[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[SENA]
[Pages 3482-3498]
[From the U.S. 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-
Assad of Syria.
  We continue to receive press reports on a daily basis about Assad'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 
Assad is perpetrating against his own people. Yet in the face of these 
atrocities, Russia continues to prop up the Assad 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 Assad regime, but it has refused so far.
  Russia is not just passively supplying weapons to the Assad regime, 
it has recently admitted to having military weapons instructors on the 
ground in Syria training Assad'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 Assad 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 Assad 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 Assad'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 Assad 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 Assad, 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 Assad 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

[[Page 3483]]

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 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 Assad 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 Assad 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

[[Page 3484]]

President Assad 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 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

[[Page 3485]]

     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 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

[[Page 3486]]

     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 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,

[[Page 3487]]

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 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

[[Page 3488]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 3489]]

  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 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

[[Page 3490]]

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 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 aide 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

[[Page 3491]]

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 woman 
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.
  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.

[[Page 3492]]

  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 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

[[Page 3493]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3494]]

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. 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.

[[Page 3495]]

  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, 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.

[[Page 3496]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 3497]]

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.
  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

[[Page 3498]]

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.

                          ____________________