast variety of clients, customers, owners, and others affected by these corporations have a right to know from the Securities and Exchange Commission what is being done to protect against cyber attacks.

Senator Whitehouse and Senator Blunt have described in very powerful terms the advantages of this legislation, but let me say that equally important is what it does not do. We need to be mindful that 90 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure--that is right, 90 percent of it--is owned by private companies, and those private entities have a responsibility to our Nation to ensure that their security standards meet the task of fending off cyber attacks.

This legislation should not be the only action Congress takes. In fact, Senator Rockefeller has championed legislation that is essential, and I am proud to be a supporter of it. I supported it in the Commerce Committee, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to partner with him in helping to move it to the floor of the Senate.

This legislation is a very strong complement and supplement to that measure. In fact, that measure would require industry-driven voluntary cyber security standards for critical infrastructure. It would strengthen cyber research and development. It would improve the cyber workforce through development and education. It would increase public awareness of cyber risks and cyber security. I think the measure approved by the Commerce Committee is vital, and this measure very appropriately complements it.

America can't fully address a threat that it doesn't fully understand, and this legislation that Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blunt, Senator Graham, and I have introduced would increase public understanding of an issue critical not only to the Federal Government but to all the American people, and it would ensure that Americans know how they are safer or less safe as a result of the extraordinarily dangerous menace posed by a potential cyber attack.

I will yield the floor with a question to Senator Whitehouse regarding the Executive order issued by the President and ask, in light of that Executive order, does Senator Whitehouse still feel this legislation will perform a service to protect our Nation?

Mr. President, I offer my own concluding remarks by saying that Senator Whitehouse earlier referred to our failure. He characterized it as a failure to accomplish legislation during the last session of Congress. Senators Blunt and Graham were very instrumental in that effort, and I was proud to work with them. But that failure had consequences in alerting the executive branch and galvanizing their will to act. So I would not say it was completely without consequence or benefit.

I hope we will actually be successful during this session in passing legislation that is so important to moving the Federal Government even further in a direction where it should be going.

I thank Senator Whitehouse for that question. I would observe, in fact, that the executive branch, very importantly, followed a number of the leading ideas Senator Whitehouse and our group fashioned. Of course, we take no pride of authorship or ownership in those ideas, and many of them came from some of the best minds in the administration, who are, in fact, thinking seriously about this problem.

So I think it really has to be a partnership--not only a bipartisan partnership in the Senate and the Congress, but also a partnership between the executive and legislative branches.

I conclude with this thought: In many of the briefings we had as Senators, off the record or classified, I was struck by how horrified and at least alarmed most Americans would be if they heard some of the stories of how close America has come to the next Pearl Harbor, how close we have come to cyber catastrophe, and how vulnerable the Nation still is, despite the growing awareness in both the corporate and military sectors of our country about this threat.

So when we talk about creating awareness, we are talking literally about spreading information that is vital for Americans to know.

I will close with the thought that I hope the leaders of this country who have control over classifying information would seek ways to inform the American public about the risks and the dangers posed from cyber attack.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Connecticut to address a specific provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act. Overall, while this deal is flawed, we are heartened to see both sides coming together to put in place a workable fiscal foundation for the next 2 years. But we want to make sure to clarify what we are intending to do with a particular provision in this bill. Specifically, section 203 of the act institutes new reforms to the Social Security Death Master File, which keeps an authoritative record of deaths in this country. These important reforms include a new certification process that will ensure only those properly authorized and able to maintain the information under significant safeguards can access the information on this master file on a current basis, helping prevent identity theft and other abuses. Release of the information to all others would be delayed by 3 years after an individual's death. We would like to emphasize, though, that this provision was not intended to interrupt in any way the legitimate use of the Death Master File in the interim. I will turn to my colleague to explain why we think this is so important and how we think we can avoid this situation.

I echo my colleague's recommendations. Overall, so long as we manage the transition appropriately, my friend and fellow Senator from Connecticut and I believe the new system will save hundreds of millions of dollars and also protect the identities of millions of Americans.

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

Mr. President, I asked my colleague from Rhode Island to stay on the floor for a couple of minutes because I wanted to thank him for the erudite and eloquent explanation he has just given for why our focus should be so aggressively and unrelentingly on the tremendous opportunities for saving health care costs and raising health care quality at the same time. I am very proud to have joined him and other colleagues in a task force that is seeking commonsense solutions to lower the costs of health care and at the same time increase its efficiency and quality. The two go together.

The phenomenon he just discussed of reducing readmissions to hospitals once patients are discharged also means that the quality of those discharges, the rehabilitation plans and hand-offs to primary physicians, and the suffering and pain for those patients is reduced, and that is just a microcosm of one example of how this goal can be accomplished.

We are late in this year, and we have no real time remaining before the end of this year to do the kinds of reforms legislatively that will help advance this ball. But the attention we need to devote to this issue is clearly beyond this year and beyond the next year.

We are making progress, and the graphs show it, but there is so much progress to be made in extending lifespans and quality of life as well as reducing the cost of health care.

We need to make sure we seize this historic moment to show the rest of the world that we can do better and we will do better in providing health care delivery. The cause of health care delivery reform is one that cries out for a focused effort involving both branches of our government, executive and legislative, and both parties, as well as both Houses of this legislature.

The kind of focus given by Senators Cantwell and Whitehouse so penetratingly and powerfully today is the kind of focus we should maintain. I hope in the days or months ahead we will devote more attention by coming to the floor, doing events in our States, and making sure the administration is aware of our concern in meetings. I look forward to continuing that effort in the time ahead.

Again, I thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse, as well as others, such as Senator Schumer and my colleague from Connecticut Senator Murphy, as well as Senator Cantwell, for their devoted efforts. I am very proud to be working with them.

I see my colleagues are on the Senate floor. It is late in the day, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, over the weekend, the State of Connecticut and the country and the world commemorated with grief and continued pain the first year anniversary of the tragic massacre in Newtown.

On the morning of Saturday--1 year after the Newtown tragedy--I attended a church service, a beautiful, moving, powerful celebration of faith at the St. Rose of Lima Church, whose pastor, Monsignor Robert Weiss, has been such a great friend to so many in the community and such a source of strength and comfort.

Later in the weekend, I visited with the family of Erika Robinson of West Haven, Connecticut, who was shot and killed at a nightclub in New Haven on October 26. This seemingly random act of violence left Erika dead and five other individuals injured by gunfire.

I have spent months and have been grateful for the experience with the families of those victims in Newtown. I was equally grateful to spend this time with Erika's family--Celeste and Greg Fulcher--at their home, and I want to thank them for welcoming me to their home on that day.

Erika Robinson was only 26 years old when she became a victim of gun violence. She clearly was a person full of joy and life and goodness for all of her 26 years and including the day she perished.

She was building a business, a clothing line. As her business grew, a local store started selling that line of clothing. Those who knew her described her as hard working and driven.

She was compassionate. Most recently, she released a special collection in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

She had enormous potential. She did everything right. She played by the rules. She stayed out of trouble, and she had the support of her two loving parents.

She was on track to fulfill the American dream, and now her life, tragically, has been reduced to a statistic, unless we make sure it is more than a statistic and that we work and fight to make her legacy one of helping to protect others, helping to prevent gun violence that takes victims like her who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, as she was that night in New Haven, when a shooter who was illegally in possession of a firearm--in fact, apparently on bail-- turned to take as a victim someone else in the crowd that evening in the nightclub, and she became a victim that night inadvertently, unintentionally, and five others were wounded.

I have her picture here. Erika was more than a statistic. She was a person. Part of her clothing line was this small card she fashioned herself:

It's so regular for us to say ``You only live once'', but

do you deeply understand that it's real. What I'm trying to

say is be fearless. Do things you always wanted to do. Never

let anyone hold you back. Enjoy this thing we call life while

we can. People going to talk regardless, so be you!

Forever, Erika Robinson.

May that legacy be forever. May that legacy be with us forever and inspire us to work as we have done on behalf of the families of Newtown and as we should be doing on behalf of the 10,000 other victims of gun violence since Newtown.

The victims are not only the victims who perished among those 10,000, they are others who have been injured, such as the 5 who were injured that night when the shooter at that nightclub in New Haven was aiming for someone else and sprayed gunfire that killed Erika, took her as a casualty but also injured others severely and traumatized countless others who saw or watched or heard what went on in that nightclub that night, an establishment that was legally licensed by the State of Connecticut, legally licensed to entertain people and charge for them being there, an establishment that was the last place Erika Robinson knew.

Such a promising young woman at the wrong place at the wrong time, a woman who could have contributed so much to New Haven, to Connecticut, to our country. This was a tragic loss for her family that continues to honor her life with courage and strength and a tragic loss for all of us and for the thousands of people who came to her funeral because she had already, in those young 26 years, touched so many lives.

We owe it to her and to her family that her legacy will be one of protecting others such as she, protecting others across America regardless of the neighborhood or the place in that neighborhood, whether it is downtown New Haven, an urban area, or Newtown, a suburban neighborhood. It should not matter where gun violence is a threat. We should eradicate it everywhere. It should not matter who may be the victim of gun violence, what her background may be, her race, religion, anything about her.

Every human being, every person in the United States of America is deserving of protection that our society failed to give this young woman. We do a great disservice to our Nation when we fail to honor those individuals who may not be in the headlines, who may not be from neighborhoods that we know but others that are unfamiliar to us. We owe it to ourselves, not just to Erika and her family but to ourselves as a nation to do better and to make America safer. She deserved better from the greatest country in the history of the world. We as citizens of that country deserve better and have an obligation to do better. So we will, I hope, leave a legacy for her in her name that speaks to a safer, better America.

I yield the floor.