Floor Statements

Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to Commander Merle J. Smith, Jr., of Mystic, CT, who was honored on April 1, 2012, during the Coast Guard's annual Eclipse Week, as the first African-American graduate of the Coast Guard Academy in 1966.

Founded in 1876 in New London, CT, the Coast Guard Academy has made fundamental progress since its first African-American cadet. Over the past decades, it has diversified its student body, provided support to underrepresented students, and raised awareness about the Coast Guard, its Academy, and military training more generally among a wide range of communities. Commander Smith was honored this year with the inaugural Merle J. Smith Pioneer Award as one of the first to realize the ideal of minority participation and for his contributions to our Nation since paving the way for future cadets on that infamous graduation day.

After leaving the Academy, Commander Smith served in Vietnam in 1969, commanding a patrol boat on more than 80 missions and becoming the first African-American member of the maritime service to earn a Bronze Star. While in the Coast Guard, he received a law degree from George Washington University, and after his military tenure, dedicated many years as an attorney for Groton-based Electric Boat. Commander Smith also taught at the Academy as a part-time law teacher and then later as an adjunct professor. He is a shining example of the wide range of possibilities offered to Academy graduates--whether they choose to pursue a career in the military, in a civilian profession, such as the law, or both--and is a stellar role model for cadets past and present.

The Coast Guard and Coast Guard Academy began adopting equal opportunity policies in earnest when President Kennedy ordered the diversification of the forces defending our coasts. Now, each year, the Coast Guard hosts Eclipse Week, a week-long effort to put its diversity efforts in the spotlight. Discussions on openness and inclusivity are facilitated. Minority alumni are welcomed on campus to form relationships with current and incoming Academy students as well as interested high school students.

In addition to Commander Smith, the Coast Guard honored three other valuable members of their community--partners in the pursuit of equal representation--during this year's Eclipse Week. Frances Neal was awarded this year's Humanitarian Award for her legacy of lovingly serving food to cadets for 25 years. One of the Academy's most beloved equal opportunity officers, JoAnn P. Miller, or ``Mama Miller,'' as she was affectionately called by cadets, was also celebrated. And, Vice Admiral Manson K. Brown, a student of Commander Smith's, was given this year's Genesis Award for his service as a Pacific Area commander and his work founding the Genesis Club while attending the Academy--an organization still in existence that supports underrepresented cadets.

The Coast Guard promotes diversity not only though Eclipse Week, but also by running community-based initiatives such as the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Diversity and its various programs, including Diversity Champion of the Week, Affinity Groups, and Strategic Education Partnerships. It also has an active Office of Inclusion and Diversity, headed by Chief Diversity Officer, Antonio Farias, that facilitates partnerships between high school and college students, as well as cadets, so that citizens of all backgrounds can see what it means to work towards a career in the Coast Guard and in the U.S. military. And, in 2011, Rear Admiral Sandra Stosz became the first female Service Academy superintendent in our Nation's history. She was recently named as one of Newsweek's ``150 Women Who Shake the World.'' More than 30 years ago, Eclipse Week's goal was racial inclusivity. Today, this yearly event aims to promote diversity more comprehensively.

Displayed in the historical archive of the Coast Guard's Web site, is a photograph of Commander Smith on the day of his graduation, proudly shaking the hand of his father, Colonel Merle J. Smith, Sr., and smiling at the camera. This image speaks of generational advancement, community, and hope. However, the weathered sepia of the photograph of father and son also reminds us that we cannot become complacent, stuck in stories of progress from previous decades. We must always be ready, ``Semper Paratus,'' for progress. The theme of this year's

Eclipse Week--``openness, inclusion, change''--is apt and inspiring for the work ahead.

Madam President, this past Sunday, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, VVMF, held a dedication ceremony on the National Mall, commemorating ten courageous men whose names recently have been carved on the black granite walls of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

One of them--a brave and beloved airman, Joseph William Aubin--hailed from Bridgeport, CT. On the morning of May 26, 1966, Chief Warrant Officer Aubin, an experienced Chief Aviation Electronic Technician, was asked at the last minute to join a mission. He unquestioningly boarded the Skywarrior aircraft with his team from NAS Cubi Point in the Philippines to explore critical suspicious activity in Vietnam. On the way, he and his team encountered damaging weather conditions that unexpectedly doomed the engines. In this critical moment, Chief Warrant Officer Aubin was instructed to ``bail out'' into the South China Sea. Along with three of his team members, he died there.

Since that day in 1966, Chief Warrant Officer Aubin and the three other men who perished during the mission--ATR3 Richard Carl Hunt from Guys Mills, PA, LT Walter Allan Linzy from Nashville, AR, and ATR3 Richard Dwaine Stocker from Jacksonville, AR--have been remembered as the ``Lost Back End Crew.'' Chief Warrant Officer Aubin's body was never recovered, but he is no less deserving to be memorialized. Now, the entire Nation can visit the site of the Vietnam Memorial to honor him and his ultimate sacrifice.

Chief Warrant Officer Aubin will never be forgotten. Names carved into the wall are written into our national memory and history for all generations to visit emotionally and physically. Newly inscribed names reaffirm the message that the Nation recalls all commemorated at this memorial with deep gratitude and appreciation.

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

Mr. President, privacy is a fundamentally and almost uniquely American value. It is the reason the Colonies rebelled--one of the major reasons they rebelled--against the British. The invasion of our homes by British soldiers without court approval, the lodging of those soldiers in our homes without permission--the invasion of the fundamental rights of privacy was one of the basic reasons this Nation sought independence from the British. So throughout our history, privacy has been a value, a fundamental right affirmed again and again in our courts, enshrined in our Constitution and ingrained in our way of life.

That is the reason so many of us were offended and regarded as reprehensible and repugnant a practice that was revealed recently--a practice involving employers coercing and compelling the disclosure of log-in information, user names, and passwords to private accounts and private systems by job applicants. And the same kind of coercion and compulsion applied to current or existing employees as a condition of their continuing in their jobs. That kind of practice is abhorrent, and it is the reason that yesterday I, along with a number of my colleagues from both this body and others from the House of Representatives, introduced the Password Protection Act of 2012.

These practices are unacceptable for a number of reasons. An employer has plenty of ways other than accessing private accounts--Gmail, storage data, and accounts on Facebook or other social networking sites--to obtain information that is relevant to employer needs and interests in offering a position to someone. There are other means that are adequate and acceptable. What is not acceptable is coercing and compelling access to an applicant's e-mail account, which could contain all kinds of personal information that is inappropriate and unnecessary for an employer to know, information that is irrelevant, in fact, to the terms and duties of a person's employment.

Second, the disclosure itself endangers the security of that applicant's personal data as well as the Web sites themselves. Too many careless companies too often have lost customer data or employee information, allowing it to be breached through poor security practices. That is the reason I have proposed a measure that would require safeguards of that data--a separate measure that is before this Chamber now--to ensure adequate remedies when there are breaches and to require systems in place by employers to guard that information. An applicant who takes care to use encrypted networks or other personal safeguards may find his or her personal information--financial data, medical information--breached through no fault of his or her own simply because the company fails to take adequate steps to safeguard it.

There is another reason these practices are abhorrent; that is, identity theft by the employer itself--a continuing danger. That kind of potential danger is a real one that certainly raises this interest very squarely.

But maybe as important as any of these other interests is the danger of compromising the security of third parties--loved ones, family, friends--who have entrusted the person who is

applying for a job or who is employed by a company that breaches its responsibility by demanding this information. When an employer logs in to an employee's personal account, he sees that employee's e-mails with his or her spouse or Facebook pictures of siblings and children. Those parties are completely unaware that one of their friends' or family members' employers may be reading their correspondence or looking at their pictures. Imagine a daughter who tells her mother of a pregnancy, a son who acknowledges an addiction to a parent, a father who speaks of his wife's illness in confidence to his children. Each has an expectation of privacy that is betrayed and violated when an employer demands log-in information, user names, or passwords from a job applicant or a current employee. The impact is not only on that employee or job applicant but on innocent loved ones--friends, family-- whose confidential information, e-mails, and other data may be exposed.

Of course, when information is exposed in this way, there is the danger of discrimination based on marital status, sex, gender, and other kinds of prohibited categories. So barring the compelled disclosure of this information actually is an aid to the employer because it ensures that none of these hiring or firing decisions is based on a prohibited category or discrimination.

The Password Protection Act addresses all these concerns and prohibits employers from forcing prospective or current employees to hand over personal, private financial information that has no place in the hiring process. The bill prohibits an employer from compelling or coercing an employee or prospective employee to provide access to a private system as a condition of employment. This means an employer cannot compel a prospective or current employee to provide his Gmail password, and an employer cannot force an employee or prospective employee to log on to a password-protected account so the employer may browse the account's content.

The Password Protection Act also very importantly prohibits retaliation, which is a danger with current employees. That retaliation could take all kinds of forms, but the demand for log-in information, user names, or passwords certainly creates a kind of presumption that the refusal to do so prompts action that can be regarded as retaliation. An employer who violates these legally required duties is subject to a penalty of $10,000 per violation.

This act will protect employees from unreasonable invasions of their privacy--unreasonable invasions that have no commonsense basis--and it prevents unintended consequences. It doesn't prohibit social networking within the office on a voluntary basis, it does not bar employers from conducting valid investigations of misconduct, it does not prevent an employer from controlling the company's own system--its own Facebook account, for example--and it provides that States may exempt certain categories of employees, such as individuals who deal with children who are under 13 years of age or Federal employees who may have access to classified or secure national security information. The bill also provides for reasonable exemptions that State law may make for State employees who are involved, for example, in law enforcement or corrections.

Like so many in this body, I have heard from countless Connecticut citizens who are not only offended but outraged by these practices reported in the press. Fortunately, many employers have shown they get it, they understand this deeply held value, and they have rejected these possible practices. Many who might have been contemplating engaging in them have likewise retreated and reversed their decisions. So merely shining a light, pointing the spotlight, and raising the issue has brought many employers to understand the commonsense force of objections to these practices.

I wish to thank grassroots groups, such as the 57,000 citizens at Bold Progressives, who signed a petition at ProtectOurPasswords.org to let Washington know--57,000 of them strong--they reject the idea that their employers will force them to hand over this personal, private information. I thank the activists at Access Now, who are similarly generating a groundswell of support for this initiative and working to protect employees' rights on the job. I also wish to thank companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google, which have cooperated and support this effort because they have an interest in preventing invasions of privacy, demands for information that are unnecessary, repugnant, reprehensible, and unacceptable. I thank all of them for working with us on this legislation.

Finally, I thank Senators Schumer, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Wyden, Sanders, and Akaka, as well as Representatives Heinrich and Perlmutter on the other side of this body, for working with me in introducing this bill. I am hopeful the Congress will consider it promptly and successfully because I think it sets a marker and provides a milestone in protecting individual privacy against abhorrent invasions in the workplace and elsewhere that have no place in American life.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every year the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, honors our country's local entrepreneurs, hardworking Americans who have built businesses from ideas and created jobs for their communities. I would like to congratulate the eight outstanding entrepreneurs from Connecticut who were recognized in 2011, most especially, A. Gregory Bachmann of Torrington, Connecticut's DYMAX Corporation, who

was named 2011 Connecticut Small Business Person of the Year.

The SBA has advocated for small businesses in Connecticut since 1953, providing assistance through the Federal Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, Program, facilitated at Connecticut Innovations. This support has included more than $500 million of financing, education and training, and procurement aid for individuals with big ideas and businesses wanting to expand by taking technological risks.

The winner of the Small Business Person of the Year award must meet eight sets of criteria, including staying power, growth in number of employees, increase in sales and/or unit volume, current and past financial performance, innovativeness of product or service offered, response to adversity, contributions to community-oriented projects, and the products exported and markets served.

In 1979, Mr. Bachmann inherited the business his parents had started in their basement. Now, DYMAX makes its home in a 100,000 square foot building and operates facilities globally, including in Germany, China, Hong Kong, and Korea. It offers innovative technology, such as adhesives, coatings, epoxies, masking resins, and light-curing systems, to manufacturers who rely on innovative solutions for reliable, cost- effective, and quick automated assembly. Most recently, DYMAX has successfully experimented with UV and LED technology as a cutting-edge way for companies to grow. In addition to the tremendous progress Mr. Bachmann has made since his parents' vision, I commend him for ensuring that his company remains environmentally conscious while making remarkable strides in research and development. DYMAX also gives back to Connecticut's less fortunate, and has received an award from United Way of Northwest Connecticut for ``conducting the most unique employee incentive program'' for contributions to their annual food drive.

In addition to the title of Small Business Person of the Year, the SBA recognizes seven other businesses or individuals in Connecticut every year as Minority Small Business Champion, Veterans Advocate Champion, Explorer of the Year, the Jeffrey Butland Family Owned Business of the Year, Region One Subcontractor of the Year, Women in Business Champion, and Financial Services Champion.

Clayton Williams and Dennis Brown are two of the 2011 awardees who are driven by their passion for the potential of small businesses and the ways they can transform lives. I have seen firsthand the tremendous roots local businesses have set in New Haven and the central part they play in the city's community, so it is no surprise that Mr. Williams, the city of New Haven's small business development officer, received the 2011 Minority Small Business Champion award. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of minority entrepreneurs as part of the Office of Economic Development to help fund and sustain the best, most promising ideas in the New Haven area. Veterans Advocate Champion Dennis Brown was awarded for his service as vice president of Business Counseling for Connecticut Community Investment Corporation, a nonprofit that works with small business owners to secure loans and develop strategy. A veteran and recipient of an SBA veteran's loan in 1982, Mr. Brown demonstrates that dreams can be realized with persistence. I applaud the SBA for recognizing the importance of providing for our Nation's heroes who wish to run their own businesses once returning home.

In addition, every year the SBA names an Explorer of the Year in Connecticut, acknowledging that risk confronts business owners every day. 2011 winner, On Site Gas Systems of Newington and its president, Frank X. Hursey, are committed to the most cutting-edge solutions and designs for reliable sources of gas used by a comprehensive set of industries, including emergency response, food preservation, automobile, and by our military.

Often, it is family owned businesses, hoping to continue the legacy of previous generations that become reliable sources of products or services central to their communities. The SBA named Jim Nilsson, owner and managing partner of Geissler's Supermarkets of South Windsor, as the 2011 Jeffrey Butland Family Owned Business of the Year. In 1923, Geissler's was a small storefront, and now it offers online shopping and delivery. Often family businesses in Connecticut also win other categories, and in 2011, the SBA honored Region 1 Subcontractor of the Year Thomas Dolan, Jr., for his work as president of Hi-Rel Products in Essex. Hi-Rel Products was started in the early 1970s by Mr. Dolan's father, who worked out of his Old Saybrook home to experiment with reliable precision components for microelectronics. Now, this technology has applications across a wide range of industries. Currently, Hi-Rel employs approximately 100 people in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Lastly, I would like to recognize Margaret Sheahan, 2011 Women in Business Champion, and Patrick Lorent, 2011 Financial Services Champion, for their work in Connecticut in the legal and financial lending industries, respectively. Ms. Sheahan is founding partner of Mitchell & Sheahan of Redding and provides important legal counsel in employment and union disputes. Mr. Lorent was honored by the SBA for his role as vice president and manager of People's United Bank Government Lending Department where he connects United Bank with national, statewide, and local lending programs. This important work provides vital lifelines to the small businesses of Connecticut that can continue to focus on research and development without worrying about their protection and sustenance.

The SBA continues to raise awareness and support for Connecticut's local entrepreneurs with their annual awards. The SBA and its 2011 honorees are inspirational, showing our Nation's budding business owners and leaders how to grow an idea to global proportions--driven by the most advanced research and technology and steadfast confidence in the American legacy of starting from the beginning to achieve greatness.

Mr. President, I am honored to follow my distinguished colleague from New York and his very powerful and eloquent words on a subject that concerns all of us, not only in New England but across the country. I have heard from countless students in Connecticut where we have some of the best educational institutions in the country. I know my colleague, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire, has been very much in touch with the people of her State, and particularly young people there, striving--as they are in Connecticut-- for more affordable education.

We are talking about the future of our country. There should be nothing contentious, certainly nothing partisan about this issue of financing the future of education and particularly student loans. This ought to be a common cause, and it ought to be bipartisan. I believe eventually it will be because we need to come together on this issue for the sake of young people whose lives are very directly and immediately impacted by this issue in Connecticut and across the country. The impact is not only on their lives but our competitive economy, increasingly a global economy in Connecticut that depends more and more on exports and more and more on talented and gifted and trained, educated skilled people. We need them in Connecticut, and we cannot permit the interest rate on Stafford loans to rise to 6.8 percent from its present rate of 3.4 percent.

Even now the debt with the present 3.4 percent is crushing to many of our students who are struggling to pay their student loans with that lower interest rate.

Stanley Knotowicz--who contacted my office, who is seeking solutions in good faith, constructively, and positively--reached out to my office because he experiences the same financial hardships facing millions of recent graduates across the country. He is paying $70 a week for gas. He is providing financial support for his grandmother in her late eighties who might lose her home. He is trying to save money to get his own apartment. He is one of the many students in Connecticut and across the country who have reached out and my office has helped him.

I have also heard from Brenda Kasimir, a mother who would be crushed if she were forced to pay this higher interest rate. Again, my office has helped her to meet the ever-increasing challenge of today's economy with that student debt that now, overall, is the highest of any debts faced by our people as a whole, more than $1 trillion.

Senators Reid and Harkin want to come to a solution that will keep the burden off the backs of students without adding to our national debt. It is not a tax increase that they propose, it is simply a solution that clarifies tax rules that are already in existence by closing a loophole. It is known as the Gingrich-Edwards loophole. I wish it were not known by that name. But it lets lawyers, consultants and highly paid professionals dodge payroll taxes and push that burden off on the middle class.

Getting rid of this loophole is another step toward an America where everybody pays their fair share and everybody plays by the same rules. It is the America that we grew up believing in. It is the America that we continue to believe in. Some have claimed that it is an America we have lost. I don't believe it. We can prove it by closing this loophole.

The provision proposed by Senate Democrats to close this loophole is narrowly tailored to affect only wealthy individuals, those making over $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for joint filers. They are trying to shield their salaries from taxes, calling themselves small businesses. It will not affect the actual small businesses of this country, and it will not raise taxes for anybody who already pays what they owe in payroll taxes. This loophole should be closed independent of the student loan crisis. We ought to close this loophole regardless of the challenge we face now in keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

Very simply, we are being asked to make a false choice--the choice between accessible education and improved public health. It is not a choice we have to make. Our long-term economy and, as a result, the Federal budget will both benefit if both of these goals are served and preserved.

There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is supremely epitomized by this situation. Last year an analysis in Health Affairs found that for each 10 percent increase in local public health spending, the rate of infant deaths and death from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer dropped significantly. Preventing these deaths and the costly treatment that precedes them could save the Federal Government large amounts of money and improve the quality of life for countless Americans.

I urge my colleagues to come together and recognize that preventive health care is essential not only to the future of this generation that will take advantage of the 3.4-percent interest rate for their Stafford loans but other generations as well, generations whose they will be and generations who are their parents.

This program is essential. The 3.4-percent interest rate should not be a partisan issue, and we should be closing this loophole regardless of the Stafford loan issue. But one way or the other, we should pay for it by closing the loophole and making sure students have an affordable interest rate for these Stafford loans.

I yield the floor.

I rise today to speak on an issue that is profoundly important and meaningful to this body at this moment in history. We face a critical juncture in our Nation's history, and we absolutely must renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act, not only for the sake of women but also our families around Connecticut and this country.

I thank my colleagues for voting to proceed to consideration of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. VAWA is critically important. It is bipartisan legislation that gives victims of domestic violence and sexual assault access to the services they so desperately need. This crucial law supports both the organizations that provide these services and the law enforcement agencies that assist the victims as they pursue justice.

As a law enforcement official, I saw firsthand in my duties as State attorney general for Connecticut how important and practical and meaningful this law is. We have a responsibility to not only authorize but also to strengthen VAWA right away.

Some 17 years have passed since the original Violence Against Women Act. We have made great strides, but we cannot be complacent in our efforts to protect our Nation's children and women. At a time when the women of our great Nation face relentless attacks on their rights, we cannot afford to lose the ground we have gained over the last 17 years. We must address the grave concerns of domestic violence and sexual assault which are in no way partisan. As Chairman Leahy so eloquently and powerfully stated, there is nothing Republican or Democratic about a victim who suffers from this grave ill.

S. 1925 is a bipartisan bill written over months of negotiations and consultations with critical law enforcement and victims advocacy groups, and it supports a number of organizations in my home State of Connecticut with a mission to protect women who experience violence in all forms. This bill provides resources to help a number of organizations in Connecticut fulfill their vital mission to protect more than 54,000--I am going to repeat that because that is a staggering number--54,000 domestic violence victims in Connecticut alone.

Organizations in Connecticut received nearly $5 million in fiscal year 2011 from the Violence Against Women Act. But many domestic programs in Connecticut and around the country are reporting huge staff and resource shortages that are necessary to respond to the hundreds of thousands of women in need. It is truly an epidemic in this country that we must counter and fight just as we would an epidemic of infectious bacteria or other kinds of insidious sources. VAWA would give these service providers the resources they need to protect women, men, and children who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. We have the opportunity to renew and commit to end domestic violence with updates and stronger measures in this act.

I am pleased that S. 1925 builds on the accountability provisions in the current law so we can make sure VAWA grant money is used effectively and efficiently to support victims. There is a new frontier in the fight against domestic violence and sexual assault. We must strengthen provisions dealing with Internet abuse to protect women and others from those kinds of threats, intimidation, harassment, even physical assaults facilitated by the Internet. Domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking can be even more dangerous and threatening in the Internet age, requiring broader and stronger protection. We must protect the thousands of women who fall victim every year to violent crimes facilitated by cyber stalking and impersonation with consequences that are truly horrific and reprehensible.

I am proud to introduce a companion bill to the Violence Against Women Act that enhances current law for the Internet age. This legislation, the Internet Abuse Act, expands the ability of law enforcement to prosecute criminals who use the Internet to intimidate, threaten, harass, and facilitate acts of sexual violence against women, children, and others.

The VAWA proposal before us includes key concepts from the Internet Abuse Act. One of the key provisions strengthens existing criminal provisions against cyber stalking. We must take this act to the new frontier of Internet abuse and make it real against the very pernicious and reprehensible cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and cyber assault that is as much a fact of life as the older forms of domestic abuse. This provision gives law enforcement the ability to go after more real instances of criminal harassment and abuse online, and I want to stress at the same time the provision dramatically strengthens free speech protections.

Currently, the government can prosecute individuals for merely annoying online communications as well as communications that may be generally offensive but not directed at a specific person. This provision removes those authorities from the law so that prosecutors will spend their limited resources focusing on real causes of harassing and abusive conduct online.

The law also focuses on vulnerable populations. As we strengthen VAWA, we must ensure that all victims of domestic violence are protected and have access to the services they need.

Although VAWA has been strengthened and updated in every past reauthorization, the needs of some of our most vulnerable communities still have not been fully addressed. One example is elder abuse. Although the VAWA reauthorization in 2000 included provisions to deal with domestic abuse in later life, our Nation's elders continue to be victims of domestic violence. I am pleased that the provisions I drafted with my distinguished colleague, Senator Kohl, which improve the protections for elder victims of domestic abuse, have been included in this reauthorization of VAWA.

There are LGBT protections. It would simply be unconscionable to deny any victim of domestic violence the support he or she needs. For that reason, I strongly support the provisions that ensure all victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, have access to lifesaving services, and we are talking about lifesaving services.

In my experience nobody ever asked what the sexual orientation of a victim was when that person was, in fact, battered and brutalized. There is no such question that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals experience domestic violence at the same rate as the general population. Yet these individuals face discrimination as they attempt to access victims services. That should not be acceptable in this country.

In fact, the survey found 45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. Clearly, there is a real need to improve the access and availability of services for this vulnerable population, and I support measures in the act that ensure victims of domestic and sexual violence, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identification, can access the services they need.

In addition, there are broader protections for Native American communities. S. 1925 makes great improvements to the law enforcement tools available to Native American populations. Members of the Tribal Council of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, a great tribal nation in Connecticut, have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions in S. 1925 and to make sure any amendments are barred if they weaken those protections.

In short, all victims of domestic violence deserve access to the services they need and many of my colleagues I know agree. In fact, 61 from both sides of the aisle have signed on to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and I thank every single one of them for stepping forward and speaking out on this profoundly meaningful and important issue. We have the opportunity to work to eliminate domestic and sexual violence, which is a scourge in our society, costly in suffering as well as dollars, and I encourage my colleagues to keep faith with the hundreds of thousands of victims who look to us for the support they need. We must vote as soon as possible--hopefully today-- to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

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

Mr. President, today I commend the Greater Bridgeport Youth Orchestras, GBYO, as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this year. This legendary local group currently at a membership of 250 students of all ages from 29 different communities around the city of Bridgeport, who participate in 5 different ensembles--has bestowed the gift of great music and mentorship to the State of Connecticut. Through the platform of an orchestra, these young musicians have learned how to support each

other. They listen closely while others shine as well as play as an ensemble, producing thrilling fortissimos that echo in audiences' hearts long after the final note.

While maintaining a high level of musicianship through competitive auditions, the GBYO provides an invaluable experience--an alternative to joining a sports team--for students who love music. Its members can feel camaraderie, learn teamwork, and come to understand the value of weekly group rehearsals and daily practice.

I applaud the GBYO for its goal of providing a supportive environment where lifelong friendships are formed, mentorship thrives, and students feel safe to express their emotions and connect through passionate music. This sensitivity is rare and precious. GBYO combines the development of emotional intelligence and social skills with the principles of hard work and diligence. These young musicians are talented, smart, well-rounded, and, best of all, excited.

In March, the GBYO celebrated its landmark anniversary with a gala alumni concert at the University of Bridgeport, conducted by GBYO's music director, Christopher Hisey, who is an alumnus of the orchestra. He led a stirring and inspiring alumni ensemble piece to finish the tremendous concert. I congratulate executive director Barbara Upton and music director Christopher Hisey, for their leadership.

I wish the Greater Bridgeport Youth Orchestras continued success and hope this well-regarded organization can serve as a role model, inspiring others to preserve and perpetuate the long tradition of the arts and the importance it holds for our culture and society.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 2011 Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame inductees and their contributions to the recent history of the State of Connecticut and our Nation.

In the spirit of preserving the often untold accomplishments of impactful leaders from Connecticut, each year the Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame publicly honors several women, living or deceased, to share their stories, preserve their legacies, and update and equalize the history that is taught to our children. The Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame has created and maintained a remarkable space, free of charge, where the utmost respect can be paid to women who have made immeasurable impacts to our daily lives.

On October 25, 2011, at the 18th Annual Induction Ceremony and Celebration ``Women of Influence: Creating Social Change''--Isabelle M. Kelley, Denise Lynn Nappier, and Patricia Wald were inducted. These three women are trailblazers, taking on various leadership positions in government while breaking through stagnant stereotypes and archaic traditions.

Isabelle M. Kelley devoted her passion for societal transformation, drive to accomplish, and energetic entrepreneurship to the problem of food shortages faced by our country's most impoverished families. Ms. Kelley was born in Connecticut in 1917 and remained there throughout her high school and college years, attending Simsbury High School and the University of Connecticut. Upon graduation in 1938 with an economics degree, she was asked to join the U.S. Department of Agriculture as an economist to examine food purchasing trends, which inspired a life-long interest in our country's food supply. In this capacity, she was the first to publicly link malnourishment in children to limited school achievement. She was asked by President Kennedy to serve on a task force to realize a national food stamp program. In 1964, she authored the Food Stamp Act and was appointed as the first Director of the Food Stamp Division of the USDA. It was the first time any woman directed a national social program at the USDA and led any type of consumer affairs or marketing division in any Federal agency.

Ms. Kelley passed away in 1997, but students of public health and nutrition can listen to and read transcripts of her oral history project by Harvard University's Schlesinger Library, whose aim was to capture the voices of 38 women ``who had achieved positions of high rank in the federal government during the middle decades of the twentieth century.'' In 2011, she was invited into the USDA's Hall of Heroes.

The Honorable Denise Lynn Nappier, now serving her fourth term as Connecticut's first female State treasurer and first elected statewide official, and the country's first African American female State treasurer, can serve as a role model to women around the country who strive to impact the field of financial regulation. Born in 1951 in Hartford, Treasurer Nappier ran for city treasurer in 1989. After working 10 years to engender Hartford's financial development, she won the position of State treasurer. She made visits to schools around the State, teaching students how to save and budget--paving the way for success in their finances as adults. The Connecticut Women's Hall of Fame joins other esteemed organizations that have honored Treasurer Nappier, including the Girl Scouts of Connecticut, the Hartford College for Women, the National Association of Minority and Women Law Firms, the Government Finance Officers Association, and the National Political Congress of Black Women.

The Honorable Patricia Wald has dedicated her career to public service and the law, retiring from her seat as the first female judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to serve on the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. Born in 1928 in the city of Torrington, she went on to attend law school at Yale University as one of only 11 women in her graduating class. Judge Wald was motivated to go into government service by the possibilities of social reform, especially addressing issues concerning poverty and criminal justice. In 1964, she was nominated by President Johnson to the President's Commission on Crime in Washington, DC. After serving the Carter administration as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, she was appointed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 1979, where she served for 20 years, eventually as chief judge. Since her retirement from the bench, she has been asked to join several commissions and task forces, including President Bush's Commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Constitution Project's Guantanamo Task Force. Most recently, she has served on the advisory board of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. I join those who have honored Judge Wald, including members of the International Human Rights Law Group, the American Lawyer Hall of Fame, and the American Bar Association, in celebrating her commitment to the law, especially in protecting our country's most vulnerable.

I know my colleagues will join me in honoring these remarkable women, who weathered criticism and risked public failure to inspire current and upcoming public servants and to better the lives of future generations.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 2011 inductees of the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame, a nonprofit organization that honors men and women from Connecticut who have served their communities in commendable ways since retiring from the military. Starting in 2005, when established by Executive Order, the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame has selected at least 10 inductees each year: men and women from Connecticut who, even after their great sacrifices as Active members of our military, have chosen to continue their service in innovative ways to contribute to the lives of current enlistees, fellow veterans, and civilians.

These local heroes were celebrated at an induction ceremony surrounded by their family and friends this past December attended by Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman and the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs Commissioner Linda Schwartz. I would like to join Lieutenant Governor Wyman and Commissioner Schwartz and formally recognize Samuel Beamon, Sr., Rev. Dr. G. Kenneth Carpenter, Richard Rampone, Ronald Catania, Burke Ross, John Chiarella, Phillip Kraft, Ronald Perry, Dr. Madelon Baranoski, and Harold Farrington, Jr.

Several of these 2011 inductees are well-loved for touching their communities through a wide range of public leadership initiatives. Samuel Beamon, Sr., Rev. Dr. G. Kenneth Carpenter, and Richard Rampone served in Vietnam in the U.S. Marine Corps. Samuel Beamon, Sr. was honored for his exceptional work with the Young Marines Program in Waterbury, CT and as past commandant of the Department of Connecticut Marine Corps League, as well as his esteemed legacy as lieutenant of the Waterbury Police Department. Rev. Dr. G. Kenneth Carpenter has been recognized as a constant source of spiritual guidance as pastor of the Union Baptist Church in Mystic; in addition, he is founder and president of the Mystic Area Shelter and Hospitality, MASH, which gives temporary shelter and counseling to families--especially those with children--who are struggling in this tough economy. Richard Rampone, who worked to protect his community as Patrolman for the Berlin Police Department, is the State commandant of the Marine Corps League Department of Connecticut, whose mission is to assist marines entering civilian life.

Many of our honorees participate in more than one organization, dedicating a vast amount of time to helping servicemembers and veterans. Ronald Catania, who served in the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam, has given countless hours to numerous groups, including the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Connecticut Veterans Memorial, Connecticut National Guard during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the American Red Cross, and the Special Olympics. On September 11, he worked the day after the attacks to transport donated goods to Ground Zero for emergency responders. Burke Ross, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps during World War II, has been a fervent supporter and participant of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, MOPH, volunteers at the West Haven VA Medical Facility, and for the past 25 years has planned the annual Memorial Day Services and Parade in the Derby-Shelton area; in 2001, he was selected as the Disabled American Veteran, DAV, of the Year for his more than 30 years as an officer and then chaplain to his local DAV chapter.

The civic dedication of a number of these inductees spans decades. John Chiarella, who served in the U.S. Army in Korea and Vietnam, has spent 10 years ensuring that Waterbury-area students have an education in our patriotic traditions, including developing a program called Forever Wave, whose mission is to instruct on the flag salute. He is also is known for his role as chairman of the Waterbury Veterans Memorial Committee. U.S. Army veteran Phillip Kraft has been a voice for veterans' benefits as an instructor at the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, annual conference. Also, for many years, Mr. Kraft has watched over burial services and maintained the upkeep of the Spring Grove Cemetery in Darian, where approximately 1,500 veterans have been laid to rest, and also takes the lead as CEO of the National Veterans Services Fund. Honoree Ronald Perry, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam, has been a solid support system for the Meriden, CT, Marine community, speaking out on behalf of several veterans associations, including the Marine Corps League of Meriden, and arranging the birthday celebrations of Meriden-area Marine Corps veterans.

The remaining two Connecticut veterans honored in 2011, Dr. Madelon Baranoski and Harold Farrington, have used the skills and experiences they developed in a professional capacity to positively affect the military and veterans communities of Connecticut. After serving in Vietnam in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, Dr. Baranoski has compiled research on the physiological consequences of stress to foster greater understanding about the mental conditions of veterans in our communities and to help reform the criminal justice system. She is currently an associate professor of psychiatry and the vice chair of the Human Investigation Committee at Yale University School of Medicine. Harold Farrington, Jr., has spent 30 years helping veterans and their families navigate the bureaucracy and reap the benefits of government programs as an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. In an article for New London's The Day, Mr. Farrington candidly captured the emotions he felt as a 2011 Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame Inductee: Having dedicated his life to service, he acknowledged that ``to know my work is being recognized is very rewarding.''

I hope this honor from the State of Connecticut will start to reflect and manifest the pride felt by the family, friends, and fellow veterans of these inductees. It gives me great pride to laud these courageous and selfless individuals who have not hesitated to serve and sacrifice in and out of uniform. To them, I say with gratitude: Today, your country publicly recognizes your contributions and deep, heartfelt commitment to our U.S. veterans.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary life and immeasurable legacy of long-time Connecticut legislator and Superior Court judge, the Honorable Robert Satter, who passed away on January 16, 2012, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The symbolic meaning of this coincidence resonated with many who admired Judge Satter for his crusading work on behalf of civil rights and equal opportunity.

After serving in the Navy during World War II, Bob dedicated himself wholeheartedly to the law, first as a well-known attorney in Hartford where he took on controversial death penalty cases. In 1959, Bob won a seat in the Connecticut Legislature, attributing his successful campaign to the path previously blazed by Democratic Governor Abraham Rubicoff. He served in the Connecticut Legislature until 1961 and then again from 1963 to 1966 where he is known for fighting for society's most marginalized. As a State legislator, he penned Connecticut's first civil rights bill that targeted discrimination in housing sales. Starting in 1966, Bob served as general counsel to the Democratic legislative majority, and was nominated to the bench in 1975 as a Connecticut State judge. Although officially retiring at the age of 70, Bob served as a senior judge and trial referee--only vacating this role when he was too ill to continue serving.

As an attorney, legislator, Superior Court Judge and then as a senior judge, Bob continually challenged himself, presiding in many difficult and controversial cases and always working to make laws to serve the people of Connecticut.

He constantly made the time to give back to future generations of lawyers, teaching courses such as Constitutional Law at Trinity College, Liberties of an American at the University of Hartford, Administrative Law at the University of Connecticut's Graduate School of Political Science, and the Development of Social Policy at Yale University. Bob is a legend at the University of Connecticut Law School, where he taught a Legislative Process course for 27 years.

Bob achieved national renown, but was also well known personally throughout his local community, participating in informal groups, including book, poker, and writing clubs. In his last column for the Connecticut Law Tribune, ``The Last Word on a Long, Rich Life,'' Bob wrote of his appreciation for practicing law in Hartford as opposed to New York City where he started out his legal career. In the greater Hartford area, Bob wrote, ``I found time to participate in the community.'' He created the Hartford Community Renewal Team, which was Hartford's first agency dedicated exclusively to combatting poverty, and in his last published newspaper column, he wrote that he ``would drop any legal matter to come to its assistance.''

This humanity is clearly evident in Bob's essays and books--true gifts to future generations. When he turned 90, he wrote in the Hartford Courant: ``Internally, I am a bunch of memories of people I've known, events I've experienced, books I've read and poems I can still recite. More and more I live in that interior space, recalling the past. When I die, that presence and circuitry will vanish.'' Respectfully, my own view is that his memories will endure through the family and friends that adore him, his legal accomplishments will withstand time, and his ``presence and circuitry'' will be ever vibrant.

Although he served Connecticut for more than 5 decades, Bob's contributions were immeasurable. Connecticut has lost a great mind, teacher, and integral part of its political and progressive infrastructure. Connecticut and the Nation will never forget this great man. He lives on through his words and his tremendous acts of vision and courage as well as his passion for life, the law, and the State of Connecticut.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the seven Connecticut students who have been named 2012 Intel Science Talent Search semifinalists. This elite, national competition seeks to honor high school students who excel in a science or math research project in order to ``highlight the need for improved math and science education in the United States.'' Beginning in 1942, the Society for Science and the Public, SSP, has partnered with Westinghouse and then in 1998 with the Intel Corporation to offer this opportunity for young scientists and mathematicians. These 7 students from Connecticut have been selected from over 1,500 applications from around the country, and I am proud that they represent Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Lakeville, Wallingford, and Woodbridge Counties. Their hard work, motivation, and curiosity gives me great pride and hope in their ability to change the world. Using their intelligence, ideas, and passion, they can help solve some of our Nation's most pressing issues.

Student Zizi Yu from Amity Regional High School observed the severe food allergies experienced by some of her peers. Through a survey and a case controlled study, she took a closer look at what has been commonly called the hygiene hypothesis, finding a correlation between the age of exposure to certain foods and substances and the prevalence of allergies later in life. After being named a semifinalist on January 25, 2012, Zizi was selected as one of 40 finalists and traveled to Washington, DC, in March to meet with national leaders to present her findings.

William Bennett Hallisey and Ryota Ishizuka took a unique, independent science research class at Greenwich High School, where they were inspired to experiment with the intersection of biology and environmental studies. After learning about research conducted at Stanford University, William adjusted the materials previously used in experimentation and examined how silver nanoparticles and felt substrates could serve as an easily transportable, low-cost, and user- friendly filtration system, removing about 95 percent of a system's bacteria. Ryota Ishizuka looked at ways to harness the potential of microbial fuel cells to generate electricity through hydrogen output. She found that she could create a fully autonomous water treatment system, powering a wastewater treatment reactor, by the reactions of bacteria found in the wastewater itself.

Guilford High School's Yuning Zhang used this competition, in conjunction with work at Yale University's School of Medicine, to express his interest in biomedical research. According to his advanced placement biology teacher, Ruth Heckman, Yuning is ``so excited about doing research and wants to make it his future.'' After isolating kidney cells, growing them in enriched cultures, and staining and characterizing them, he compared these samples to non-selectively grown cells. He found that there was an over 70 percent increase in the amount of stem cells that would grow from selectively grown cells, which has incredible future applications for injury repairing and wound healing.

Aaron Shim of Choate Rosemary Hall used computer models and an opportunity to work alongside Yale chemistry professors to study organo- metallic complexes and their possible applications for renewable energy. His goal was to further refine the modeling methods of these complexes in order to expedite our understanding and utilization of the way hydrogen is stored in fuel cells. Over the course of his research, Aaron was motivated by and hopes to explore in the future how computers can help ``us understand a little bit more about the natural world around us, helping solve real-world problems through their rather abstract power of mathematics and computation.''

Hailing from Hamden High School, Yiyuan Hu examined MyD88--a protein involved in the body's immune system--and its role in DNA damage response. Through novel research of infectious diseases as part of Dr. Albert Shaw's laboratory at Yale University's School of Medicine, Yiyuan helped discover unexpected new applications for MyD88 to counter diseases tied to chemicals that help kill bacteria but can also damage DNA. Yiyuan has even inspired other students at Hamden High School to become excited about research and involved in the school's science club.

Student Seung Hyun Lee contemplated the Steiner ratio problem as part of an independent study project in conjunction with his math instructor at his high school, the Hotchkiss School, and Hofstra University's Professor Dan Ismailescu. Seung experimented with the field of combination optimization, a study that combines math and theoretical computer science, with the aim to advance our understanding of the Steiner ratio problem.

The success of these talented young adults is a testament to the care and dedication of the teachers, mentors, and administrators who nurtured them and their projects, giving the time and space for creativity, problem-solving, and experimentation. Even though the Intel Science Competition has strict rules about independent student work, these brilliant mentors inspire their students to spend their free time researching new ideas and thinking big thoughts.

Greenwich High School's independent science research class is taught by Andy Bramante, who left a 15-year career as a chemical engineer and chemist to inspire high school students to love research. An advanced placement biology teacher at Guilford High School and educator for 36 years, Ruth Heckman was excited to report that she gets to learn from students like Yuning Zhang. Zizi's research was guided by Deborah Day, science research teacher at Amity Regional High School. Kevin Rogers, the head of the science department and chemistry teacher at Choate Rosemary Hall, helped Aaron Shim work with an outside group at Yale University in furtherance of his research. Similarly, the instructor of mathematics at the Hotchkiss School, Marta Eso, worked with Seung Hyun Lee to complete an independent study research project at his high school and also at Hofstra University. And Sonia Beloin, teacher and adviser to the Science Bowl and Science Olympiad clubs at Hamden High School, mentored Yiyuan Hu, helping to facilitate his successful work at the Section of Infectious Diseases at Yale School of Medicine and supporting him to improve his presentation over time.

Several of these students were invited to join high-level study on their chosen topics at several select universities. Yuning Zhang, Aaron Shim, and Yiyuan Hu were invited into cutting-edge laboratories at Yale University. Yuning worked with Dr. Gilbert Moeckel, the director of the Renal Pathology and Electron Microscopy Laboratory at Yale University's School of Medicine. After reading some of their papers, Aaron was invited to join Professor Victor S. Batista's research team at Yale University's Department of Chemistry. Yiyuan Hu assisted Dr. Albert Shaw's laboratory in the Section of Infectious Diseases at the Yale School of Medicine, and Seung Hyun Lee worked in conjunction with Professor Dan Ismailescu from Hofstra University. I applaud this fruitful and nurturing relationship between high school students and universities.

I wish the best of luck to the seven Connecticut 2012 Intel Science Talent Search semifinalists as they continue to inspire others to dedicate their brilliance to STEM fields. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring these impressive accomplishments of our Nation's young people.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the Stamford Young Artists Philharmonic, SYAP, and most especially, Salvatore

Princiotti, SYAP's beloved founder and conductor, who is retiring after 52 years.

Currently, SYAP runs eight different ensembles for a wide range of ages, including the advanced Young Artists Philharmonic, an intermediate level orchestra, a string ensemble, flute choirs, jazz groups, and a Summer Jazz Workshop that draws student musicians from around the country.

SYAP has become closely connected to the Stamford area community. Its members are artistic ambassadors, sharing their love of music as a common language and source of connection with all of Connecticut. Through both classical and jazz programming, the SYAP shares different styles of music in venues around Stamford--outreach through plush melodies and moving rhythms--holding performances, for example, at Stamford Town Center, such as the popular outdoor concert series, Jazz on the Plaza.

Committed to a strong tradition of giving back to the less fortunate, the SYAP has partnered with the Union Baptist Church in Stamford where, in exchange for rehearsal space, it held an annual holiday concert whose proceeds benefited the church's senior members. In addition, the Philharmonic partners with the Waterside School in their Outreach String Program, offering lessons to students who cannot afford instruments.

SYAP's level of musicianship is first-rate as demonstrated by its relationship with the Stamford Symphony, which mentors the young musicians, sharing performances and giving workshops. However, the surest indicator of the high level of musicianship is the leadership and 52 dedicated years of the enormously talented violinist and conductor, Maestro Princiotti.

Sal Princiotti, or ``the Prince,'' as he is called by the orchestra members, has dedicated a half a century to enhancing the lives of young musicians, inspiring a passion for melody with specific performances as temporary goals, but with overall experience as his motivating principle. Mr. Princiotti brings enormous talent to the SYAP as a graduate of the Juilliard School and past soloist at Tanglewood Music Festival under world-renown conductors Leonard Bernstein and Charles Munch. In addition to founding and leading the SYAP, and conducting the Ridgefield Symphony and Stamford Symphony, Mr. Princiotti maintains a busy, private teaching practice and has directed the string programs for the Greenwich and Darien school systems.

Under Mr. Princiotti's baton, the SYAP has performed for many significant commemorations, including the New York World's Fair in 1964, the rededication of the Statue of Liberty, and a program for President George H.W. Bush. In addition to enriching our Nation's history, Mr. Princiotti has ensured that his groups of musicians give back to their country through annual holiday concerts at Grand Central Station for AmeriCares. He has also expanded the horizons of the SYAP, bringing them to Italy in 2001 and 2006 on an international tour. He is the author of a book--The Heart of Music--which explores the art of music education.

I am in the company of many others who have demonstrated their appreciation of Mr. Princiotti. He was the 2000 recipient of the Film and Arts Bravo Network Award, the 1987 Stamford Community Arts Council Arts Award, and has been inducted into the Stamford High School Wall of Fame. Mr. Princiotti holds the keys to the City of Stamford, and is a most treasured member of the Stamford area and the State of Connecticut.

``The Prince's'' final concert will be held on May 6, 2012, at the Palace Theater in Stamford, CT, where friends, family, alumni of the orchestra, and current young artists of this esteemed group will spend hours wrapped in melodic memory in celebration of more than 50 years of artistry, education, and true connection. At this event, a scholarship fund and chair will be dedicated in Mr. Princiotti's honor. I can say with certainty that there is no need for a chair for the Maestro to be remembered for decades to come.

Mr. President, I join the distinguished leader of the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in opposing S.J. Res. 36 and supporting the National Labor Relations Board rule that would very simply modernize the process that workers use to decide whether they want to form a union.

Right from the start, let's be very clear about what is at stake. It is a rule that the National Labor Relations Board has formulated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act set by the Congress of the United States after comment that was solicited from all of the relevant stakeholders and people who would be affected by it, and they are rules that are long overdue because of the inconsistency and delays that are endemic to the current process.

As I travel around the State of Connecticut and I hear from people around the country, I consistently hear about problems that exist under the present process for choosing a union. This rule does not determine the outcome; rather, it simply modernizes and improves the process, and it does it by a rulemaking process that is consistent with and pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which is the way the Congress has said it should be done. In fact, it adopts the rulemaking procedure rather than doing it by individual cases, which is the way the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of appeal have said to the Board it should do more often. So, far from raising constitutional questions or issues of procedural lack of process, the NLRB has acted in accordance with the will of the Congress and the Constitution in formulating this rule.

Why is it necessary? Well, for one thing, there are 34 regional offices of the National Labor Relations Board, and each of them has different policies and practices for processing election petitions. We are talking about petitions that are submitted by workers who want to form a union and can do so by election when at least 30 percent of those employees send the petition to the NLRB. The gap in time is an opportunity for intimidation by unscrupulous employers. Fortunately, they are a small minority of employers--but they exist--who wish to discourage or deter workers from forming a union. That intimidation is unacceptable. We should do everything we can to stop it.

Second, the delays themselves are intolerable. Some of those delays are years--as long as 13 years in some instances--and the gap in time discourages or deters the exercise of rights that are guaranteed under the law.

So this new rule is simply to modernize the process, end intimidation, and make sure that rights are made real, in real time, so that employees can exercise those rights without any discouragement from employers.

Are the employers free to communicate with workers? Of course they are. The rights of communication on the part of the employers are not eliminated by any means. Are they still part of the process? Yes, indeed, employers remain a part of the process if they wish to be. The effort here--in fact, as one of the employers who submitted comments to the NLRB said quite pointedly--from Catholic Healthcare West, a health care company with 31,000 employees, in its comments: ``Reforms proposed by the NLRB are not pro union or pro business, they are pro modernization'' and will ``modernize the representation election process by improving the board's current representation election procedures that result in unnecessary delays, allow unnecessary litigation, and fail to take advantage of modern communication technologies.''

That quote from an employer really says it all.

Some of the litigation is not only against the interests of employees, it also is costly to the employers, especially when it fails to succeed. It creates uncertainties for other employers, and it can block representation and lead again to unnecessary delays.

This rule has an impact on real people in Connecticut and around the country. To give you a couple of examples, registered nurses who are at a number of the hospitals in Connecticut have come to me about the need to reform this process. Members of the employee workforce at T-Mobile, for example--Chris Cozza, a technician at T-Mobile USA in Connecticut, joined with 14 colleagues, came to me to recount his experience. He filed for union representation with the support of the Communications Workers of America, the CWA. He experienced problems of exactly this kind because his rights were delayed and thereby almost denied. When T- Mobile USA filed a claim that officially challenged the status of the CWA as a labor organization, he could see--Chris Cozza and all of us could see--that clearly CWA is a labor organization. This tactic was simply a delaying one, and the NLRB rule would prevent the kind of frivolous challenges and frivolous litigation that occurred there.

Let me conclude by saying, as has been said already, this rule is neither prounion or proemployer. It is simply profairness. It is antidelay,

antifrivolous litigation, and it is profairness in the workplace.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, on this day, almost exactly at this hour, 25 years ago in Bridgeport, CT, the L'Ambiance Plaza became a scene of devastation and destruction and death. Almost every year in these 25 years we have commemorated that destruction and tragedy with a ceremony. We did the same this morning in Bridgeport. We went first to the site and then to city hall and then to lay a wreath at the memorial for the 28 workers who were killed on this day 25 years ago. L'Ambiance is ground zero for worker safety.

I rise today to talk about all who have been injured or lost their lives because of unsafe work conditions.

L'Ambiance Plaza was a tragedy, but it was not the result of human error, it was the result of an employer cutting corners to put profits above safety. It was an avoidable and preventable catastrophe.

One of the tasks we have as public officials is to ensure basic safety for our citizens, particularly for workers who leave their homes in the morning hoping for nothing more than to come home at night to their families, put food on the table and a roof over the heads of their children. Those 28 workers who perished on this day 25 years ago wanted nothing more than those simple opportunities that should be guaranteed in the United States of America, the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

In protecting workplace safety, we have an agency called the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as OSHA. It is charged by this Congress and every Congress since its creation with setting standards and providing for enforcement of those standards so as to ensure basic safety for workers when they leave home every day and go to their jobs.

In Bridgeport, at L'Ambiance, a technique of construction known as lift slab was in use. It was under review by OSHA. It had been under review for 5 years before the L'Ambiance collapse. In 1994, years after L'Ambiance, it was prohibited unless certain conditions were met. If that standard had been in effect on this day 25 years ago, 28 lives would have been saved.

This morning I was in Bridgeport for that ceremony with many of the families who must live with the tragedies of their loved ones having perished needlessly and tragically on this date. There were speeches. There was a bell-ringing ceremony. There were tributes not only to the workers and their families but also to their brothers and sisters who searched with a ferocity and determination in the hours and days for their remains after it became clear they could not be rescued. But none of today's ceremonies or any of the other ceremonies in the past 25 years can bring back those workers who perished because lift-slab construction was used on that site. And when the upper story fell first, all of the bottom stories collapsed as well, meaning that those who worked under that top story could not be saved.

Eventually, when OSHA adopted the standard to be applied to lift-slab construction, it said no one could work under that top story when it was put in place. OSHA, in short, recognized the hazards of lift-slab construction well before L'Ambiance collapsed, and its inaction over the process of adopting those regulations--the 8.7 years it took to adopt the standard--contributed significantly to the collapse that occurred 25 years ago to this day.

I wish I could say OSHA has learned from this horrific incident at L'Ambiance. I wish I could say the standard setting that is so necessary to be achieved promptly and effectively now is done routinely. Unfortunately, the contrary seems to be true.

I wish to thank Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, for a hearing last week that illuminated so dramatically how much work there is still to be done.

The GAO has done a study showing that average length of time to complete these standards is more than 7 years. That figure takes into account the standards set since 1981 to the year 2000. The final number of regulations published by OSHA has declined every decade since the 1980s. While 24 final standards were published in the 1980s, only 10 final standards were published between 2000 and 2010.

Workers are still at risk because regulations are delayed for years. One example is that the dangerous health effects resulting from the inhalation of silica dust, found in common sand, have been widely known for many years. Silica dust has been classified as a carcinogen to humans by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. It is a known cause of lung cancer and silicosis, an often fatal disease. Yet, despite the scientific evidence and the

hazards associated with silica dust, its use on worksites across the country is ineffectively regulated by inadequate OSHA standards, and those standards have been on the books since 1972.

Preventing the dangers of silica is simple and easy. Employers simply must ensure that when cutting materials, the blade must be wet to ensure the silica dust is not airborne--simple and easy solutions that can be achieved by standards OSHA has a responsibility to set.

According to OSHA agency officials, they began work on updating the effective silica standards back in 1997, more than 14 years ago. The most recent proposal for a new silica standard was submitted to OMB in February 2011. OMB has been processing that draft for over a year. In the meantime, workers are put in danger, workers contract disease, and workers are put at risk of fatal disease. These lengthy delays are simply unacceptable. As the L'Ambiance tragedy demonstrates, standards delayed is safety denied. Workers and their families suffer real-life consequences when the Federal Government fails to implement effective standards to protect people in their workplaces. OSHA itself estimates that up to 60 worker deaths per year could be prevented by strengthening the silica regulation and other regulations from 1972. Yet the new rule continues to be delayed by procedural and political roadblocks.

There is still work to be done, and I hope we will make progress, under Senator Harkin's leadership, on an OSHA rule making standards more effective and more easily adopted.

There are a number of simple and easy steps that can be adopted. Expediting approval of safety standards is one of them. Despite a general consensus within industries on permissible exposure limits-- that is, PELs--to dangerous chemicals, OSHA rules for hundreds of those chemicals haven't been updated for nearly four decades. OSHA should direct and Congress should direct OSHA to update obsolete PELs to reflect consensus among industries, experts, and reputable national and international organizations.

Easier court approval also must be enabled. The current standards for judicial review are a major factor in effecting the timeline of OSHA's standard-setting process. The existing ``substantial evidence'' standard requiring that OSHA research all industrial processes associated with the issue being regulated is disproportionately burdensome when compared to the requirements placed upon other Federal agencies, and the standards should be reevaluated.

Finally, deadlines for timelines for standard setting should be adopted, directed by the Congress, to minimize the time it takes OSHA to issue occupational safety and health standards. Experts and agency officials agree that statutory timelines for issuing standards should be imposed by Congress and enforced by the courts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these measures and others, and I hope the memory of those 28 workers who were killed 25 years ago on this day will inspire and move us to take action as quickly and effectively as possible. But each year others are added to that list in other sites in Connecticut--49 last year alone--and around the country, hundreds in the States of my colleagues in this body. Let their memories also inspire us to redouble our efforts to protect people in the workplaces around Connecticut and the country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I salute and thank the Senator from Vermont for his extraordinary leadership on this issue of the Violence Against Women Act. He has been truly and deservedly a hero in championing a measure that has saved countless lives and prevented the kinds of suffering and brutality we have seen all too often.

I join in his remarks, and I will speak at greater length about the need for that bill in the future.

(The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 428 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.