[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 43 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1696-S1711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIA
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know Senator Durbin, Senator Ayotte, and
others will be coming to the Senate floor, but let me get it started.
According to the United Nations, more than 8,000 Syrians have been
murdered in attacks by the desperate regime of President Bashar al-Asad
of Syria.
We continue to receive press reports on a daily basis about Asad's
forces summarily executing, imprisoning, and torturing demonstrators
who want nothing more than what we take for granted, which is to live
in freedom in a democracy. This week we learned that dozens of Syrian
women and children--some infants as young as 4 months old--were
stabbed, shot, and burned by government forces in Homs. I know it is
difficult for most of us to comprehend--and most of us would be so
repulsed by it, we would not want to comprehend the kind of brutality
Asad is perpetrating against his own people. Yet in the face of these
atrocities, Russia continues to prop up the Asad regime by providing
arms that are being used to slaughter these innocent Syrian civilians.
Russia is the top supplier of weapons to Syria and reportedly sold
Syria up to $1 billion or more worth of arms just last year. Western
and Arab governments have pleaded with Russia to stop supplying these
weapons to the Asad regime, but it has refused so far.
Russia is not just passively supplying weapons to the Asad regime, it
has recently admitted to having military weapons instructors on the
ground in Syria training Asad's Army on how to use these weapons.
Russian weapons, including high-explosive mortars, have been found at
the site of atrocities in Homs.
This picture taken by Al Arabiya and Reuters reads:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, why don't you visit
Homs to see your weapons and their effectiveness in the
bodies of our children!
The Syrian people recognize Russia's role in their current misery, as
reflected by this picture and by this statement to Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov. Rosoboronexport is Russia's official arms
dealer. This company handles about 80 percent of Russia's weapons
exports, according to its Web site, and it is spearheading Russia's
continuing effort to arm the Asad regime, which, in my mind, makes them
an accessory to mass murder.
I see the distinguished majority whip has come to the floor, and I
want to give him a chance to make any appropriate remarks he cares to
make and engage in a colloquy with him.
First, let me close my comments on this concern I have. Not only is
Russia selling arms to Syria to kill innocent civilians, but you can
imagine my shock and dismay when I found out that our own Department of
Defense has a no-bid contract with this same Russian arms merchant that
is helping arm the Asad regime.
This is a no-bid contract to provide approximately 21 dual-use Mi-17
helicopters for the Afghan military. As I said, this is a no-bid Army
contract that was awarded last summer that is reportedly worth as much
as $900 million. So the only thing I can conclude is that the U.S.
taxpayer is providing money to a Russian arms dealer to purchase
Russian helicopters for the Afghan military, and the very same arms
merchant is arming President Asad's regime and killing innocent
Syrians.
I, along with 16 of my colleagues, have sent a letter to Secretary
Panetta expressing our alarm and concern over these arrangements,
asking for further information and urging them to reconsider this
contract with Rosoboronexport.
I want to stop on this point: We must keep the pressure on the
Department of Defense to reconsider this contract and on the Russians
to cease all arms sales to the Asad regime.
I am hopeful that the upcoming debate on the repeal of Jackson-Vanik
will provide an opportunity for the Senate to further examine these
serious issues.
Again, let me state my appreciation to Senator Durbin, the
distinguished majority whip, for his participation in expressing alarm
and concern over these circumstances and ask him to make any comments
he cares to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my honor to join my colleague and
friend, the Senator from Texas. We are on opposite sides of the aisle,
but we are on the same side of this issue.
Listen to what America has said about what is happening in Syria:
Almost 8,000 innocent people have been killed in the streets of Syria
by Bashar Asad, the dictator. The people who expressed their concern
and objection to his policies are mowed down and killed in the streets,
their homes are bombed, and nothing is being done. Sadly, the United
States tried to engage the United Nations Security Council to join the
Arab League and others condemning what Asad is doing to these innocent
people. Our efforts were stopped by China and Russia.
The relationship between Russia and Syria is well documented. They
have been close allies for many years. We also know they are providing
about $1 billion in Russian military aid to the Syrian dictator to kill
his own people in the streets. That is part of this.
I have to join Senator Cornyn in saying how concerned we were when we
learned that one of the leading military exporters of Russia,
Rosoboronexport, is not only doing business in Syria but with the U.S.
Government. Now, I understand the history. We are buying Russian
helicopters to help the Afghans defend their country against the
Taliban. The helicopter of choice in Afghanistan today is, I believe,
the old Soviet M 17 or M 18 helicopter. So our government is buying
these Russian helicopters to give to the Afghan Government to fight the
Taliban.
We are, in fact, doing business with the very same company and
country that is subsidizing the massacre in Syria. It is right for us,
as Members of Congress, to make that point to Secretary Panetta and the
Department of Defense. I think it is also appropriate for us to ask why
we are not converting the Afghan defense forces, their security forces,
to another helicopter.
Can I be so bold as to suggest it be made in the United States of
America since we are paying for it? Why aren't we doing that? Why
aren't we creating jobs in America and training these Afghans on
helicopters that come from our country, that are as good or better than
anything the Soviets ever put in the air? I don't have a preference on
an American helicopter. I don't have any producers in my State, so I am
not into that particular bidding war. I would not get into it. But I do
believe sending a word to the Russians immediately that our
relationship of buying these helicopters for Afghanistan and
subsidizing their military sales to Syria should come to an end. That
is what this letter is about.
We cannot pass resolutions on the Senate floor condemning the
bloodshed in Syria and ignore the obvious connection: Russian military
is moving arms into Syria that are used to kill innocent people.
I noticed the Senator from Texas brought a photograph with him. This
photograph I am going to show is one of a Russian warship, an aircraft
carrier, docked at the Syrian port of Tartus on January 8 of this year.
What we could not turn into a poster is the video clip showing the
Russian warship
[[Page S1697]]
captains being greeted like royalty by the Syrian Minister of Defense
who went out to welcome the ship. This Russian aircraft carrier was
launched from a port used by the same export company.
I cannot go any further in saying that the particular company
involved sent goods on this particular ship, but the fact is obvious.
Russia has become a major supplier of military arms to the Syrian
dictator who is killing innocent people. We are doing business with
that same military company, Rosoboronexport.
It is time for us to step back and say to the Russians: We can no
longer continue this relationship. If you are going to subsidize the
killing of innocent people, we cannot afford to do business with you.
America, we have to acknowledge the obvious. No matter what they are
paying, it is not worth the loss of innocent life in Syria.
I thank the Senator from Texas for joining me. I think we have 16 or
17 colleagues who are joining us in the bipartisan effort to raise this
issue.
I hope the Russians will understand that once and for all they can't
play both sides of the street, and we in the United States should draw
the line.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. CORNYN. Is the Senator aware the very same arms merchant,
Rosoboronexport, has also been documented selling weapons to Iran and
Venezuela? As a matter of fact, according to one published report, as
late as 2005, Rosoboronexport sold Iran 29 Tor-M1 anti-air missile
systems worth $700 million. And Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps
successfully tested this anti-air missile system in 2007. It is also
reported that in 2012, Russia will deliver T 72 tanks, BMP3 infantry
fighting vehicles, and BTR 80A armored personnel carriers to
Venezuela--just at our back yard in South America. Also, in the last 5
years in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, a dictator with strong ties to Cuba
and Fidel Castro, bought $11 billion worth of arms through
Rosoboronexport.
I wonder if the Senator finds that surprising or alarming.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Texas, a point the Senator said
earlier, and I think bears repeating at this moment in our dialogue, is
that Rosoboronexport is a Russian state-controlled arms export firm.
This is no so-called private company. This is a firm run by the Russian
Government. As the Senator from Texas goes through the litany of
countries they are supplying, he is going through a litany of countries
that have never in recent times had the best interests of the United
States at heart. If the Russians, through their government company,
want to supply Iran--which we know is an exporter of terrorism not only
in the Middle East but around the world and in the United States--if
they want to supply them, if they want to supply sniper rifles and arms
to the Syrians to kill their own people--why in the world are we doing
business with them? There ought to be a line we draw at some point. We
have no moral obligation to do business with a firm that is, in fact,
supplying those who are killing innocent people and our enemies around
the world.
I thank the Senator from Texas for raising those points.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would also ask the distinguished
majority whip whether he is aware of the testimony within the last
couple of weeks before the Armed Services Committee of Secretary
Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The testimony
focused a lot of attention on Iran, the principal state sponsor of
international terrorism in the world today, and its destabilizing
influence in the Middle East. Iran is seeking, as they are, a nuclear
weapon which would at the very least create a nuclear arms race in the
Middle East and a consequential destabilizing effect in that region.
I know the Senator is aware that Syria is one of the principal
proxies for Iran. General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta both said if
Syria were to go by the wayside, as various other countries have in the
Arab spring, that it would be a serious blow to Iran's aspirations for
hegemony in the Middle East and something that is dangerous to the
peace and stability of that important region. I know the Senator is
aware of the close relationship between Syria and Iran, and I wonder if
the Senator cares to comment on that connection.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from Texas--and I am sure he
has studied this, as I have--it is hard to parse out the elements in
the Middle East and decide who is fighting for which team. But when it
comes to Syria, they have consistently aligned themselves with Iran,
and in that alliance Iran has been very supportive of Syria and
Hezbollah, another terrorist group that is operating primarily through
Syria. So that close connection is a matter of concern to me.
Our goal in the Middle East is to create stability and to stop the
march of these dictators in the Middle East who are killing innocent
people and denying them their most basic rights. We have tried
everything short of military intervention, which I would not call for
in the Syrian situation. But we have tried everything else--diplomatic
and economic--to put pressure on Syria. We should continue to, and we
should join with other nations and continue the efforts of the United
Nations.
But we can't get this job done when Russia plays the roll of outlier,
supplying both Syria and Iran with military arms and support. If they
want to truly join us in a stable situation in the Middle East, they
should tell Asad it is over--and it clearly is over. This man could
never legitimately govern Syria from this point forward after killing
so many innocent people.
I hope what we are doing today is suggesting to this administration
and Secretary Panetta another avenue to let the Russians know that we
find it unacceptable for them to supply arms to what is a destabilizing
influence in that part of the world.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I can't recall whether I asked unanimous
consent, but if I haven't done it up to this point, I ask unanimous
consent that the letter we are referring to that 17 Senators sent to
Secretary Panetta be printed in the Record at the close of these
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know there are other Senators and
signatories of this letter who may well be coming to the floor to talk
more about this issue, but I wish to express my gratitude to Senator
Durbin. It is important that the United States speak out on behalf of
people who have no real voice in defense of their most basic human
rights. I would point out that President Asad and his regime are not
only killing innocent civilians, but also are being supplied by Russia,
who also--maybe not coincidentally--vetoed the sanctions the U.N. was
considering with regard to Iran.
So it is very important that we not only speak up on behalf of the
people who have no voice and no defense, but also make sure the U.S.
Government, at a very minimum, isn't doing business with the very same
arms merchants that are supplying weapons to President Asad with which
to kill innocent Syrians.
I am advised that Senator Ayotte was planning on coming. She is a
signatory to this letter and a member of the Armed Services Committee
who shares many of these same concerns. However, she is not going to be
able to come at this time. I am sure she will be coming to speak on
this later.
So with that, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Texas for speaking with me on
this issue. We have been working on it together.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2012.
Hon. Leon R. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Panetta: We write to express our grave
concern regarding the Department of Defense's ongoing
business dealings with Rosoboronexport, the same Russian
state-controlled arms export firm that continues to provide
the Syrian government with the means to perpetrate widespread
and systematic attacks on its own people. According to the
United Nations, over 7,500 Syrian civilians have reportedly
been killed in the attacks by the desperate regime of
[[Page S1698]]
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and we continue to receive
grisly accounts that his government forces are summarily
executing, imprisoning, and torturing demonstrators and
innocent by-standers.
Russia remains the top supplier of weapons to Syria,
selling reportedly $1 billion or more worth of arms to Syria
in 2011 alone. Its arms shipments to Syria have continued
unabated during the ongoing popular uprising there. According
to Thomson Reuters shipping data, since December 2011, at
least four cargo ships have travelled from the Russian port
used by Rosoboronexport to the Syrian port of Tutus. Another
Russian ship that was reportedly carrying ammunition and
sniper rifles, weapons which Syrian forces have used to kill
and injure demonstrators, reportedly docked in Cyprus in
January and then went on to deliver its cargo directly to
Syria. In addition, recent reports from human rights
monitoring organizations confirm that Russian weapons such as
240mm F 864 high explosive mortars have been found at the
site of ongoing atrocities committed against civilians in
Homs, Syria. In January of this year, Rosoboronexport
reportedly signed a new deal with the Syrian government for
36 combat jets.
Even in the face of crimes against humanity committed by
the Syrian government during the past year, enabled no doubt
by the regular flow of weapons from Russia, the United States
Government has unfortunately continued to procure from
Rosoboronexport. It is our understanding that the DoD,
through an initiative led by the U.S. Army, is currently
buying approximately 21 dual-use Mi 17 helicopters for the
Afghan military from Rosoboronexport. This includes the
signing of a no-bid contract worth $375 million for the
purchase of aircraft and spare parts, to be completed by
2016. Media reports indicate that the contract included an
option for $550 million in additional purchases, raising the
contract's potential total to nearly $1 billion.
While it is certainly frustrating that U.S. taxpayer
funding is used to buy Russian-made helicopters instead of
world-class U.S.-made helicopters for the Afghan military,
our specific concern at this time is that the Department is
procuring these assets from an organization that had for
years been on a U.S. sanctions list for illicit nuclear
assistance to Iran and in the face of the international
community's concern is continuing to enable the Assad regime
with the arms it needs to slaughter innocent men, women, and
children in Syria. Other options are very Rely available as
demonstrated by the fact that the first four Mi 17
helicopters that the U.S. Navy purchased for Afghanistan came
through a different firm. We ask that the DoD immediately
review all potential options to procure helicopters legally
through other means.
U.S. taxpayers should not be put in a position where they
are indirectly subsidizing the mass murder of Syrian
civilians. The sizeable proceeds of these DoD contracts are
helping to finance a firm that is essentially complicit in
mass atrocities in Syria, especially in light of Russia's
history of forgiving huge amounts of Syria's debt on arms
sales, as occurred in 2005 during President Assad's state
visit to Moscow.
President Obama has called on President Assad to step down,
and he has declared that ``Preventing mass atrocities and
genocide is a core national security interest and a core
moral responsibility of the United States.'' As such, we urge
you to use all available leverage to press Russia and Russian
entities to end their support of the Assad regime, and that
includes ending all DoD business dealings with
Rosoboronexport, which is within your authority as Secretary
of Defense. Continuing this robust business relationship with
Rosoboronexport would undermine U.S. policy on Syria and
undermine U.S. efforts to stand with the Syrian people.
This is a serious policy problem, and we ask for your
personal attention to help solve it Thank you for your
service to our nation and your dedication to the members of
our Armed Forces.
Sincerely,
John Cornyn; Kirsten E. Gillibrand; Richard J. Durbin;
Kelly Ayotte; Richard Blumenthal; James E. Risch; David
Vitter; Sherrod Brown; Chuck Grassley; Marco Rubio; Jon
Kyl; Robert Menendez; Roger F. Wicker; Robert P. Casey,
Jr.; Mark Kirk; Ron Wyden; Benjamin L. Cardin.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been in the House and Senate for a
number of years. After a while, we detect certain trends. One of the
things I am wary of, having seen over the years the abuses associated
with it, are these freight train bills that seem as though they are
moving so fast, with big majority support--bills that oftentimes will
pass one Chamber or the other and come roaring into the other Chamber
and maybe pass too quickly and usually with regret.
At a later point someone stops and reflects and says: We went too
far. We didn't read into this all the things that could occur. We
should have taken a little more time because at the end of the day a
lot of innocent people suffer.
The Senate historically has been the Chamber--I served in the House,
but the Senate historically has been the Chamber that has, as George
Washington characterized it, been the saucer that cools the tea. As I
said, I served in the House of Representatives, and with elections
every 2 years, as the Presiding Officer knows, many Members of the
House move quickly on issues because here comes another election
campaign and Members don't want to miss an opportunity. The Senate,
with longer terms and a different set of rules, tries to be more
deliberate--sometimes too deliberate, I might add, but at least has
that charge under our Constitution.
The reason I am raising this point is we have a bill that is coming
over from the House, and the Republican leader has been frantic to
bring this bill to the Senate floor. It is characterized by the
Republicans as a House jobs bill. It is, in fact, a bill which relates
to startups, new businesses, and the regulatory requirements of these
businesses. The bill basically exempts a large number of new startup
companies from basic regulation.
I have a letter that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the
Record, dated March 13 of this year, by Mary Schapiro who is the
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Securities and Exchange
Commission,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2012.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Ranking Member, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Shelby: Last week,
the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3606, the
``Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.'' As the Senate
prepares to debate many of the capital formation initiatives
addressed by H.R. 3606, I wanted to share with you my
concerns on some important aspects of this significant
legislation.
The mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is
three-fold: protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly
and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation.
Cost-effective access to capital for companies of all sizes
plays a critical role in our national economy, and companies
seeking access to capital should not be hindered by
unnecessary or overly burdensome regulations. At the same
time, we must balance our responsibility to facilitate
capital formation with our obligation to protect investors
and our markets. Too often: investors are the target of
fraudulent schemes disguised as investment opportunities. As
you know, if the balance is tipped to the point where
investors are not confident that there are appropriate
protections, investors will lose confidence in our markets.
and capital formation will ultimately be made more difficult
and expensive.
While I recognize that H.R. 3606 is the product of a
bipartisan effort designed to facilitate capital formation
and includes certain promising approaches, I believe that
there are provisions that should be added or modified to
improve investor protections that are worthy of the Senate's
consideration.
Definition of Emerging Growth Company
The ``IPO On-Ramp'' provisions of H.R. 3606 provide a
number of significant regulatory changes for what are defined
as ``emerging growth companies''. While I share the view that
it is important to reduce the impediments to smaller
businesses conducting initial public offerings in the United
States, the definition of ``emerging growth company'' is so
broad that it would eliminate important protections for
investors in even very large companies, including those with
up to $1 billion in annual revenue. I am concerned that we
lack a clear understanding of the impact that the
legislation's exemptions would have on investor protection. A
lower annual revenue threshold would pose less risk to
investors and would more appropriately focus benefits
provided by the new provisions on those smaller businesses
that are the engine of growth for our economy and whose IPOs
the bill is seeking to encourage.
Changes to Research and Research Analyst Rules
H.R. 3606 also would weaken important protections related
to (1) the relationship between research analysts and
investment bankers within the same financial institution by
eliminating a number of safeguards established after the
research scandals of the dot-com era and (2) the treatment of
research reports prepared by underwriters of IPOs.
H.R. 3606 would remove certain important measures put in
place to enforce a separation between research analysts and
investment bankers who work in the same firm. The rules
requiring this separation were designed
[[Page S1699]]
to address inappropriate conflicts of interest and other
objectionable practices--for example, investment bankers
promising potential clients favorable research in return for
lucrative underwriting assignments--which ultimately severely
harmed investor confidence. In addition, H.R. 3606 would
overturn SRO rules that establish mandatory quiet periods
designed to prevent banks from using conflicted research to
reward insiders for selecting the bank as the underwriter. I
am concerned that the changes contained in H.R. 3606 could
foster a return to those practices and cause real and
significant damage to investors.
In addition, the legislation would allow, for the first
time, research reports in connection with an emerging growth
company IPO to be published before, during, and after the IPO
by the underwriter of that IPO without any such reports being
subject to the protections or accountability that currently
apply to offering prospectuses. In essence, research reports
prepared by underwriters in emerging growth company IPOs
would compete with prospectuses for investors' attention, and
investors would not have the full protections of the
securities laws if misled by the research reports.
Disclosure. Accounting and Auditing Matters
H.R. 3606 would allow emerging growth companies to make
scaled disclosures, in an approach similar to that currently
permitted under our rules for smaller reporting companies,
and would provide other relief from specific disclosure
requirements, during the 5-year on-ramp period. While there
is room for reasonable debate about particular exemptions
included in the disclosure on-ramp, on balance I believe
allowing some scaled disclosure for emerging growth companies
could be a reasonable approach.
H.R. 3606, however, also would restrict the independence of
accounting and auditing standard-setting by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (``FASB'') and the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB''). These provisions
undermine independent standard-setting by these expert
boards, and both the FASB and the PCAOB already have the
authority to consider different approaches for different
classes of issuers, if appropriate.
Moreover, H.R. 3606 would exempt emerging growth companies
from an audit of internal controls set forth in Section
404(b) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act during the five-year on-ramp
period. IPO companies already have a two-year on-ramp period
under current SEC rules before such an audit is required. In
addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permanently exempted smaller
public companies (generally those with less than $75 million
in public float) from the audit requirement, which already
covers approximately 60 percent of reporting companies. I
continue to believe that the internal controls audit
requirement put in place after the Enron and other accounting
scandals of the early 2000's has significantly improved the
quality and reliability of financial reporting and provides
important investor protections, and therefore believe this
change is unwarranted.
``Test the Waters'' Materials
H.R. 3606 would allow emerging growth companies to ``test
the waters'' to determine whether investors would be
interested in an offering before filing IPO documents with
the Commission. This would allow offering and other materials
to be provided to accredited investors and qualified
institutional buyers before a prospectus--the key disclosure
document in an offering--is available.
There could be real value to permitting these types of pre-
filing communications: it could save companies time and
money, and make it more likely that companies that file for
IPOs can complete them. Indeed, there are some SEC rules that
permit ``test the waters'' activities already. However,
unlike the existing ``test the waters'' provisions, the
provisions of H.R. 3606 would not require companies to file
with the SEC and take responsibility for the materials they
use to solicit investor interest, even after they file for
their IPOs. This would result in uneven information for
investors who see both the ``test the waters'' materials and
the prospectus compared to those who only see the prospectus.
In addition, as with the provisions relating to research
reports, it could result in investors focusing their
attention on the ``test the waters'' materials instead of the
prospectuses, without important investor protections being
applied to those materials.
confidential filing of ipo registration statements
H.R. 3606 would permit emerging growth companies to submit
their registration statements confidentially in draft form
for SEC staff review. This reduction in transparency would
hamper the staff's ability to provide effective reviews,
since the staff benefits in its reviews from the perspectives
and insights that the public provides on IPO filings. It also
could require significant resources for staff review of
offerings that companies are not willing to make public and
then abandon before making a public filing. SEC staff
recently limited the general practice of permitting foreign
issuers to submit IPO registrations in nonpublic draft form
because of these concerns, and expanding that program to all
IPOs could adversely impact the IPO review program.
Crowdfunding
H.R. 3606 also provides an exemption from Securities Act
registration for ``crowdfunding,'' which would permit
companies to offer and sell, in some cases, up to $2 million
of securities in publicly advertised offerings without
preparing a registration statement. For the past several
months, the staff has been analyzing crowdfunding, among
other capital formation strategies, and also has discussed
these strategies with the Commission's newly created Advisory
Committee on Small and Emerging Companies.
I recognize that proponents of crowdfunding believe this
method of raising money could help small businesses harness
the power of the internet and social media to raise small
amounts of very early stage capital from a large number of
investors. That said, I believe that the crowdfunding
exemption included as part of H.R. 3606 needs additional
safeguards to protect investors from those who may seek to
engage in fraudulent activities. Without adequate
protections, investor confidence in crowdfunding could be
significantly undermined and would not achieve its goal of
helping small businesses.
For example, an important safeguard that could be
considered to better protect investors in crowdfunding
offerings would be to provide for oversight of the industry
professionals that intermediate and facilitate these
offerings. With Commission oversight, these intermediaries
could serve a critical gatekeeper function, running
background checks, facilitating small businesses' provision
of complete and adequate disclosures to investors, and
providing the necessary support for these small businesses.
Commission oversight would further enhance customer
protections by requiring intermediaries to protect investors'
and issuers' funds and securities, for example by requiring
funds and securities to be held at an independent bank or
broker-dealer.
Investors also would benefit from a requirement to provide
certain basic information about companies seeking
crowdfunding investors. H.R. 3606 requires only limited
disclosures about the business investors are funding.
Additional information that would benefit investors should
include a description of the business or the business plan,
financial information, a summary of the risks facing the
business, a description of the voting rights and other rights
of the stock being offered, and ongoing updates on the status
of the business.
Changes to Section 12(g) Registration Thresholds
H.R. 3606 also would change the rules relating to the
thresholds that trigger public reporting by, among other
things, increasing the holder of record threshold that
triggers public reporting for companies and bank holding
companies. The current rules have been in place since 1964,
and since that time there have been profound changes in the
way shareholders hold their securities and in the capital
markets.
Last spring, I asked our staff to comprehensively study a
variety of capital formation-related issues, including the
current thresholds for public reporting. At this point, I do
not have sufficient data or information to assess whether the
thresholds proposed in H.R. 3606 are appropriate. I do
recognize that a different treatment may be appropriate for
community banks that are already subject to an extensive
reporting and regulatory regime.
rulemaking
H.R. 3606 requires a series of new, significant Commission
rulemakings with time limits that are not achievable. For
example, the rulemaking for the crowdfunding section has a
deadline of 180 days, and it specifically requires the
Commission to consider the costs and benefits of the rules.
Given (1) that much of the data that would be used to perform
such analyses is not readily available and (2) the complexity
of such analyses, this time frame is too short to develop
proposed rules, perform the required analyses, solicit public
comments, review and analyze the public comments, and adopt
final rules. I believe a deadline of 18 months would be more
appropriate for rules of this magnitude.
I stand ready to assist Congress as it addresses these
important issues. Please call me, at (202) 551 2100, or have
your staff call Eric Spitler, Director of the Office of
Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at (202) 551 2010,
should you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Schapiro,
Chairman.
Mr. DURBIN. The Securities and Exchange Commission is a Federal
agency created under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
after the Great Depression. When the stock market cratered in the Great
Depression, Franklin Roosevelt stepped up and said: We need an agency
that will oversee and regulate Wall Street so that people who would
care to invest in American companies can have confidence they are
investing in a company and a process that follows a rule of law. There
will be transparency and disclosure by these companies on a regular
basis, by formula, as to what they are earning, what they are losing,
and what their assets may be.
That has continued for almost 80 years. The Securities and Exchange
Commission has created in the process a credible market in the United
States of America for the sale of equities and
[[Page S1700]]
securities. Now comes this bill from the House of Representatives, this
so-called jobs bill, which wants to change that. They are suggesting
when certain companies get started--startup companies--they be excused
from requirements under the law from the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The argument is that there is too much paperwork, too many
regulations, and smaller startup companies can't get started because
there are too many legal requirements.
Well, we first took a look at what they consider to be smaller
companies getting started, and they define them as companies with $1
billion a year in annual revenue--$1 billion. Unfortunately, those who
make over $1 billion in revenue in a year comprise only about 10
percent of American businesses. That means by definition they are
characterizing 90 percent of American businesses and startups as small
businesses that need a special break when it comes to regulation.
So over the years we got into a debate--whether it is the regulation
of banks or the regulation of these startup companies or those that are
going public, selling securities--over the years we got into a debate
about whether the government has gone too far. Are there too many
rules? I am open to that suggestion. I think we should be open to it.
If there is a way to protect the public and investors and still create
businesses in this country that generate jobs, I want to hear about
them and I want to support them. But too often we go too far. When we
go too far and are not careful, some terrible things occur.
The letter I have now entered into the Record from Mary Schapiro of
the Securities and Exchange Commission addresses this bill. She said:
While I recognize that H.R. 3606 is the product of
bipartisan effort designed to facilitate capital formation
and include certain promising approaches, I believe that
there are provisions that should be added or modified to
improve investor protections that are worthy of the Senate's
consideration.
The administration has said they are open to the idea of changing
some of these laws. What Mary Schapiro, the Chairman of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, has suggested is that we put provisions in the
bill in the Senate which will protect investors.
Yesterday I spoke about the testimony before the committee. I commend
to my colleagues the statement of Professor John Coffee, Adolf A.
Berle, professor of law from Colombia University Law School, at a
hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on December 1, 2011.
Mr. President, I want my colleagues, many of whom have just seen a
few press accounts of this bill, to consider carefully the statement
made by Professor Coffee. He has analyzed this bill and raised some
important questions about whether it goes too far.
I will be joining some of my colleagues in offering a substitute
which improves the law for startup companies but also makes certain
that we protect investors and makes certain as well that at the end of
the day we don't end up with egg on our faces. How many times has
Congress been called on, when the private sector runs amok, goes too
far, and starts failing in every direction, to bail them out? We saw it
most graphically with the bailout of the major banks not that many
years ago. We have seen it in the past with the bailout of the savings
and loan industry. We have seen it happen time and time again.
Who ends up holding the bag when government regulation is not
adequate to make sure people don't go overboard? The American
taxpayers. They end up holding the bag, not to mention innocent victims
along the way.
I understand we have to change the law, but I am hoping we can change
it in a constructive way. Opening the sale of stocks and securities to
everyone who can pull up a chair and open a laptop is not in the best
interests of investors across America. It is certainly not in the best
interests of many Americans who would find themselves losing their
life's savings and any investment funds they might have in the process.
Making certain the people who sell these stocks are, in fact,
registered and credible; making certain the statements they make can be
backed with hard evidence as opposed to a promise; and making sure, as
well, that we have, in the process of business undertaking, the
safeguards in place so there will not be excessive--as I said
yesterday--irrational exuberance that leads to the failure of any
marketplace or securities--that, to me, is the best thing we can
achieve.
I think these two items to which I have referred--both from Mary
Schapiro, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well
as Professor Coffee--establish the case for being careful. Let's not
jump on this freight train and watch it as it plows into a barricade.
Let's make certain that what we do is thoughtful, that it does engender
economic growth but not at the expense of the integrity of America's
financial markets or at the expense of innocent investors.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The senior Senator from Minnesota
is recognized.
Order of Procedure
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
be permitted to speak as in morning business for the next 90 minutes,
with the majority controlling the first 45 minutes--with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each--and the
Republicans controlling the final 45 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am honored to be here today with
the women Senators to talk about the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act--a law that has a history of passing this Chamber
with broad bipartisan support.
I would note that there are many authors of this bill--I think up to
something like 58 authors currently--and the women who are speaking
today include myself and Senators Feinstein, Hagan, Murkowski, Shaheen,
Murray, and Boxer. Also sponsoring the bill are Senators Collins,
Snowe, McCaskill, Gillibrand, Cantwell, Landrieu, Mikulski, and
Stabenow. The bill is led by Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo. So we are
here today to pledge our support for this bill and to ask our
colleagues to move forward with this bill.
The Violence Against Women Act was a landmark bill when it first
became law back in 1994. Back then, it started a sea change in
attitudes about violence against women, and it sent a strong message to
the country saying that sexual assault and domestic violence are
serious offenses that will not be tolerated. We heard that message
loudly and clearly in my State, and I am proud to say that our State
has always had a strong tradition of standing against these crimes. In
fact, no conversation in our State about domestic abuse would be
complete without mentioning former Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife
Sheila, whom we miss dearly. The Wellstones put so much time and energy
into bringing these issues out of the shadows and taking a subject that
many people considered at the time a ``family matter'' and saying: You
know what, domestic violence is not something we can just sweep under
the rug; it is a crime. It hurts families, it hurts children, and we
are going to do something about it.
While I led the prosecutor's office in Hennepin County, MN, for 8
years, we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and particularly the
children's needs in domestic violence cases because it does not take a
bruise or a broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic
violence. Kids who witness domestic violence are victims too. In fact,
we had a poster on the wall in our office. It was a poster of a woman
with a bandaid on her nose, holding a baby, and it said: Beat your wife
and your kid will go to jail. Do you know why? The statistics show that
kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit
acts of domestic violence themselves. It is a sobering number, and
overall the statistics for these kinds of crimes are staggering. More
than one in three women in the United States have experienced rape,
physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their
lifetime. Every year, close to 17,000 people lose their lives to
domestic violence.
So, once again, this is not just a family matter, this is a matter of
life and death--and not just for the victims but oftentimes for the law
enforcement officers who are all too often caught in the line of fire.
I have seen this in my
[[Page S1701]]
own State. In fact, I saw it just a few months ago when I attended the
funeral of Shawn Schneider, a young police officer in Lake City, MN.
Officer Schneider died after responding to a domestic violence call.
A 17-year-old girl was being abused by her boyfriend. When Officer
Schneider arrived at the scene, he was shot in the head. He literally
gave his life to save another. I attended his funeral, and I still
remember those three little children--the two boys and the little girl
with the blue dress with stars on it--going down that aisle of the
church. When you see that, you realize that the victims of domestic
violence are not just the immediate victims, it is an entire family, it
is an entire community.
We know all too well just how devastating domestic violence and
sexual violence can be to victims, as well as to entire communities,
which is why it was such a good thing that 6 weeks ago we passed a VAWA
reauthorization bill out of the Judiciary Committee and that the bill
has the support of 58 Senators, including 6 Republicans. I am glad this
bill has continued to attract bipartisan support. I wish it was
unanimous. Just 7 years ago, in fact, the reauthorization bill passed
the House by a vote of 415 to 4, and it passed the Senate by unanimous
consent with 18 Republican cosponsors. I know this year some of my
Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are not supportive of
this bill, but it is my hope that while they may disagree with the
bill, they will not stop this bipartisan bill from advancing. Combating
domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue on which we should all
be able to agree.
Many of the provisions in the reauthorization bill made important
changes to current law. The bill consolidates duplicative programs and
streamlines others. It provides greater flexibility in the use of grant
money by adding more ``purpose areas'' to the list of allowable uses.
It has new training requirements for people, providing legal assistance
to victims. And it takes important steps to address the
disproportionately high domestic violence rates in Native American
communities.
The bill also fills some gaps in the system, and I am pleased to say
it includes legislation I introduced with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
to address high-tech stalking--cases where stalkers use technology such
as the Internet, video surveillance, and bugging to stalk their
victims. The bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking
down on stalkers. Just as with physical stalking, high-tech stalking
may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. It is an issue we
need to take seriously. We need the tools for our law enforcement to be
as sophisticated as what is used by those who are breaking the law.
I know Senator Feinstein is coming soon, and we have a number of
women who are going to be speaking today. I want to remind everyone in
this Chamber that domestic violence takes its toll. One of the most
memorable cases I had was when our office prosecuted the case of a
woman who was killed in Eden Prairie, MN. She was a Russian
immigrant. Her husband was a Russian immigrant. They did not have many
friends in the community. She was fairly isolated. She was most likely
a domestic violence victim for many, many years. Well, one day this man
killed his wife. He then took her body parts down to Missouri. He left
some of the body parts there. And the entire time, he had their 4-year-
old daughter in the car with him. He then drove back to Minnesota and
confessed to the crime.
When they had the funeral, there was only me, our domestic violence
advocate, the grandparents who had come from Russia, and this woman's
identical twin sister. What had happened at the airport when they
arrived was that this little 4-year-old girl--who had never seen her
aunt, who had never seen her mother's identical twin sister--ran down
that hallway when she saw her aunt for the first time and hugged her
and said: Mommy, mommy, mommy, because she thought her mom was back.
It reminds us all that domestic violence is not just about one
victim; it is about children, it is about family, and it is about a
community.
We all know this bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
The women of the Senate know it. There are already three Republican
women on this bill and many others, I hope, to come. We believe in this
bill. We ask our colleagues to support this bill.
I see my colleague Senator Feinstein is here. I know as a member of
the Judiciary Committee--she and I are the only two women members of
the Senate Judiciary Committee--she has taken a lead on this issue for
many, many years.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota
for her remarks. For a long time, I had been the only woman on the
Judiciary Committee, and I am just delighted that she is there as well
and that we share the same point of view with respect to this bill.
I rise today to urge the Republican leadership of the Senate to allow
this piece of legislation that protects American women from the
plague--and it is a plague--of domestic violence, stalking, dating
violence, and sexual assault to come to the floor of this Senate for a
vote.
I was in the Judiciary Committee, and I voted for the original
Violence Against Women Act. It was authorized for 6 years. We
reauthorized it. It served another 6 years. And now the bill is up for
reauthorization. It came out, surprisingly, from the Judiciary
Committee on a split vote. Unfortunately, that was a party-line vote. I
might say, I was stunned by this vote because never before had there
been any controversy--in more than a decade and a half, in all of this
time--about this bill.
This act is the centerpiece of the Federal Government's effort to
combat domestic violence and sexual assault, and it has positively
impacted the response to these crimes at the local, State, and Federal
levels, and I hope to show this.
The bill authorizes a number of grant programs administered by the
Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to provide funding
for emergency shelter, counseling, and legal services for victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
As a matter of fact, I was thinking last night, when I was mayor of
San Francisco back in the early 1980s, I started the first home for
battered women, which is La Casa de las Madres. We were able to fund it
because it was such a critical need. Women being battered had no place
to go and therefore, often stayed in the home where they were battered
again and again.
This bill also provides support for State agencies, rape crisis
centers, and organizations that provide services to vulnerable women.
American women are safer because we took action. Today, more victims
report incidents of domestic violence to the police, and the rate of
nonfatal partner violence against women has decreased by 53 percent
since this bill went into effect in 1994. These figures are from the
Department of Justice. So here we have a 53-percent decrease in the
rate of nonfatal partner violence.
The need for the services was highlighted in a recent survey by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that, on
average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States--24 a minute by
an intimate partner in the United States. Over the course of the year
now, that equates to more than 12 million women and men.
In California, my State, 30,000 people accessed crisis intervention
services from one of California's 63 rape crisis centers in 2010 and
2011. These centers primarily rely on Federal Violence Against Women
Act funding--not State funding--to provide services to victims in
communities.
In 2009 alone, there were more than 167,000 cases in California in
which local, county, or State police officers were called to the scene
of a domestic violence complaint. Madam President, 167,000 cases--that
is many.
Despite the fact that the underlying bill has 58 cosponsors from both
parties, not a single Republican member of the Judiciary Committee
voted to advance the legislation.
[[Page S1702]]
Now, the bill that came out of Judiciary does have some changes, and
I want to talk about them for a moment. It creates one very modest new
grant program. It consolidates 13 existing programs. It reduces
authorization levels for all other programs by nearly 20 percent. And
the savings--17 percent. The bill is reduced in cost by 17 percent.
That is $136 million. It encourages effective enforcement of protective
orders. That is a big problem. Women get protective orders, and they
are violated because they are not enforced. And it reduces the national
backlog of untested rape kits. It is a real problem if a jurisdiction
cannot test a rape kit.
Yet there are some who refuse to support it because it now includes
expanded protections for victims. Let me put this on the table. The
bill's protections extend to lesbian and gay victims of domestic abuse.
It includes undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse.
The bill also gives Native American tribes better prosecutorial tools
to fight crimes of domestic violence. In my view, these are
improvements. Domestic violence is domestic violence.
I ask my friends on the other side, to the victim in a same-sex
relationship, is the violence any less real, is the danger any less
real because you happen to be gay or lesbian? I do not think so. If a
family comes to the country and the husband beats his wife to a bloody
pulp, do we say: ``Well, you are illegal. I am sorry. You do not
deserve any protection?'' No, we do not. And 9 1 1 operators and police
officers do not refuse to help victims because of their sexual
orientation, or the country in which they were born, or their
immigration status. When you call the police in America, they come
regardless of who you are.
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 is supported
by 50 national religious organizations, including the Presbyterian
Church, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the
National Council of Jewish Women, the National Council of Catholic
Women, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church.
I go back to my days as mayor of San Francisco when I saw over and
over again, up close and personal, what happens because of domestic
violence. I saw police getting killed when they intervened in
situations involving domestic violence. We had a number of funerals for
police officers in Oakland which I attended. It all stemmed from
domestic violence.
To defeat this bill is almost to say that we do not need to consider
violence against women, that it is not an important issue. It is. It is
not a partisan issue. It never has been in this body, which is why,
candidly, I am surprised I find myself on the floor urging that this
bill be brought to the floor, because it has been historically, through
two reauthorizations, and is a bipartisan bill.
You can't help but notice that this is not the first time a policy
which would specifically imperil the health and safety of American
women has compelled some of us to come to this floor and speak out on
behalf of American women.
I hope that opposition to this bill is not part of a march, and that
march, as I see it, over the past 20 years has been to cut back on
rights and services to women. And I mean that most sincerely. I have
never seen anything like it. When I came here, there were discussions
about Roe v. Wade. When I first went on the Judiciary Committee, which
was in 1993, I heard it. There were debates over Supreme Court
opinions--Casey, et al.--and then there were debates over partial
abortion. Then this year we fought against the Blunt amendment which
would have effectively allowed employers to arbitrarily decline to
provide critical preventive health care services for women.
You know, we had to fight for the simplest things. I think young
women forget that it took until 1920 for women to get to vote in this
country. It was only because women fought for it. And we have fought
since the country was established for the right to vote, for the right
to inherit property, for the right to go to school. Now we fight for
our rights to have sufficient services from the government with respect
to our health.
Now I am here to fight for a bill that strengthens laws and protects
women against domestic violence and sexual assault. To me, this bill is
a no-brainer. It has the support of both sides of the aisle. It is
bipartisan. It saves lives. It is a lifeline for women and children who
are in distress, who have no place to go or to stay and have to submit
to domestic violence abuse. And no one can say I am exaggerating. Trust
me, I have seen it. I have seen the bruised bodies up close and
personal.
This bill has reduced the number of domestic assaults on women. The
record indicates that. It should be continued. It is a no-brainer. I
hope it is brought to the floor. I hope we maintain a bipartisan vote.
I hope it is reauthorized.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. We have now been joined by the
Senator from Washington Mrs. Murray, who has spent a long time fighting
for domestic violence bills.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein,
for her longtime advocacy, and our colleague from Minnesota, Senator
Klobuchar, for leading the effort to reauthorize this critically
important bill to protect women in this country from violence.
I was very proud to be here with the Senator from California back in
1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as
we call it. We created a national strategy for dealing with domestic
violence, and since we took that first historic step, VAWA has been a
great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service
providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate
challenges of combating domestic violence.
This law has helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of
thousands of women and their families. It has been supported by
Democrats and Republicans, along with law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health
care professionals, advocates, and survivors. VAWA has attained such
broad support for one reason: It has worked. Since it became law 18
years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 53 percent. And while
incidents have gone down, reporting of violence and abuse has gone up.
More victims are finally coming forward and more women and families are
getting the support and the care they need to move themselves out of
dangerous situations. As a result of the language in this law, every
single State has made stalking a crime. They have all strengthened
criminal rape statutes.
We have made a lot of progress since 1994, but we still have a long
way to go. Every single minute, 24 people across America are victims of
violence by intimate partners--more than 12 million people a year--and
45 percent of the women killed in this country die at the hands of
their partner. In 1 day last year, victims of domestic violence made
more than 10,000 requests for support and services that could not be
met because the programs did not have the resources.
That is why I was so proud to cosponsor and strongly support the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and that is why I join my
colleagues today in proudly expressing our hope that we can move this
critical legislation when possible. This is a bipartisan bill which
will advance our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assaults, and stalking. It will give our law enforcement
agencies the support they need to enforce and prosecute these crimes.
It will give communities and nonprofits the much needed resources to
support victims of violence and, most important, to keep working to
stop violence before it ever starts.
This bill was put forward in a bipartisan fashion. It is supported by
hundreds of national and local organizations that deal with this issue
every day. It consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs. It
adds accountability to make sure tax money is well spent. It is
building on what works in the current law, improves what does not, and
will help our country continue on the path of reducing violence toward
women.
It should not be controversial. We reauthorized this law last time
here in the Senate unanimously by voice vote, and President Bush signed
it into law
[[Page S1703]]
with Democrats standing there with him. So I am hopeful that the
bipartisanship approach to this issue continues today as we work to
reauthorize this law once again because this should not be about
politics. Protecting women against violence should not be a partisan
issue.
I thank the Democrats and Republicans who worked together to write
this bill. I am very glad it passed through committee. I stand ready to
support this bill when it comes to the floor, and I truly hope we can
get it to President Obama for his signature in a timely fashion so
women and families across this country can get the resources and
support this law will deliver.
Finally, many of us women have come to the floor so many times over
the last few weeks to fight back against attempts to turn back the
clock when it comes to women's health care, as the Senator from
California just talked about. I am disappointed that these issues keep
coming up, but I know I stand with millions of men and women across
America who remain ready to defend the gains we have made over the last
50 years and who think we should be moving forward, protecting and
supporting more women and families, and not moving backward. That is
what this bill does.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from North
Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I thank our Presiding Officer for
bringing this forward, and the comments from the Senator from
Washington and the Senator from California are really highlighting the
issues we are talking about.
I am proud to join my colleagues to support the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act. I stand here today during National Women's
History Month to urge my colleagues to take swift action on a bill that
is critical to the well-being of women, our families, and our country.
As Hillary Clinton declared more than 15 years ago in Beijing at the
Fourth World Conference on Women, ``Human rights are women's rights,
and women's rights are human rights. If we take bold steps to better
the lives of women, we will be taking bold steps to better the lives of
children and families too.''
It is disheartening in the last several months that petty
partisanship and gamesmanship have held up policies critical to women's
health, including this act. Since its original passage in 1994, the
bill has made tremendous progress in protecting women from domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The bill has transformed our
criminal justice system and victim support services. It has encouraged
collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals,
and community organizations to prevent and respond to domestic partner
violence. It has funded programs such as services-training-officers-
prosecutors grants, or STOP grants, which are used to provide
personnel, training, technical assistance, and other equipment to
better apprehend and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes
against woman.
Unfortunately, until Congress takes action on the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act, the well-being of women across our country
hangs in the balance. I see this as a serious lapse in our
responsibility as Senators. As a mother of two daughters, I am here to
tell you that this reauthorization cannot wait.
The rate of violence and abuse in this country is astounding and
unacceptable. According to a 2010 CDC survey, domestic violence alone
affects more than 12 million people each year. In the year leading up
to the CDC study, 1.3 million women were raped. And this study showed
these women are severely affected by sexual violence, intimate partner
violence, and stalking, with one in four women falling victim to severe
physical violence by an intimate partner. Domestic violence also has a
significant impact on our country's health, costing our health care
system alone over $8.38 billion each year.
The reauthorization of this act strengthens and streamlines crucial
existing programs that really protect women. In fact, title V of the
reauthorization includes a bill that I sponsored titled ``Violence
Against Women Health Initiative,'' and this legislation consolidates
three existing health-focused programs, while strengthening the health
care system's response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. This initiative fosters public health responses
to domestic violence and sexual violence. It provides training and
education to help health professional respond to violence and
abuse, and it supports research on effective public health approaches
to end violence against women.
Since my time in the North Carolina State Senate, where I served 10
years, I have been dedicated to combating violence against women. While
I was a State senator, I led the effort to ensure that local law
enforcement tested rape kits to convict the perpetrators of sexual
assault. It was astounding to me to discover that after a woman had
been raped and she had an examination where DNA was collected, that
rape kit test would actually sit on a shelf in a sheriff's office or
police station and would not be analyzed. Sadly, the evidence would
only be analyzed if a woman could identify her attacker. What other
victims in America have to identify their attacker before law
authorities will take action?
When I first discovered this and brought it up, I was told there was
not enough money for every rape kit to be tested. We soon found the
money. But there are States today that still have these rape kits
sitting on shelves unanalyzed.
For all the progress we have made, combating violence against women
must continue to be a priority and must be a priority in every State in
the country.
As I take the floor in support of the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act, it is fitting to recognize one of our fiercest
advocates for women's rights--my colleague and mentor Senator Barbara
Mikulski, who, on Saturday, will become the longest serving female
congressional Member in history.
For more than 35 trailblazing years, Senator Mikulski has been a
strong and unwavering voice for women, families, and the people of
Maryland. She shepherded through the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which helps
ensure that no matter your gender, race, religion, age, or disability,
one will receive equal pay for equal work. She fought tenaciously for
her important amendment to the health care reform legislation, ensuring
that women's preventive care would be covered with no added out-of-
pocket expense.
I thank Senator Mikulski for her mentorship, her leadership, and her
fierce advocacy for women's rights. I look forward to continuing to
work alongside Senator Mikulski and my colleagues to promote policies
that support our women, our children, and our families and put them on
a path to a brighter future. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act is central to that goal, and I urge my colleagues to take up this
bill and pass it without delay.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we have now been joined by Senator
Murkowski of Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am proud to be able to stand to
speak about the Violence Against Women Act, joining with some of my
colleagues on the floor.
This is legislation I have supported in the past and look forward to
supporting again. As we talk about those issues women care about, it is
no surprise to most that we are talking about what is happening with
the price of gas or the cost to fill the car tank and we are talking
about the quality of our children's education and we are talking about
the Postal Service in Alaska. We had a military townhall, and I met
with some military spouses. They were quite concerned that some of the
facilities they access are perhaps in jeopardy. We care about the
security of our jobs and our spouses' jobs, and our friends' and
neighbors' jobs and all that goes into working in a small business. We
certainly care about our country's fiscal situation and the very dire
situation we are in.
There is something else we all care about, which is the violent
assaults women often endure--sisters, daughters, neighbors. The
Violence Against
[[Page S1704]]
Women Act is an important commitment to victims of domestic violence
and sexual abuse. This is a promise that resources and expertise are
available to prosecute those who would torment them. Also, it is a
reason to believe that one can actually leave an abusive situation and
transition to a more stable one. It is of the greatest importance that
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are confident there is
a safety net available to address them and their immediate survival
needs, as well as the needs of their children. Only on this level of
confidence can one muster the courage to leave an abusive situation.
These are some of the promises that are contained within the Violence
Against Women Act.
There are additional reasons I feel as strongly as I do about the
reauthorization of this act which relate to the safety of the people in
Alaska. Unfortunately, as beautiful as the State is that I live in, our
statistics as they relate to domestic violence and sexual assault are
horrific. They are as ugly as they come.
Nearly one in two Alaskan women has experienced partner violence.
Nearly one in three has experienced sexual violence. Overall, nearly 6
in 10 Alaskan women have been victims of sexual assault or domestic
violence. In Alaska, our rate of forcible rape between 2003 and 2009
was 2.6 times higher than the national rate. Unfortunately, very
tragically, about 9 percent of Alaskan mothers reported physical abuse
by their husbands or partner during pregnancy or in the 12 months prior
to pregnancy.
We have to do all we can to get a handle on these tragic statistics.
As we know, they are more than just statistics; these are the lives of
our friends, our neighbors, and our daughters. The Violence Against
Women Act presents the tools to do so. In the villages of rural Alaska,
oftentimes, victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence face some
pretty unique challenges. Many of these villages have no full-time law
enforcement presence whatsoever--nobody to turn to, no safe house, no
place to go. A single community health aid must tend to every crisis
within the community, including caring for victims of sexual assault
and domestic violence. Oftentimes, they don't have the tools they
need--the rape kits, the training.
Oftentimes, we will have a situation where weather can be an
impediment to getting the victim on a plane and to a rural hub. In most
of my communities--80 percent of them--there is no road out, no way to
get out. If someone has been violated, and there is no law enforcement
or shelter or nowhere to go, what do they do? Basically, the victim is
stranded in their own community with the perpetrator for, potentially,
days before help can arrive.
The Violence Against Women Act is a ray of hope for those victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault within our villages. It devotes
increased resources to rural and isolated communities, and it
recognizes Alaska's Village Public Safety Officer Program as law
enforcement so VAWA funds can be directed to providing a full-time law
enforcement presence in places that currently have none. It establishes
a framework to restart the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement
Commission, which is an important forum for coordination between law
enforcement and our Alaska Native leaders to abate the scourge of
domestic violence and sexual assault.
I too believe the Senate needs to take up the Violence Against Women
Act. I do feel strongly that we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. I
am a cosponsor of the bill. Some of my colleagues do have some
concerns. I have said we need to take these concerns into account so we
can have--and we should have--an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. This
is too important an issue for women and men and families to not address
it.
I know others wish to speak. I appreciate the indulgence of my
colleagues.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we thank the Senator from Alaska. How
much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I will yield our remaining time to
Senators Mikulski and Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I strongly urge that the Violence
Against Women Act come up on the floor so we can look at the issues and
debate them in an open and public forum. If people have amendments to
either add or subtract from the bill or improve the bill, let's do it
because this is a compelling situation.
I have been here since we passed the first bill in 1994. The original
architect of it was Senator Joe Biden, who is now our Vice President.
Why did we do it? It is a compelling need. One in four women will be
the victim of domestic violence; 16 million children are exposed to
domestic violence each year; 23 million will be a victim of physical or
sexual violence--20,000 in my State of Maryland.
Since we created the legislation in 1994, the national hotline has
received over 1 million calls when women felt they were in danger. So
those 1 million people had a chance of being rescued. Who has the
biggest request for passing the Violence Against Women Act? It is not
only the women of America; it is also local police. One out of four
police officers killed in the line of duty is responding to domestic
violence calls. When they go to a home, they have a checklist to
determine how dangerous the situation is. Is it simply a spat or a
dispute or are they in a danger zone?
We debate big issues--war and peace, the deficit, and all these are
important--but we have to remember our communities and our families. I
think if someone is beaten and abused, they should be able to turn to
their government to either be rescued and to put them on a safe path
and also to have those very important programs early on to do
prevention and intervention. We fund this bill. I stand ready to
support the passage of the bill and putting the money in the checkbook
to support it.
I will leave time now for other Senators. I will yield the floor, but
I will not yield on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on
the floor to support this crucial legislation to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act. It provides essential services to women and
families across the United States.
I have seen in my home State of New Hampshire where one program I
wish to talk about funds Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors.
It is called STOP. It provides law enforcement the tools they need to
combat domestic violence. This was a lifesaving service for a women
named Kathy, who was in an abusive relationship for 6 years.
Kathy was being abused as often as twice a week, frequently leaving
her with black eyes and bruises. Once her partner Mark threw her down
the stairs. Things worsened after the couple had their house foreclosed
on. One day, Mark grabbed Kathy by the throat, lifted her off the floor
and dropped her and began punching her again and again in front of
their 3-year-old child. That was the last straw.
Kathy finally mustered the courage to contact a friend who helped her
call the local police. Kathy obtained a temporary domestic violence
restraining order and Mark was charged with assault.
As is often the case, the criminal and civil procedures overwhelmed
and frustrated Kathy. At times, she even considered dropping the whole
thing. But, fortunately, funding from the Violence Against Women Act
made it possible for Kathy to have an attorney who could help her.
Thanks to this assistance from STOP and the Violence Against Women Act,
Kathy was able to obtain sole custody of her children, as well as
support payments, and ultimately she was able to make a fresh start,
free from abuse.
Some critics of this legislation have said that the Violence Against
Women Act ``has done little or no good for real victims of domestic
violence.'' They have said that these funds ``have been used to fill
feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives.'' I think Kathy
would disagree.
This body should not be divided on this issue, and I am so pleased
that Senator Murkowski has joined us today. Ending the horrific,
degrading and painful cycle of domestic abuse is an effort that must
transcend party affiliation.
[[Page S1705]]
We know these programs work, and I know that we have a strong and
effective leader in Susan Carbon, who is a former judge and now the
Director of the Office of Violence against Women at the U.S. Department
of Justice. Susan Carbon is from New Hampshire and in my time as
Governor of New Hampshire, I was privileged to have Susan as a member
of the Governor's Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and she
chaired our Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee.
Susan has been in the trenches. She has seen what happens when women
are unable to obtain help for themselves and for their families, and
she knows that VAWA helps save lives. She needs these essential
programs to be reauthorized as quickly as possible in order to continue
her great work.
There are too many victims who need our help. It is time to tell
them, ``We hear you and we know you're out there even if you're not
speaking up right now. We want to help you find your voice.'' We have
the chance to make a difference, and the American people are depending
on us to act.
Madam President, I urge the leaders to bring the Violence against
Women Reauthorization Act to the floor, and I implore my colleagues to
unite around this important effort.
This body should not be divided on this issue. As I said, I am so
pleased to have Senator Murkowski join us on the Senate floor today to
point out that this is a bipartisan issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is hard to believe we are having this
debate about protecting women from violence in 2012, but we are.
But then again, we have spent much of this year fighting attempts to
limit women's access to contraception and preventive healthcare; we
have seen a woman called names for fighting for women's health.
Here we are again on the floor because the women of the Senate are
not going to stop standing up and speaking out to protect the health
and lives of women in our country.
Let's be clear: The Violence Against Women Act has always been
bipartisan. It has always had overwhelming support.
And I would know. In 1990, then-Senator Joe Biden came to me and
asked me to be the House author of his bill, the Violence Against Women
Act. At that time, violence against women was a silent epidemic and I
was so grateful that he asked me to help bring this issue out of the
shadows.
It was a slow but steady path to victory, and by the time it passed
as part of the 1994 crime bill, I was a member of the Senate, proudly
working by Senator Biden's side to get the votes we needed. It was one
of my most memorable moments in the Senate. We finally had a law to
help local law enforcement and the legal system combat violence against
women and provide essential services for women struggling to rebuild
their lives.
The results have been breathtaking. Since the Violence Against Women
Act became law, incidents of domestic violence have decreased 53
percent, reporting of domestic violence has increased as much as 51
percent, and more victims are coming forward and getting life-saving
help. One survey found that more than 67,000 victims were served by
domestic violence programs--on one day alone.
So it was no surprise that in 2005 the Senate voted unanimously to
reauthorize this important law. Not one Senator objected to its
passage. It has always been bipartisan. So why the change now?
After all these years, after all the victims who have been helped and
the criminals who have been prosecuted, why on Earth are some
Republicans holding this up? What is it about this bill that they
suddenly don't like?
Is it the funding for shelters to protect women from harm, abuse,
even death? Do they object to provisions that ensure that abusive
spouses will be arrested after committing family violence? Do they
object to measures that declare that all people in the United States
should have the same right to be free from crimes of violence motivated
by gender? Do they oppose safety provisions that protect women on
public transit and in public parks? Do they object to the fact that the
bill consolidates programs within the VAWA office--reducing
administrative costs?
It is hard to imagine that anything other than politics is at work
here--and victims of domestic violence deserve better.
The women of America are watching us. They expect all of us--men,
women, Democrats, Republicans and independents--to come together as we
have before to stop domestic violence, to punish the perpetrators and
help the victims rebuild their lives.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
JOBS Act
Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me return to the pending business
before the Senate--the JOBS Act. At the same time, when millions of
Americans are looking for work, we have an opportunity to do something
in a bipartisan way that will actually help job creators and
entrepreneurs.
Despite all the hype about economic improvements, we are still
experiencing the slowest and weakest recovery since the Great
Depression. More than 45 million Americans are on food stamps.
Unemployment has been higher than 8 percent for 3 years. There are
700,000 fewer jobs today than when President Obama took office. I
repeat: 700,000 fewer jobs today. On top of that, of course, gas prices
are skyrocketing.
As I noted on Monday, I believe the President is painting a too rosy
picture of the economy when he is out campaigning. He stated there have
been 24 consecutive months of private sector job growth. But I would
like to note how the numbers tell a different story. Economists
generally agree that for employment to just hold even, about 150,000
jobs need to be created each month in order to employ the new people,
the new entrants, into the job market or the workforce, and these
include people such as those who have recently graduated, those who
have concluded military service or other family obligations. Again,
about 150,000 each month need to be created just to stay even.
The logical question to ask is, How many of the last 24 months saw a
job growth above 150,000? The answer is, only 10 of those 24 months. In
other words, job creation has been high enough to keep pace with the
new force entrants only 10 months out of the last 2 years. In fact,
private sector job creation was actually lower this last February than
it was in January. This is according to a chart on the President's own
campaign Web site.
So we clearly need better public policy to put people back to work--
legislation that will actually spur job creation. Practically every
bill that has come to the floor in the last 3 years has been labeled a
jobs bill, but to an Orwellian effect. Even bills such as ObamaCare and
Dodd-Frank, which imposed massive new costs on businesses, were called
jobs bills by their supporters. But, finally, with the JOBS Act now
pending, we have a rare occasion to pass a bill that Republicans and
Democrats agree will help create jobs.
The House overwhelmingly passed the bill 390 to 23--majorities in
both parties, and the President has issued a Statement of
Administration Policy endorsing the legislation. So this is something
we should move forward with. The JOBS Act will demonstrate to
entrepreneurs and job creators that we value what they do, that we want
to make it easier for them to innovate, to gain access to capital to
grow and to lift others up as they become more successful.
America has many dynamic companies and fast-growing businesses with
the potential to create many more. The people behind successful
companies are driven by the satisfaction that comes from creating and
innovating and solving problems, and in many cases they are making
products or providing services that improve our quality of life. This
is a good thing. It deserves our support.
Good public policy--hurdles to opportunity, on the other hand--can
help people accomplish their goals, and this bill will help to solve
some of this by getting those hurdles out of the way. For example, the
JOBS Act will help to cut some of the redtape that burdens startup
companies. One of the best overhauls is a reduction in the costly
regulatory burdens contained in the infamous Sarbanes-Oxley section
404(b) accounting rules. Reducing this burden means growing companies
can spend
[[Page S1706]]
less time on paperwork and more time on raising capital and growing
their businesses. These are companies that have the potential to be the
next Groupon, Yelp, or LinkedIn--three companies that didn't exist a
decade ago and all of which recently had initial public offerings.
Here is what the Chamber of Commerce had to say in support of the
House-passed bill.
The JOBS Act would enhance capital formation needed to
build new businesses, expand existing businesses and create
jobs. . . . [It] would put into place several important and
in some cases overdue reforms that would incentivize initial
public offerings (IPOs).
Part of the beauty of this bill is we don't even know who will
benefit from its policy reforms. It applies to everybody. It is the
opposite of the crony capitalism that provided government funds to
companies such as Solyndra and General Motors. Indeed, this is
legislation that will demonstrate what the private sector can do when
government promotes freedom and opportunity. It will show we don't need
government to try to create jobs or make ham-fisted attempts to play
venture capitalist.
Because this is such good bipartisan legislation, it is deeply
troubling to hear it is being stalled right here in the Senate. The
front-page headline of the Congressional Quarterly this morning reads:
``Democrats Move to Slow `Jobs' Bill.''
The article notes that passage appears unlikely this week as
Democrats try to add controversial provisions to the bill which do not
have broad bipartisan support.
If this bill does not pass, or if the Senate Democrats add poison
pills, it will be quite obvious this is part of a broader political
strategy--one that relies on a ``do-nothing Congress.'' That is the
campaign theme the President has been running on.
If Congress actually does something in a bipartisan way that helps
many Americans, well, it will undermine his narrative. He is relying on
congressional dysfunction to keep that narrative going, and that is why
we have to rise above it.
Yes, this is a cynical conclusion, but if this bipartisan bill is
derailed, it will be hard to draw any other. It was our understanding,
when we all agreed to go to the bill, it would be considered under
regular order. This bill is too important to play procedural games,
such as filing cloture and filling the parliamentary tree and the like.
I urge my colleagues not to stall this bill or to jeopardize its
passage with partisan provisions. Let's get this bill to the
President's desk. Our first priority should be helping Americans get
jobs, not strategizing to save the President's job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Sunshine Week
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this is Sunshine Week--a week that is
observed annually to point out the public's business ought to be public
and that government, except in the cases of national security, should
be open to public inspection. This week coincides with the birthday of
James Madison, the Founding Father known for his emphasis on checks and
balances in government and advocacy of open government.
Open government and transparency are essential to maintaining our
democratic form of government. Although it is Sunshine Week, I am sorry
to report that contrary to the proclamations President Obama made when
he took office 3 years ago--and he made them, in fact, within hours
after his swearing in--that 3 years later the Sun still isn't shining
on the public's business in Washington, DC. So there is a real
disconnect between the President's words and the actions of his
administration.
On his first full day in office, President Obama issued a memorandum
on the Freedom of Information Act. This memo went to the heads of
executive agencies. In it, the President instructed these executive
agencies to ``adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to
renew their commitment to the principles embodied in the Freedom of
Information Act, and usher in a new era of open government.''
We all know actions speak louder than words. Unfortunately, based on
his own administration's actions, it appears the President's words
about open government and transparency are words that can be ignored.
If not ignored by the President--and maybe well-intended on the part of
the President--being ignored down to the bowels of the bureaucracy.
Given my experience in trying to pry information out of the executive
branch, and based on investigations I have conducted, and inquiries by
the media, I am disappointed to report that President Obama's
statements about transparency are not being put into practice. In other
words, it is a little bit like ``business as usual.'' I had the same
problems when we had Republican Presidents. But based upon the
President's pronouncements after his swearing in, I expected things to
be totally different in this administration, and I don't find them to
be any different. Federal agencies under the control of the President's
political appointees have been more aggressive than ever in withholding
information from the public and from the Congress.
Throughout my career, I have been actively conducting oversight of
the executive branch, regardless of who controls the Congress or what
party controls the White House. When the agencies I am reviewing get
defensive, and when they refuse to respond to my requests, it makes me
wonder what they are trying to hide. Over the last year, many of my
requests for information from various agencies have been turned down
again and again either because I am ranking member or because I am not
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Agencies within the executive
branch have repeatedly cited the Privacy Act as a part of the rationale
for their decision not to grant requests even though the Privacy Act
explicitly says it is not meant to limit the flow of information from
the executive branch to the Congress.
This disregard by the executive branch for the clear language of the
law is disheartening, and so it is quite appropriate during Sunshine
Week we bring out the truth. Citing another example, since January
2011, Chairman Issa and I have been stonewalled by Attorney General
Holder and by other people in the Justice Department regarding our
investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. This deadly operation let
thousands of weapons ``walk'' from the United States into Mexico.
Despite the fact the Department of Justice inspector general
possesses over 80,000 relevant documents, Congress has received only
around 6,000 in response to a subpoena from the House Oversight
Committee. Even basic documents about the case have been withheld by
the Justice Department. Yet the Department insists on telling us--and
before they tell us, they seem to tell the press--that they are
cooperating with Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa. The Sun must
shine on Fast and Furious so the public can understand how such a
dangerous operation took place and what can be done to prevent such
stupid actions of our government in the future.
I have also worked hard to bring transparency to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. This is an executive branch agency that
desperately needs more sunshine. Over the past 2 years, I have been
investigating rampant fraud, waste, and abuse at public housing
authorities throughout the country. I have discovered exorbitant
salaries paid to executive staff, conflicts of interest, poor living
conditions, and outright fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Many of these abuses have been swept under the rug, and Housing and
Urban Development has been slow at correcting the problems.
HUD cannot keep writing checks to these local housing authorities and
then blindly hope the money gets to those Congress intended to help. I
will continue to work to bring sunshine to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development as well.
In April of last year, I requested documents from the Federal
Communication Commission regarding a valuable regulatory waiver it
granted to a company called LightSquared. LightSquared was attempting
to build a satellite phone network in a band of spectrum adjacent to
global positioning systems.
[[Page S1707]]
The problem is that LightSquared's network causes interference with
critical GPS users such as the Department of Defense, the Federal
Aviation Administration, and NASA.
The FCC responded to my document request by saying they don't give
documents to anyone but the two chairs of the committee with direct
jurisdiction over the Federal Communications Commission. How idiotic.
Because that means that if someone is not chairman of a committee--in
other words, if a person is in the 99.6 percent of the Congress which
does not chair a committee--with direct jurisdiction, then as a Member
of Congress they are out of luck and can't fulfill their
responsibilities of constitutional oversight and can't be a check, as
envisioned by Madison writing the Constitution, on the executive branch
of government.
In this letter to me from Chairman Genachowski, he told me he would
make his staff available even if I didn't get the documents. So I could
interview the staff. But when I took him up on his offer and asked him
to interview members of his staff, my request was refused.
Once again, actions speak louder than words. People can get away with
lying, and there is stonewalling, pure and simple. It seems obvious
that the FCC is embarrassed and afraid of what might come from
uncovering the facts behind what the Washington Post called the
LightSquared debacle. If there is nothing to hide, then why all the
stonewalling? The FCC seems determined to stonewall any attempt at
transparency.
But it is not just the executive branch that needs more transparency.
The judiciary should be transparent and accessible as well. That is why
over a decade ago I introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a
bipartisan bill which will allow judges at all Federal courts to open
their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. By letting
the Sun shine in on Federal courtrooms, Americans will have an
opportunity to better understand the judicial process.
The sunshine effort has no better friend than whistleblowers. Private
citizens and government employees who come forward with allegations of
wrongdoing and coverups risk their livelihoods to expose misconduct.
The value of whistleblowers is the reason I continue to challenge the
bureaucracy and Congress to support whistleblowers.
For over two decades, I have learned from, appreciated, and honored
whistleblowers. Congress needs to make a special note of the role
whistleblowers play in helping us fulfill our constitutional duty of
conducting oversight of the executive branch. The information provided
by whistleblowers is vital to effective congressional oversight.
Documents alone are insufficient when it comes to understanding a
dysfunctional bureaucracy. Only whistleblowers can explain why
something is wrong and provide the best evidence to prove it. Moreover,
only whistleblowers can help us truly understand problems with the
culture at government agencies.
Whistleblowers have been instrumental in uncovering $700 being spent
on toilet seats at the Department of Defense. These American heroes
were also critical in our learning about how the FDA missed the boat
and approved Vioxx, how government contracts were inappropriately
steered at the General Services Administration, and how Enron was
cooking the books and ripping off investors.
Similar to all whistleblowers, each whistleblower in these cases
demonstrated tremendous courage. They stuck out their necks for the
good of us all. They spoke the truth. They didn't take the easy way out
by going along to get along or looking the other way when they saw a
wrongdoing.
I have said it for many years--without avail, of course--I would like
to see a President or this President of the United States have a Rose
Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers. This would send a message from
the very top of the bureaucracy to the lowest levels about the
importance and value of whistleblowers. We all ought to be grateful for
what they do and appreciate the very difficult circumstances they often
have to endure to do so, sacrificing their family's finances, their
employability, and the attempts by powerful interests to smear their
good names and intentions.
I have used my experience working with whistleblowers to promote
legislation that protects them from retaliation. Legislation such as
the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the False
Claims Act recognize the benefits of whistleblowers and offer
protection to those seeking to uncover the truth. For example,
whistleblowers have used the False Claims Act to help the Federal
Government recover more than $30 billion since Congress passed my qui
tam amendments in 1986.
These laws are a good step; however, more can be done. For example,
the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act will provide much needed
updates to Federal whistleblower protections. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor, and I believe the Senate should move this important
legislation immediately. This bill includes updates to the
Whistleblower Protection Act to address negative interpretations of the
Whistleblower Protection Act from both the Merit System Protection
Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
I started my remarks by quoting James Madison, the Founding Father
who is one of the inspirations for Sunshine Week. Madison understood
the dangers posed by the type of conduct we are seeing from President
Obama's political appointees. Madison explained that:
[a] popular government without popular information or the
means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a
tragedy, or perhaps both.
I will continue doing what I can to hold this administration's feet
to the fire, to protect whistleblowers, to get the truth out, and to
save the taxpayers' money.
I hope my colleagues will help work with me so we can move toward
restoring real sunshine, in both words and actions, in Washington, DC.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McCaskill). The Senator from Alaska.
Energy Prices
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, there is a lot of discussion about
energy going on. The President spoke about it this morning.
It is nice to hear us all saying the same thing; that this country
should have an all-of-the-above energy policy. It is a phrase I have
used for years now, and I suppose it is the highest form of flattery to
have that scooped by others and carried. But I think it is important
for us to remember that policies have to translate from mere words into
action. With the President's comments today, unfortunately, I am not
convinced he is intending to help turn our all-of-the-above policy into
reality.
I think if he was serious about doing that, he would acknowledge that
there is far more our country can do to increase our supply when it
comes to oil and oil production. I think he would admit that with oil
prices above $100 a barrel, gasoline edging up every day close to $4 a
gallon, this is not a political opportunity for anyone; this is a
legislative imperative--a legislative imperative--for us all. The
question that needs to be asked is, What can we do?
I would agree with the President that there is no one silver bullet.
There is no one quick fix. We can't snap our fingers and have the price
at the pump go down. But I think it is important to talk honestly about
what is going on with supply and with production in this country.
With much discussion over these past several months about the
Keystone project out of Canada and that pipeline, it continues to amaze
me, it makes me crazy to think we have an opportunity to have our
closest neighbor and our best trading partner supply us with oil
instead of receiving oil from OPEC. Keystone could come online very
quickly, bring oil to our refineries and to our gas tanks. If the
administration supports construction of a pipeline from Oklahoma to
Texas, as they have suggested, I don't see why we can't allow
construction of a pipeline from Alberta and North Dakota and then all
the way down. I am confident there are enough construction workers who
are ready and waiting to start on both ends. When you say it needs more
consideration, more review, I would remind people this has been a
project that has had at least 4 years of environmental review.
So this is one of those choices that I think is pretty clear and
pretty stark.
[[Page S1708]]
Most Americans, I believe, would much rather get their oil from Canada
than from OPEC. Yet some of what we are seeing come out of this
Congress from Members of the Senate, the suggestion is that instead of
going to Canada, we should go, tincup in hand, to Saudi Arabia and ask
them for increased production. I can't imagine--I cannot imagine why it
would be more preferable to producing more American oil or allowing
more oil from Canada. This is a pretty clear choice for me. But, again,
it is an argument we continue to have, and we don't seem to be making
the necessary headway on it.
Earlier this week, the President said the best we can do about gas
prices is reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which will reduce the
price of gasoline over time. One year ago, he said producing more oil
in America can help lower our oil prices. But, again, that is talk that
is going on right now and talk that is not necessarily matching
reality.
Yesterday, I was involved in two hearings of the Appropriations
subcommittees. In one, we had a Department of Interior official who
confirmed that the oil production on Federal lands is down and not up.
There has been a lot of conversation, a lot of discussion about how we
in this country are seeing more oil and gas production than ever
before. But the fact is, we are seeing an increase in oil; we are
seeing an increase in natural gas. But we are not seeing it on our
Federal lands. We are seeing these increases on State lands and on
private lands. When it comes to onshore oil, we have actually gone down
by 14 percent from last year. When it comes to offshore oil, we have
gone down from 17 percent last year. So to suggest somehow that we are
doing astonishingly, when in fact in the area where the Federal
Government does have some ability to incent some production, we are
seeing production decrease.
We also heard confirmation in a hearing yesterday that producers are
leaving the Federal lands--which, again, are the only lands the
administration has control over--not because the resources are
necessarily greater somewhere else but because of Federal taxes, of the
Federal royalties, the bureaucracy, the permitting process that make
State and private lands more attractive. It was quite clear in the
testimony that it does indeed cost more to produce on Federal lands,
and they do worry about that migration to go to State lands and private
lands.
This is a chart I have about the number of applications for permits
to drill on Federal lands. If we look at the timeline, we are going up
and up and up. This is 2001, during the Bush administration, when we
increased 92 percent. We hit 2008, and the number of permits to drill
that have been approved during this administration is down 36 percent.
Again, this is in the area where the Federal Government has control. So
please, I think we need to get beyond the idea that we are allowing
drilling everywhere.
America's largest untapped oilfields onshore and offshore are still
off-limits. In Alaska, we have more than 40 billion barrels of oil that
are trapped beneath Federal lands, and the administration is making
clear they intend to keep much of that off-limits to development.
Again, we have money buried in the ground, literally, in Alaska,
ready, waiting, and willing to advance not only the resource for
American consumption, bringing the jobs, but also bringing important
revenues to our Treasury.
I think it is quite apparent that supply matters. Again, I mentioned
the request from one of our colleagues that we go to Saudi Arabia for
2.5 million barrels per day. I don't think that is an appropriate
policy on which we should embark.
Since at least the mid-1990s, our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have claimed that since oil exploration takes a long time to
bring online, we shouldn't do it. It was the senior Senator from
Massachusetts who, back in 2002, said:
If you open the refuge today, you are not going to see oil
until about 2012, maybe a couple years earlier.
Here we are at 2012. If we had started then, we wouldn't perhaps be
having this discussion now. This argument has gone on for so long that
even Jay Leno is making jokes about it on TV. It is amazing to me that
we continue to say it is going to take too long to bring on, so we
shouldn't start today.
I have two separate bills that allow access to the nonwilderness
areas of ANWR, the 1002 area, to be carefully opened for development.
That field would bring on roughly 1 million barrels of oil to market
each day. Right now, had this not been blocked back in 1995, that would
have been good for American workers, good for the price of oil, good
for the Federal Treasury, and I believe it could have been conducted
and completed without impact to the environment.
When we talk about our abilities, I think it is fair to say we do
have a lot of oil in this country, and we can bring more of it to
market. If we were to increase our domestic production by the 2.5
million barrels a day that has been suggested that we get from Saudi
Arabia, if we were to access Alaskan oil along with the Keystone oil,
that would double world spare capacity and insulate us almost entirely
from OPEC.
When we talk about a way we can move ourselves as a nation away from
the stranglehold OPEC holds over us, I think it is important to
consider what our options are.
I know we will have more to add on this later. Some of my colleagues
are coming to the floor later to speak on this matter. But at this time
I yield the floor for my colleague from Louisiana, the energy
breadbasket down there in the gulf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am happy and honored to join my
colleague from Alaska, and also our colleague Senator Barrasso to talk
about a vital issue, U.S. energy--doing something about the price at
the pump, including by accessing more of the vital U.S. energy we have
right here within our shores.
As the Senator from Alaska has said, at least I give the President
kudos for using the right language, saying the right things, even if
his policies have not caught up with that yet. He is talking about an
``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy, something we have been advocating
for years.
He is also talking about a release from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. I disagree with that policy, but at least it acknowledges that
supply matters. If we increase supply we would lower the price.
I think the important way we need to do that, of course, is to
produce more energy at home. A lot of Americans do not realize it, but
we are the single most energy rich country in the world, bar none. No
one else comes close. When we look at all of our energy resources
compared to all of the energy resources of other countries, we are the
richest country in terms of energy resources.
Why don't most Americans think of ourselves that way? It is because
we are the only country in the world that takes well over 90 percent of
those resources and puts them off-limits. Through Federal law,
particularly under this Obama administration, America says no. No.
The Obama administration says no. No, you can't drill off the east
coast. No, you can't drill off the west coast. No, you can't touch the
eastern gulf, at least for now. No, you can do little to nothing
offshore Alaska. No, you cannot touch the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge. No, we are going to do less instead of more on Federal land.
And, no, we are going to reexamine hydraulic fracturing, which is a key
process to the development of our rich shale resources even though
there is no scientific basis for that attack on hydraulic fracturing.
This administration has said no; no, in terms of policy. The
President is saying ``all of the above.'' The President is admitting
supply matters. But the policy has not caught up, and it has to catch
up.
What am I thinking of? On the Outer Continental Shelf we are rich in
resources, in oil and gas. Yet President Obama's 5-year plan, which he
is required to submit under law--his 5-year plan for developing that
Outer Continental Shelf is only half as much as the previous 5-year
plan. We are backing up. We are headed in the wrong direction, not the
right direction of accessing more of our own energy.
Permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, where I live--since the BP
disaster,
[[Page S1709]]
permitting first stopped but now has started again, but only at a
trickle, and we are still 30 percent to 40 percent below the pace of
permitting compared to before the incident. We need to get back to that
pace of permitting and then surpass it.
Federal lands, the area that the Federal Government controls most
directly--production activity on Federal lands is down from a few years
ago. It is not up; it is down 14, 17 percent offshore and onshore--less
than a few years ago.
Of course, the Keystone Pipeline was mentioned. That is not quite
U.S. energy, but it is as close as we can get to that. It is dependable
Canadian energy from a very firm, strong ally. President Obama is
saying no to that.
I am happy to hear that his rhetoric has changed in an election year.
But when are those policies going to change--on the Outer Continental
Shelf, on permitting in the gulf and elsewhere, on Federal land, on the
Keystone Pipeline? That is what needs to change.
We need to say yes to solid, dependable American energy. It will
increase our energy independence. It will increase our supply and
stabilize prices at the pump. It will build great American jobs, jobs
which, by the way, cannot be outsourced to China and India if they are
domestic energy jobs. It will even bring more revenue into the Federal
Government, lowering the deficit and debt.
Let's say yes. Let's say yes, yes to that. I know my colleague,
Senator Barrasso, is vitally interested in these issues as well. I turn
to him, through the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I agree with my colleague from
Louisiana who is an expert in these areas and spent so much time on
energy and the need for affordable energy. People are noticing the pain
at the pump and saying: Why is this? They don't have to look any
further than the President's policies, the President's efforts, in my
opinion, to make it harder for us to explore for energy. What does he
try to do?
In a Reuter's report this morning, ``U.S.-Britain to agree to
emergency oil stocks release'' from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
This is there for emergencies, for disruption of supply, not for a
political disaster.
What the President has on his hands now is a political disaster. The
fact is, the price at the pump has gone up about a penny a day for
about the last 30 days. People are paying more. They realize if they
are trying to also deal with bills and mortgage and kids, it is much
harder. It is a direct impact on their quality of life. Yet the
President continues, as he has done today, to give speeches about
gasoline prices and to blame everyone other than himself.
It is discouraging to see the President looking to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. He tapped it last year, 30 million barrels. At that
time he drew down our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and still has not
refilled it. So any effort to draw down from it today will take it down
even further, again putting us more at risk for a true supply
disruption.
Those are the things we are facing today as a nation, a President
with a poorly planned energy approach and having to rely on something
that was placed there for true emergencies. But the President continues
to make his claims as he did today and he did last week. One of his
claims is that America only has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves.
The truth is, proven and undiscovered oil resources total seven times
that amount. The President does not seem to want to face that fact.
The President claims an ``all-of-the-above'' energy strategy, but the
truth is the President's policies truly seem to be hostile to low-cost
domestic fuels, especially gasoline and other products from oil. We saw
this when the Secretary of the Interior was a Member of the Senate and
said he would oppose offshore exploration for gas even at $10. He said
using less gasoline will lower prices.
Isn't that a supply and demand issue? The President ignores supply.
We need to increase supply. One of the ways to do that is by exploring
more offshore, on Federal land, and in Alaska, and by bringing supply
from Canada to the United States with the Keystone XL Pipeline instead
of saying to Canada: No, sell that to China.
Continuing to look at the incredible needs of this Nation for fuel,
our ability to increase supply, and the President's efforts to do just
about everything else, people at home are concerned.
I visit with people every weekend in Wyoming. I did last weekend; I
will again this weekend. I hear what my colleague from Louisiana is
hearing, what my colleague from Alaska is hearing; that is, there are
lots of opportunities to increase the supply, opportunities that are
available and should be used in this country. We are so dependent on
overseas, so dependent on OPEC, so dependent on long shipping routes
coming through the Strait of Hormuz. Our solution? Take care of the
problem at home. Work on energy security for our Nation.
The Democrats' proposal--and we heard it from Senator Schumer from
New York, who said: Just ask Saudi Arabia to produce more, 2 million
barrels more a day.
Rely on a country far away? OPEC countries whose interests are not
necessarily our own? That is not the solution for America. The American
people want energy security which begins at home. North American energy
security includes the availability of oil from Canada, the availability
of oil offshore on Federal land as well as in Alaska. It is time for
the President to adopt those proposals and those approaches rather than
talking about his approach which leads people who listen and listen
carefully to realize he is intentionally distorting the facts and
misleading the American people in speech after speech.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. We are as in morning business; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Human Rights
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, first, I want to thank my colleagues for
coming to the floor today and talking about the issue of energy and
energy independence and the rising cost of energy. It is critically
important. I wish to talk about something else, if I could, for just a
few minutes, something I think is of critical importance, eternal
importance; that is, the issue of human rights.
As Americans, we have to remind ourselves our Nation was founded on
the principles of human rights. If we read back to the earliest
documents, the Declaration of Independence first says very clearly at
the outset that one of the founding principles that led to the creation
of this Nation, and the Republic and Constitution that followed that,
was the notion that all of us are created equal. Every human being on
the planet who was ever born, ever will be born anywhere in this world,
was born with certain rights, and the source of those rights is our
Creator.
Think about that for a moment. That is not a common belief. For
almost all of our history people believed our rights as people came not
from our Creator, they came from the government, from our leaders. Our
rights are what the government allows us to have. That is not what
founded our country. This country was founded on the very powerful idea
that the source of our rights and our value as a human being came from
our Creator.
Of course, that manifested itself in all sorts of things in this
country, a constitution, for example, that in recognition of those
rights created a system of government that said the job of the
government was to protect these rights, not to grant them. And, of
course, the American miracle has plenty of witnesses, myself included,
and is well documented in the annals of history, particularly in the
last half century, the American century, the 20th century, which is
shown as an example to the world. Yet the issue of human rights
continues to be a central one around the world and one of the places
where I think an American example can make the biggest difference.
[[Page S1710]]
One of the issues that has interested me since I got to the Senate--
my background before I got here just a year ago was in State
government, and before that it was in local government. One of the
great things about being in the Senate is you have access to sources of
information and individuals with information that I didn't have before.
One of the issues that has fascinated me on a global scale is how human
rights are still summarily violated all over the planet and how, in
fact, these powerful ideas that are at the core of our founding as a
country are still not widely accepted in many parts of the world.
This is a great time of year to be in Washington. People are on
spring break, and they are bringing their kids up here to learn about
our Republic. So I think it is a great time to remind ourselves that
one of the things that made us different from the rest of the world is
that we are one of the few countries on the planet that really believe
that every single person who has ever been born has rights they are
born with. We take that for granted. If you have been born here and
lived here your whole life, you think that is the way it is everywhere.
It is not. There are so many societies and countries around the world
where people are told: You don't have any rights unless we give you
rights. Unless your government or your leaders or your laws give you
certain rights, you don't have these rights. In America, we almost take
that for granted because we believe we are born with these rights. And
the American example to the world has been what can happen when you
actually believe that every single human being has worth and value and
rights that they are born with and that you have no right to deny them.
Sadly, there is no shortage of examples around the world where those
fundamental rights are violated. I think no nation on this planet has a
larger obligation to speak out against it than ours. So what I intend
to do over the next few weeks is come to the floor and highlight some
of these egregious human rights violations because I think they go to
the core of our exceptionalism. They go to the heart of who we are as a
people and as a nation. They go to the center of what makes us
different from other countries around the world and in many respects
are at the heart of what is in debate at this very moment in the world.
As we enter this new 21st century, there are a handful of nations
across the globe that do not want the issue of human rights to be
central. They don't want this issue to be on the front burner because
they don't believe in these things. What they seek is a new
international order where the violation of human rights is nobody's
business.
You see that today in Syria, where people are being murdered, where
unarmed civilians are being pursued and shelled by an army, where there
are horrifying examples of human rights violations on a daily basis. At
least two countries--Russia and China--have taken the position that it
is nobody's business, and one of those countries is the topic I want to
talk about today; that is, China--an emerging power on the world stage
that some people I think falsely claim will replace America on the
world stage. I think that is an exaggeration.
By the way, we welcome the economic progress China has made. I think
it is great news that there are millions of people in China who a
decade ago were riding around on a bike and now have a car. Only a
decade ago millions of people were living in deep poverty and today are
part of the middle class. I think that is fantastic. But don't get
ahead of yourself in believing that China is going to replace America
on the world stage. This is still the richest, most powerful country in
the world. This is still the most important economy on the planet, and
our people are as smart and as creative as they have ever been, and
that is not going to change.
But I think we have to look at China because if, in fact, they are
this rising power, if they are going to be a growing influence on the
international stage, we have to ask ourselves, What is their commitment
to human rights? Sadly, it is not a very good one.
If you look at the issue of Tibet, it is a perfect example. These are
peace-loving people who have sought a certain level of autonomy. They
want to preserve their culture and their way of life. They have gone as
far as to say: We are OK being under Chinese rule, but we want to
protect some of the things that are innate and indigenous to our own
culture and values. And China is systematically trying to erase their
culture and their heritage through processes of re-education, through
the jailing of people, through the oppression of people, through the
destruction of a free press and systems of communication. It manifests
itself today. I think yesterday was the latest incident of people in
Tibet setting themselves on fire. By the way, we should not encourage
that. It is horrifying to see that. We hope it stops. It just leads to
an understanding of the level of desperation that exists in Tibet.
Let me ask you a question. If China is a growing influence on this
planet, are these the values that are going to replace American values
on the world stage? Are these the values that are going to replace our
belief that all individuals were created equal, with certain rights
that come from their Creator? Are we prepared to retreat from the world
stage and allow that to happen without at least speaking against it?
We should not be surprised that China stands by and says: Do nothing.
Don't even sanction. Don't even put out a nasty letter about Syria. We
should not be surprised because a nation that doesn't care about the
human rights of their own people is never going to care about the human
rights of others. As Americans, the question we have is, Are we
prepared to retreat from the world stage and, in fact, allow nations
such as that to play a growing role in the world? Are we prepared to
silence our own voice at the expense of their voice? I hope not.
So when we debate in this Chamber about issues of economic policy, we
are debating issues about America's influence in the world. And I would
say to you that if America is diminished on the world stage, whether it
be by choice or by accident, if we fail to confront the issues this
nation faces and we choose to decline, it won't be just the Americans
who pay the price, it will be people all over the world, including the
people who live in Tibet, because then there will be no voice on this
planet that condemns human rights violations the way we do, because
there will be no nation in the world that can prove that, in fact, you
can have a functional society where the innate worth and the value and
rights that our Creator gives every human being are respected. That is
what is at stake when we debate America's influence and America's
standing in the world.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to come to this floor and continue to
highlight these egregious violations of human rights. Tragically, there
is no shortage of them. In the weeks to come, we will talk about the
problems of human trafficking that exist in our own country, in our own
hemisphere, and all around the world. We will talk about the violations
of religious liberties that exist in societies all over the planet. We
will talk about how women have no rights whatsoever in many of these
countries. There are some nations where a woman is counted as one-
fourth of a man in terms of their worth or their ability to speak out.
We will talk about other countries where people are systematically
jailed, as they are in our own hemisphere, for putting out pamphlets
that criticize the government. We will talk about what is happening in
Syria and Tibet.
Human rights is at the core of who we are as a nation. It is at the
core of our identity as a people and as a power on the global stage. It
is an issue that doesn't belong to the right or to the left, to
Republicans or Democrats; it is an issue that should unite us all in
this Chamber and in this country, and we hope to be an effective voice
in that regard in the years that God permits me to serve here in the
Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Groh Nomination
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the good Senator from Missouri for her
courtesy.
Madam President, I rise today to express my very strong support for
the confirmation of Gina Marie Groh to serve as a U.S. district judge
for the Northern District of West Virginia.
[[Page S1711]]
Gina Groh is absolutely qualified for this position and deserving of
every Senator's support. She has more than 22 years of legal
experience, of which 14 have been devoted to serving the people of West
Virginia, first as a prosecutor and now as a trial judge. In these
roles, Judge Groh has exhibited a superior intellect and an unwavering
commitment to fairness and to justice. Lawyers describe her as
meticulously prepared as a judge, and they describe her as somebody who
administers justice in a timely and equitable manner. Because of her
superior qualifications, she was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee by an unopposed voice vote and has been waiting patiently for
5 months for an up-or-down vote.
Judge Groh will be ready for the job on the day she assumes the
bench, provided, of course, that she passes through this body. She
knows how to make tough decisions. She knows how to issue thoughtful
opinions and to protect the rights and liberties that are guaranteed to
all Americans under our laws and our Constitution.
I am very proud to urge all Senators to support Judge Groh's
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Fitzgerald Nomination
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise today to support the nomination
of Michael Fitzgerald as the Senate prepares to vote on his
confirmation to become a district court judge. I had the great
privilege of recommending Mr. Fitzgerald to President Obama for
nomination. He is a respected member of the Los Angeles legal
community. He will make an excellent addition to the Central District
of California.
Mr. Fitzgerald served as a Federal prosecutor, where he handled cases
involving international drug rings and money laundering, including what
was at the time the second largest cocaine seizure in California
history. Since he has left the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Fitzgerald
has been in private practice handling complex criminal and civil cases.
He received a rating of ``unanimously well qualified'' by the American
Bar Association.
He is a historic choice, and a vote on Mr. Fitzgerald's nomination is
long overdue. He was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee
unanimously 133 days ago on November 3, 2011. It really should not take
this long to confirm such a highly qualified nominee as Mr. Fitzgerald,
especially because this seat has been designated a judicial emergency.
So we have a seat that has been designated a judicial emergency, and we
have a highly qualified gentleman who is ready for this challenge and
who was voted out of the committee unanimously last year, 133 days ago.
I want to close with great hope that we will confirm Mr. Fitzgerald.
With that, I want to, in advance--and I hope I am proven right--
congratulate him and his family on this momentous day. I urge my
colleagues in the Senate to join with me in voting for this highly
qualified nominee.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________