[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5712-5724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1925, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       A bill (S. 1925) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women 
     Act of 1994.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.


                       Guest Chaplain Joel Osteen

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is my pleasure to be able to introduce our guest 
Chaplain, Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston. He is a 
native Texan and attended Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK.
  For 17 years, Pastor Osteen worked behind the scenes for his father 
John, who founded Lakewood Church in 1959.
  In 1999, after his father passed away, Pastor Osteen accepted God's 
call to service in the church and took over the reins as senior pastor, 
despite having only preached once in his life.
  It was soon clear that this new, young preacher had a natural gift 
for speaking and was able to personally connect with diverse audiences 
with the inspirational message of God's love. Since that time, he and 
his wife and copastor Victoria have led Lakewood through extraordinary 
growth.
  In 2005, the Osteens moved Lakewood Church from its original home in 
northeast Houston to the former home of the Houston Rockets basketball 
team. With this space, Pastor Osteen now delivers a message of hope and 
encouragement to 38,000 people a week, with millions more across the 
country tuning in on their televisions.
  Pastor Osteen has reached millions more as a best-selling author. His 
first book, ``Your Best Life Now,'' was released in 2004 and remained 
on the New York Times bestseller list for 2 years.
  His most recent book, ``Every Day a Friday,'' offers commonsense 
advice on how to be happy by applying the principles of God's word to 
your daily life. Pastor Osteen has spoken throughout the world, and 
that is what brings him to the Capitol today.
  On Saturday the Osteens will lead thousands in what is billed as ``a 
night of hope'' at Nationals Park in Washington. That message of hope 
and encouragement is what has attracted me and my family to watch 
Pastor Osteen on Sunday morning. I have been to his church. He welcomed 
me and my daughter, Bailey--whose 11th birthday is today--at Lakewood 
Church 2 years ago, and I got to see this awesome place that he fills 
every single Sunday--sometimes more than the Houston Rockets ever did, 
I have to say.
  I do want to say that the Chaplain of the Senate, Dr. Barry Black, 
who works with us every week in the Senate, with all of our staffs, was 
wonderful to help in assisting to bring Pastor Osteen to the podium to 
open our Senate this morning. It is a wonderful Senate tradition that 
we start our day by thanking God for this wonderful world and also 
remembering the mantle of leadership and responsibility that is on our 
shoulders and trying to do the very best we can with that message.
  Again, I thank Pastor Osteen and his wife Victoria, who are wonderful 
people whom I have gotten to know through the years. They have inspired 
so many of us in our travails of life.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering S. 1925, with 
the time until 11:30 for debate only. The Republicans will control the 
first 45 minutes and the majority will control the second 45 minutes.
  At 11:30 today the Senate will proceed to executive session to 
consider the Costa and Guaderrama nominations, both nominated to be 
U.S. district judges for Texas. At noon there will be two votes on the 
confirmation of these nominations.
  Senator McConnell and I are trying to work through a way to proceed 
on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I hope to be able to 
have some announcement around 2 o'clock.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.

[[Page 5713]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the Violence 
Against Women Act.
  We began debate on this legislation by consent, and we would like to 
complete action on this legislation also by consent. We have been 
working to enter into an efficient consent agreement with only a couple 
of relevant amendments and with very short time agreements for 
processing them.
  This approach is in keeping with how Republicans have handled VAWA in 
the past. This approach would also allow us to complete the bill today. 
These relevant amendments would give the Senate the opportunity to 
strengthen the law, especially in terms of the punishment for those who 
commit violence against women.
  As my friend, the majority leader, noted yesterday, a good way to 
lower the incidence of violent crime is to incarcerate those who commit 
it. We could not agree more. We would like the chance to improve the 
law in that respect.


                       Honoring our Armed Forces

                        Captain Daniel H. Utley

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to acknowledge the 
loss of an American hero and patriot. It is my sad duty today to report 
to my colleagues that Kentucky has lost one of our finest heroes in 
uniform. This particular loss is very personal to me, as I knew this 
outstanding young man very well.
  CPT Daniel H. Utley of the U.S. Army was killed in the North African 
country of Mali just a few days ago, on April 20, 2012, while on a 
training mission to help the local citizens combat terrorism. Dan was 
33 years old.
  For his service to our country, Captain Utley received many medals, 
awards, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense 
Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint 
Service Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Joint 
Meritorious Unit Award, the National Defense Service Medal, the 
Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Combat Star, the Global War on 
Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service 
Medal, the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the 
Overseas Service Ribbon, and the NATO Medal. Captain Utley also 
received the Basic Parachutist Badge and his Thailand Jump Wings.
  Charley Utley, Dan's Father said:

       He was a great young man; he was a great son. He always put 
     other people ahead of himself. He did an outstanding job 
     while he was there. He loved being in the Army. He enjoyed 
     what he was doing, and he really thought he was making a 
     difference.

  It goes without saying that every man and woman in our Armed Forces 
is an American of special fortitude and character. But I can personally 
testify to that truth on behalf of Dan Utley. At my alma mater, the 
University of Louisville, I was glad to have begun the McConnell 
Scholars Program, a rigorous and prestigious scholarship program for 
the finest students in Kentucky that prepares them for a lifetime of 
leadership and service. Dan was one of the best McConnell Scholars to 
ever grace the program.
  I could not agree more with my good friend, Dr. Gary Gregg, the 
director of the McConnell Scholars Program, who said of Dan's loss: 
``America has lost a rising star.''
  Dan was born in Bowling Green, KY, on April 13, 1979. He was raised 
in Glasgow, KY, and he went to Glasgow High School where he played 
soccer and was a member of the academic team. He was also a member of 
Glasgow's First Christian Church.
  Dan had a lot of hobbies, but most of them had one thing in common: 
They did not take place inside four walls or under a roof. ``He loved 
the outdoors,'' remembers Dan's father, Charlie. ``He loved camping, 
hiking, biking, jumping out of airplanes, canoeing, kayaking--anything 
to do with the outdoors.''
  Dan graduated from high school in 1997, and he was awarded a 
McConnell scholarship to attend the University of Louisville.
  Dr. Gregg said:

       Dan was a workhorse of a McConnell Scholar. There are 
     people who serve for title and glory; Dan was a young man who 
     served in order to serve. When he was an undergraduate, he 
     would volunteer for any cause that came along. He was always 
     trying to help out the underdog. His heart was always bigger 
     than his ego; his compassion for others always outshone his 
     ambition for self. His life was no different in the U.S. 
     Army--what he loved most was serving others in need.

  I got to know Dan very well during his time in college, and I came to 
appreciate what a remarkable young man he was. He was extremely smart. 
He was also one of the most popular students in the program.
  Dan spent one semester in college working in the Kentucky State 
Legislature, helping to write bills and assisting State senators and 
representatives with whatever they needed. Dan graduated from the 
University of Louisville in 2001 with a bachelor's degree with honors 
in political science. After college, for a time, he enrolled in law 
school but soon decided, because of his desire to serve, that his path 
to fulfillment lay in military service.
  When I first met Dan, a military career was certainly not at all what 
I would have expected him to do. But it just goes to show the growth 
and maturity this young man achieved in such a very short time.
  ``He was in law school, but after 9/11, he wanted to do something,'' 
says Charlie Utley. ``He was miserable in law school because he wanted 
to do something for his country.''
  Dan's friend and fellow McConnell Scholar, Connie Wilkinson-Tobbe, 
agrees and this is what she said:

       Dan was ready to live life, and he was probably smarter 
     than everybody sitting in [law school]. That was not 
     stimulating enough for him, and he was ready to do great 
     things.

  So in 2003, Dan joined the Army and went through OCS. In almost a 
decade of Army service, Captain Utley served in many posts, all of them 
challenging and proof of his skill and talent. He was stationed or 
deployed in South Korea for 24 months, in Kuwait for 12 months, in 
Afghanistan for 13 months, and his final deployment in Mali lasted 7 
months.
  He served in capacities such as tactical communications platoon 
leader, operations officer while in Kuwait, aide-de-camp for a general 
in the 160th Signal Brigade, and brigade civil affairs officer in the 
101st Airborne. After successfully completing a civil affairs 
qualifications course, Dan was assigned to F Company, 91st Civil 
Affairs Battalion, (Airborne), as a team leader.
  Let me quote again from Dr. Gregg.

       I particularly remember when he called and told me he was 
     being made an aide-de-camp and was going to get a new 
     shoulder holster as part of his job protecting the general he 
     served. It was a position of great honor and he was humbled 
     to have been chosen, but he wanted to talk most about his 
     cool new side arm!

  Earlier this year, the news magazine for the U.S. Agency for 
International Development--Frontlines--published an article about 
America's efforts to combat instability in Mali, one of the poorest 
countries in the world. The article stated:

       ``The presence of the terrorist group al-Qaida in the 
     Islamic Maghreb, which has its roots in the Algerian Civil 
     War, now poses a threat of violent extremism'' in the 
     country.

  That is why the U.S. Army, and specifically Captain Utley, was in 
Mali in the first place. As a team member of the Department of 
Defense's Civil Military Support Element, Captain Utley was quoted in 
this article on the valiant work he and his fellow soldiers were doing 
just a few months before his tragic death.
  In September 2004, Dan married Katie, also an Army officer. They had 
their wedding in Hawaii. Katie was commissioned through the ROTC 
Program at the University of Georgia, and is now a captain in the Army 
with the 82nd Airborne, based out of Fort Bragg, NC.
  We are thinking of CPT Dan Utley's loved ones today, especially his 
wife, CPT Katie M. Utley; his father, Charles L. Utley; his mother, 
Linda H. Utley; his brother and sister-in-law, Charles L. Utley, II, 
and Maria; his brother and sister-in-law, Matthew R. Utley and 
Michelle; his nephews, Matthew Ryan Utley and Mason Robert Utley; his 
niece, Marleigh Rose Utley; his maternal grandmother, Pauline Haynes; 
his parents-in-law, Chris and Peggy Michael; his brother-in-law, 
Matthew Michael; and many other beloved family members and friends.

[[Page 5714]]

  I also know for a fact many faculty members of the University of 
Louisville, staff members for the McConnell Center, and current and 
former McConnell scholars will dearly miss Dan. I certainly will.
  I had the honor of watching Dan grow from a teenager to a brave and 
virtuous man who willingly sacrificed everything to defend his friends 
and his family and his country. Elaine and I extend our deepest 
sympathies to all who knew and loved him, and I would ask my Senate 
colleagues to join me in expressing our respect and gratitude to this 
fine young man, CPT Daniel H. Utley. Let our work here today serve to 
ensure our country never forgets the duty he fulfilled by putting on 
the uniform--or the great sacrifice he made in a country many of us 
could not even find on a map in order to protect our freedoms here at 
home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 11:30 a.m. will be for debate only and will be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans 
controlling the first 45 minutes and the majority controlling the 
second 45 minutes.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
Republican leader for his remarks about Captain Utley. I have had the 
honor to talk with McConnell scholars on a number of occasions from 
Louisville. They are such a fine group of people, and I know how deeply 
our leader feels this loss. I certainly will join him in my expressions 
to the family.
  I recall General Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
when someone suggested soldiers who were injured or lost their lives 
were victims, saying they are not victims, they are heroes. They 
committed themselves to serving their country. They believe our country 
is worthy of defense and they are willing to put their lives on the 
line for it, and they are heroes. And certainly this captain was.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Alabama 
for his kind remarks about this brave young man.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the leader.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this Sunday, April 29, in a few days, 
will mark the third anniversary of the last time the Democratic-led 
Senate has passed a budget. Since that date, our Nation has spent $10.4 
trillion while adding $4.5 trillion to the national debt. And that is 
how it is that we say nearly 40 cents of every dollar we are spending 
now is borrowed.
  We have accumulated $10.4 trillion in spending over these years since 
we have had a budget and we have added $4.5 trillion to the debt. We 
are in our fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits and 
heading into the fifth year. Prior to these 4 years, the largest 
deficit we ever had was about $480 billion. We have more than doubled 
that every year since.
  It is a systemic problem--and not a little problem. The economy 
coming back would help, no doubt, but it will not put us on a sound 
path. We have to make some choices. Every person in America now owes, 
as their share of the national debt, $45,000--every American. Every 
man, woman, and child is carrying that amount as their burden as a 
result of the overspending of this Congress.
  For perspective--and we need perspective because the numbers are 
often hard to grasp--that per-person number is larger than any of the 
rest of the world, including Greece. Our per-person debt is greater 
than the per-person debt of Greece. Yet at this time of financial 
crisis, the majority in the Senate refuses to perform its legally 
required duty and moral responsibility to produce a budget plan, which 
is part of the United States Code dating back to 1974 under the 
Congressional Budget Act. And a budget requires, as under that Act, 
only 51 votes to pass. It cannot be filibustered. It is given a 
priority.
  In 1974, Congress was obviously disappointed that we were not moving 
forward effectively with budgets, and a budget is crucial to the 
financial stability of a nation. That is why they passed the 
Congressional Budget Act and ensured that a budget cannot be 
filibustered in the Senate. It is guaranteed a right to have a vote. It 
is required to be brought up in committee by April 1 and moved forward 
by April 15. That is what the statute requires. Unfortunately, it 
doesn't require that Congress go to jail if it doesn't pass a budget. 
Or perhaps, as Senator Heller from Nevada has suggested, maybe Congress 
ought not to be paid if they do not pass a budget. Maybe that reform 
would be good for us.
  The majority has refused to bring up a budget. They have not even 
attempted to pass a budget this year, and they refused to do so the 
last 2 years before this. The absence of a budget is not simply a case 
of inaction; the Senate majority has pursued a systemic, deliberate, 
and determined policy--I believe a politically driven policy--to keep a 
budget off the floor. Why? To attempt to shield its conference from 
public accountability during this period of financial danger.
  The worst possible time not to have a budget, not to have a plan, not 
to stand up and tell the American people what our financial vision for 
the country is, would be in a time of deep financial crisis, when we 
are on an unsustainable path. Yet they are not even willing to present 
a financial plan for the future of America. And when criticized about 
it, the White House says one thing, Speaker Pelosi another, the 
Democratic leader here has another explanation, but none of reasons are 
coherent or make real sense.
  Why? I guess there is no explanation. There can be no justifiable 
reason why this responsibility is not fulfilled. They say, maybe one 
day. Maybe it wouldn't pass ultimately. Maybe we wouldn't agree. But 
the Republican House felt its responsibility to comply with the law, 
and it has for the last 2 years. They laid out a long-term plan for 
America that changes our debt course and puts us on a financial path to 
stability. That is our responsibility. Oh, yes, the Senate called it up 
here. For what reason? So they could attack it and bring it down, but 
not to lay out any plan of their own.
  When Senator McConnell called up President Obama's budget last year, 
he said, let's see if you want to vote for that. You voted down the 
House budget and attacked Paul Ryan and his colleagues for the historic 
work they put into drafting their budget. Let's see what you think 
about your President's budget. It went down 95 to 0. Not a single 
Member voted for it.
  So while government workers have been throwing lavish parties in Las 
Vegas, President Obama has not been roused to impose managerial 
discipline on this government. He has yet to call on his party, which 
is running the Senate, to produce a financial plan. His own budget this 
year was brought up in the House and didn't receive a single vote. Yet 
both he and the Senate Democrats continue to call for higher taxes. 
They say we must have higher taxes. How can they ask Americans to send 
more money to Washington when the Senate's majority won't even write a 
budget; won't even tell them where they are going to spend the money? 
They just say, send us more. We need more. We are not going to cut 
spending. Oh, we can't cut spending--that would be terrible--but you 
need to send us more money, and maybe one day we will pass a budget; 
maybe not.
  The American people shouldn't send one more dime in new taxes to this 
dysfunctional government. They should say to Washington, you lay out a 
plan that puts us on a sound financial path, you bring wasteful 
spending to a conclusion, you quit spending money on Solyndras and hot 
tubs in Las Vegas, then you talk to me about sending more money. That 
is what the American people need to say. That is what they are saying. 
That is what they said in 2010, I thought pretty clearly, but the 
message has not been received.
  National Review's Rich Lowry recently wrote an article in which he 
refers to Senator Conrad, our fine Democratic chairman of the Budget 
Committee. This is what he wrote:

       Senator Conrad said it was too hard to pass a budget in an 
     election year.


[[Page 5715]]


       So that was one of the arguments--well, we don't need to 
     bring up a budget because it is an election year and we don't 
     want to be having a vote before we have to be voted on by the 
     American people. They might not like the way we voted. They 
     might vote us out of office. They might be disappointed in us 
     if they see us actually take tough votes on what we are going 
     to have to do about the future of the Republic.

  Mr. Lowry goes on:

       But Senate Democrats hadn't passed one in 2011 or 2010, 
     either. This year is a presidential election, 2011 was an 
     off-year, and 2010 was a midterm election. That covers every 
     kind of year there is in Washington. By this standard, the 
     Senate will have an annual excuse not to pass a budget 
     resolution for the rest of time.

  I think there is a lot of truth to that. So they can't pass a budget 
this year because it is an election year. Well, last year wasn't.
  So this Sunday, April 29, we will have gone 3 full years since the 
last time the Senate Democrats have brought a budget to the floor of 
the Senate--3 years. They won't produce a plan because they are unable 
to produce a plan. And it is hard, I have to admit. The House has done 
it, but the Senate seems to be unable to do it. They are unable to 
unite behind a financial vision for this country that they are willing 
to go to the American people and advocate for and publicly defend. Now, 
that is my view of it. Maybe it is unfair, but I don't think so. So 
they can't put on paper how much they want the government to grow, how 
much they want to raise taxes, and how much deficit each year they are 
willing to accept and whether that deficit is going to be brought under 
control permanently or whether it will continue at the unsustainable 
rate it is.
  There have been a lot of secret meetings and discussions about what 
might be involved in an agreement that could or could not occur. There 
has been a lot of talk about that. But what has been carefully avoided 
is actually letting the American people see the numbers so they can be 
totaled and we can precisely measure the impact.
  Last year our colleagues indicated that we would have a Budget 
Committee markup on a budget, that they had a plan, and it was going to 
be Monday, and then it was going to be Tuesday. Then the Democratic 
conference met, and they laid out some broad outline for it. Then 
apparently they told Senator Conrad not to have a budget markup. So we 
didn't even have anything brought up in the Budget Committee last year 
as required by the law.
  But you could take a look at that budget. It would have increased 
spending, not reduced spending. It would have increased taxes 
significantly but would have managed to cut the Defense Department $900 
billion. That is what the outlines of it appear to be. That is a pretty 
tough budget to go to the American people with--increase spending, 
increase taxes, and savage the Defense Department. Well, I don't think 
that was very popular. Maybe politically it was foolish, as Senator 
Reid had said, to bring up such a budget to the American people. Maybe 
they ought to look at the Ryan budget in the House. It is much more 
responsible. It reduces spending, even simplifies and lowers taxes, 
creating a growth environment, and it puts us on a financial path for 
the next 30 years that anybody who looks at America would say: Wow. 
They have changed. They have a plan that will get them out of this fix 
they are in. They have gotten off the path to the waterfall, and they 
are on a sound course now.
  So I would encourage my colleagues who think there is a legitimate 
reason not to lay out a plan, not to fight for the future of America, a 
reason not to advocate for the kinds of changes we all know have to 
occur--if you think those are not important, then I invite you to come 
to the floor and dispute what I have said and explain why we don't need 
to move forward as the law requires us to do.
  I don't know how things will happen, but as ranking member of the 
Budget Committee and seeing the numbers, I know reality is not going to 
be easily confronted. It is not going to be easy. We are going to have 
to look at the almost 60 percent of the budget now that is entitlements 
and interest on the debt. I believe interest on the debt last year was 
calculated by the Congressional Budget Office to go from $240 billion 
to over $900 billion under the President's budget. These are annual 
interest payments on the trillions of dollars we now owe in debt--that 
is unsustainable.
  I know it is not going to be easy. I would just say that if we on the 
Republican side are honored with a majority in the Senate, we will pass 
a budget. It will be an absolute duty, as far as I can see, for us to 
do so. It will be an honest budget. It won't be easy, and the American 
people may be surprised at what would be required to change the debt 
and deficit course we are on. But our budget would put us on a path to 
a financially prosperous America, get us off the road to debt and 
decline, and put us on a path to growth and prosperity. That is what we 
have to have.
  Until the world's financial community and the American people 
understand that we are on a good path and not a bad path, we are not 
going to see the economic growth we should be seeing. And it is through 
growth and prosperity and more jobs that we will pay more taxes. It 
will be those actions that will put America on the way to meet the 
great challenge of our time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to 
mark an amazing anniversary. And by amazing, I don't mean good. I mean 
unbelievable. I mean sad. On Sunday we will mark the anniversary--April 
29--of the date where it has been 3 years since the Senate has passed a 
budget. I know a lot of Americans have heard that date, they have heard 
the talking point that it has been 1,000-and-umpteen days since we 
passed a budget. But it is not a talking point. It is simply 
unbelievable. It is jaw-dropping. The U.S. Government is the largest 
financial entity in the world, and it has been operating now for 3 
years without a budget. It is a $3.8 trillion-a-year entity.
  I come from the private sector. I am an accountant. When I tell the 
voters, the citizens of Wisconsin, that the Federal Government hasn't 
passed a budget, they really are amazed. That is why I call it an 
amazing anniversary date.
  The Senate has not fulfilled a basic responsibility. It is required 
by law to pass a budget by April 15 of every year. It is a reasonable 
requirement. It is a reasonable responsibility. The House Republicans 
have fulfilled their responsibility and have put forward a plan. They 
have shown the American people what they would do to solve our looming 
debt and deficit problem. The Senate hasn't.
  Why hasn't the majority in the Senate passed a budget? They have all 
the votes. They have them in the Budget Committee to refer a budget to 
the floor. They have the votes and they have the number of Members on 
the floor of the Senate to pass a budget. Why do they refuse? Is it 
because they have no solutions to our problem or is it that they have a 
solution, and they simply don't want the American people to know what 
it is? ``Trust us. We will take care of us.'' Is it also because they 
don't want their fingerprints on that solution? They don't want to be 
held accountable? I think more likely that is the reason we haven't 
passed a budget herein the Senate for 3 years now.
  I guess they could claim President Obama's budget is their plan. But 
the problem with that is President Obama's last two budgets have been 
so unserious--last year his budget lost in this body of the Senate by a 
vote of 0 to 97. Not one member of the President's own party gave it a 
vote. As a matter of fact, not one member of the President's own party 
was willing to bring that budget to the floor for a vote. Republicans 
had to do that.
  Now this year's budget--3 weeks ago, in the House of Representatives 
again, the President's budget was brought forward to the House--by a 
Republican,

[[Page 5716]]

not a Democrat. It lost 0 to 414. Again, I ask the American people to 
think about that. Think about what a stunning repudiation that is of 
leadership. What it really represents is a total abdication of 
leadership.
  The American people deserve better. They deserve far better. They 
deserve to have a plan. They deserve to have a choice.
  The President now has put forward four budgets. He has yet to propose 
any solution to save Social Security or to save Medicare. Again, the 
House has provided that plan. They have passed a budget. They have been 
responsible. Republicans have been willing to be held accountable. That 
is our job.
  It is well past time for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to 
bring a budget to the floor--not just vote on one but to work on it and 
pass one so that we can go to conference and we can reconcile that with 
the House budget so the United States finally, after 3 years, will 
start operating under a budget in the next fiscal year.
  I know the Budget Control Act sets spending caps. I get that. I get 
that. Washington is going to make sure it can continue to spend money. 
But spending money is only half the equation. What is this body going 
to do in terms of showing the American people what our plan is to live 
within our means, to get our debt and deficit under control? The 
American people are waiting.
  The result of this embarrassing abdication of responsibility and 
leadership can be clearly described by a few charts. Let me start going 
through a couple.
  I think most people have seen all kinds of different debt charts. I 
like this one because it starts in 1987, when our total Federal debt 
was $2.3 trillion. If we were to pass President Obama's budget and live 
by it, in 10 years our total Federal debt would be $25.9 trillion.
  In the Budget Control Act, this body--Congress--gave President Obama 
the authority to increase our debt limit by $2.1 trillion. It took us 
200 years to incur $2.3 trillion. We will have blown through that $2.1 
trillion debt ceiling increase in less than 2 years.
  Just in case anybody is still confused, we have a spending problem in 
this Nation. It is not that we take too little from the American 
people, it is because we spend too much.
  I know the American people are frequently subjected to phrases such 
as ``Draconian cuts.'' I think this proves we are not cutting anything. 
In 2002 the Federal Government spent $2 trillion. Last year, or the 
current fiscal year, it is projected that we will spend $3.8 trillion. 
We have virtually doubled spending in just 10 years. And the argument 
moving forward is, according to President Obama, he would like to spend 
$5.8 trillion in the year 2022. The House budget would spend $4.9 
trillion.
  Another way of looking at that is 10-year spending. In the 10-year 
period from 1992 to 2001, the Federal Government spent a total of $16 
trillion. From 2002 to 2011, the Federal Government spent $28 trillion. 
Again, the argument moving forward is that President Obama's budget in 
10 years would spend $47 trillion. The House budget proposes spending 
$40 trillion. You don't have to be a math major or an engineer to do 
that math. Both $40 trillion and $47 trillion are greater than $28 
trillion. We are not cutting spending, we are just trying to reduce the 
rate of growth. That is an incredibly important distinction. Don't be 
misled. We are trying to get our debt and deficit under control.
  A couple months ago, President Obama said he had the solution. His 
Buffett rule was going to stabilize the debt and deficit. Here is a 
little history. I hope the American people look at this.
  President Bush, in his first 4 years in office, ran a total deficit 
of $0.8 trillion--$800 billion. Now, back in Oshkosh, WI, I wasn't 
happy with that result. I didn't like seeing that deficit spending. His 
second 4 years didn't improve. He had a total deficit of $1.2 trillion 
between the years of 2005 and 2008. Again, I don't think there are very 
many fiscal conservatives who were happy with that result.
  Now President Obama has increased that dramatically. During the 4 
years of his administration, the total deficit will be $5.3 trillion. 
That is on total spending of about $14.4 trillion. We are borrowing 37 
cents of every $1 we spend and our debt now exceeds the size of our 
economy. Again, President Obama's solution? I realize this is hard to 
see, but he has proposed the Buffett tax. If we were to actually enact 
that tax over 4 years, it would raise some $20 billion. I know you 
cannot see it, but there is a line there. It does not even fill in the 
marker lines here. It is $20 billion to solve a $5,300 billion problem. 
I am sorry, that is not a serious proposal. It is just class warfare.
  Let me show one of the problems President Obama refuses to address: 
the looming bankruptcy of our Social Security Program, the program 
millions of seniors rely on, that Americans plan their retirement 
around. We hear all too frequently that Social Security is solvent to 
the year 2035. No, it is not. It is solvent because of an accounting 
fiction called the trust fund, which is simply government bonds held by 
the Government. The analogy I use, it is akin to you had $20 and you 
spend the $20 and you write yourself a note and put it in your pocket 
and say I have $20. No, you do not, nor does the Federal Government. It 
has bonds which, by the way, it can print any day of the week, but it 
has to sell those bonds.
  Social Security went cash negative, which means it paid out more in 
cash benefits than it took in, in cash receipts by 2010--by about $51 
billion. Last year, it was $46 billion in deficit. Through the year 
2035, all this red ink represents $6 trillion in additional deficit 
spending in the Social Security fund. It is insolvent. It is bankrupt. 
It needs to be addressed. This President refuses to address it.
  When we project out and we see another $10 trillion to $11 trillion 
in increased spending and debt according to President Obama's budget, I 
am concerned we are not even fully realizing the other risks involved.
  Before I get to this chart, let me mention the first one. If we fail 
to meet the growth targets President Obama is projecting in his budget 
by just 1 percent, we add $3.1 trillion to that 10-year deficit figure. 
That is a 30-percent increase. I know when they passed the health care 
law the American people were told--they were hoodwinked into believing 
it would actually reduce our deficit. It will not. The way they were 
going to pay for 6 years' worth of spending is with 10 years' worth of 
receipts and reductions in Medicare. The receipts come in taxes, fees 
and penalties on, by the way, drug manufacturers, medical device 
manufacturers, health care plans. I don't know what economics course 
members of this administration took, but we do not bend down the cost 
curve by increasing the costs to providers. That is what they were 
doing for about $590 billion of that revenue stream to pay for 
ObamaCare.
  The other $665 billion was going to come out of cuts to Medicare, 
Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid.
  We have not imposed the provider reductions under the SGR fix, the 
doc fix--about $208 billion. What makes anybody believe we will 
actually impose the $665 billion in savings in Medicare? If we move the 
10-year window forward to when ObamaCare kicks in, when the full 
spending occurs starting about 2016, the total cost of the health care 
law will not be $1.1 trillion, it will be $2.4 trillion, and that is a 
conservative estimate, not even taking into account millions of 
employees who will lose their employer-sponsored care and get put into 
the exchanges at highly subsidized rates. But using a conservative cost 
figure of $2.4 trillion and growth in taxes, fees, and penalties by a 
reasonable amount, $816 billion, that leaves a $1.6 trillion what I am 
calling deficit risk. How is that going to be filled? Are we going to 
borrow it or are we going to take it out of Medicare? Somehow I do not 
think we will be taking it out of Medicare. Somehow I think we will 
have to borrow it, if we can.
  That brings me to our last chart, interest rate risk. I was never 
concerned, not even for a moment last year during

[[Page 5717]]

the debt ceiling debate, that the Federal Government was going to 
default on any of its obligations. We were going to pay Social Security 
recipients. We were going to pay our soldiers. We were going to meet 
every obligation of the Federal Government. The day I fear is the true 
day of reckoning, the day when creditors around the world take a look 
at the United States and say: You know what, I am not going to loan you 
any more money or what is more likely to occur is they will say: I will 
loan you some money but not at these rates.
  If we take a look at the history of the borrowing costs of the United 
States, from 1970 to the year 2000, our average borrowing cost for the 
Federal Government was 5.3 percent. Over the last 3 years, from 2010 to 
2012, our average borrowing costs were about 1.5 percent. That is a 
difference of 3.8 percent between these two figures. If we just revert 
to that average--and by the way, back then the United States was a far 
more creditworthy borrower--our debt-to-GDP ratio ranged somewhere 
between 45 percent and 67 percent. Currently, our debt-to-GDP ratio 
exceeds 100 percent. If we revert to that average borrowing cost, that 
would cost the Federal Government $600 billion in added interest 
expense per year. That is 60 percent of the discretionary spending 
level of $1.47 trillion this year.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 15 
minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. This is the problem. This is a huge problem. It is one 
that is being ignored because we simply refuse to address it. This body 
refuses to pass a budget to lay out a plan to fix it; to stabilize one 
of our primary metrics, a key one--that debt-to-GDP ratio, stabilize 
that and start bringing it down. The other is the percentage of 
government in relation to the size of our economy. One hundred years 
ago that was 2 percent. Last year, it was about 24 percent, which means 
24 cents of every $1 filters through some form of government. I do not 
find the Federal Government particularly effective or efficient. That 
is what the private sector does. It is the private sector that creates 
long-term self-sustaining jobs. It is the private sector we need to 
rely on to grow our economy and create jobs.
  As to the vision for America, we are going to have a very clear 
choice on the vision for America, between what this administration 
wants to do with a government-centered society and what Republicans 
want to do in terms of an opportunity society led by free people, free 
enterprise, led by freedom. That is our choice. But until the majority 
party in the Senate lays out their plan, the American people will not 
have a plan. They will not understand what the plan is for the other 
side.
  Again, let me close by saying it is well past time for the Senate to 
fulfill its responsibility and pass a budget.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Close to 14 minutes, approximately 
14 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Violence Against 
Women Act and the policies that impact the lives of women. Since its 
original enactment in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been 
reauthorized twice by unanimous consent, under both Democratic and 
Republican leadership. The legislation originated out of a necessity 
for us to respond to the prevalence of domestic violence, sexual 
violence, and the impact those crimes have on the lives of women.
  By and large, the legislation has worked, even though there are 
outstanding issues, such as spending inefficiencies and needed 
improvements to oversight. As with most large pieces of legislation, 
including the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, there are 
debates and philosophical differences about elements of various 
provisions in the bill. While the Senate should be allowed to debate 
and ideally resolve these differences, I don't think any of the points 
of controversy we will discuss are important enough to prevent passage 
of the legislation. The Violence Against Women Act represents a 
national commitment to reversing the legacy of laws and social norms 
that once served to shamefully excuse violence toward women, a 
commitment that should be maintained.
  Whatever differences we might have over particular provisions in the 
bill, surely we are united in our concern for the victims of violence 
and our determination to do all we can to prevent violence against the 
innocent, regardless of gender. I recognize women suffer 
disproportionately from particular forms of violence and other abuse, 
which this legislation is intended to address. I believe it does 
address it, and that is why I support it. But our motivation to act on 
their behalf resides in our respect for the rights all human beings 
possess, male and female, all races, creeds, and ages: to be secure in 
their persons and property; to be protected by their government from 
violent harm at the hands of another; to live without threat or fear in 
the exercise of their God-given rights.
  Similarly, whatever our political differences in this body, I trust 
we all believe we are doing what we think best serves the interests and 
values of the American people--all the American people. I don't think 
either party is entitled to speak or act exclusively for one 
demographic of our population, one class, one race or one gender. The 
security and prosperity of all Americans is a shared responsibility and 
each of us discharges it to the best of our ability. We do not have 
male and female political parties and we do not need to accuse each 
other of caring less for the concerns of one-half the population than 
we do for the other half. The truth is, both parties have presided over 
achievements and increases in opportunity for women. Both parties have 
nominated women to the Supreme Court. Both parties have had excellent 
female Secretaries of State. Both parties have had female Presidential 
and Vice Presidential candidates. Both parties have reauthorized the 
Violence Against Women Act. Both parties have made progress toward 
ensuring Americans, male and female, have an equal opportunity to 
succeed as far as their talents and industry can take them.
  That progress has come in the form of many policies, from changes to 
our Tax Code to changes in education policy, to improvements in 
workplace environment as well as from changes in cultural attitudes in 
both the public and the private sector. Do we always agree? Do we 
always get it right? No, we do not. But I do think there is much for 
all of us to be proud.
  Regrettably--and there is always something to regret in politics--we 
have seen too many attempts to resolve inequities in our society and 
ensure all Americans are afforded the same respect for their rights and 
aspirations misappropriated for the purpose of partisan advantage, 
which has the perverse effect, of course, of dividing the country in 
the name of greater fairness and unity.
  My friends, this supposed war on women or the use of similarly 
outlandish rhetoric by partisan operatives has two purposes, and both 
are purely political in their purpose and effect. The first is to 
distract citizens from real issues that matter, and the second is to 
give talking heads something to sputter about when they appear on cable 
television. Neither purpose does anything to advance the well-being of 
any American.
  I have been fortunate to be influenced throughout my life by the 
example of strong, independent, aspiring, and caring women. As a son, 
brother, husband, father, and grandfather, I think I can claim some 
familiarity

[[Page 5718]]

with the contributions women make to the health and progress of our 
society. I can certainly speak to their beneficial impact on my life 
and character. But I would never claim to speak for all the women in my 
family, much less all the women in our country any more than I would 
venture the same presumption for all men.
  To suggest that one group of us or one party speaks for all women or 
that one group has an agenda to harm women and another to help them is 
ridiculous, if for no other reason than it assumes a unity of 
interests, beliefs, concerns, experiences, and ambition among all women 
that doesn't exist among men or among any race or class. It would be 
absurd for me to speak for all veterans and wrong of me to suggest that 
if a colleague who is not a veteran disagrees with my opinion on some 
issue, he or she must be against all our veterans.
  In America, all we can fairly claim to have in common with each other 
at all times--no matter what gender we are or what demographic we fit--
are our rights. As a son, brother, husband, father, and grandfather, I 
have the same dreams and concerns for all the people in my life. As a 
public servant, I have the same respect for their rights and the same 
responsibility to protect them, and I try to do so to the best of my 
ability.
  Thankfully, I believe women and men in our country are smart enough 
to recognize when a politician or political party resorts to dividing 
us in the name of bringing us together, it usually means they are 
either out of ideas or short on resolve to address the challenges of 
our time. At this time in our Nation's history we face an abundance of 
hard choices. Divisive slogans and the declaring of phony wars are 
intended to avoid those hard choices and to escape paying a political 
price for doing so.
  For 38 straight months our unemployment rate has been over 8 percent. 
Millions of Americans--men and women--cannot find a job. Many have quit 
looking. Americans don't need another hollow slogan or another call to 
division and partisanship. They need real solutions to their problems. 
They are desperate for them.
  Americans of both genders are concerned about finding and keeping a 
good job. Americans of both genders are concerned about the direction 
of our economy. Women and men are concerned about mounting debt--their 
own and the Nation's. Women and men are hurt by high gas prices, by the 
housing crisis, shrinking wages, and the cost of health care. Women and 
men are concerned about their children's security, their education, 
their prospects for inheriting an America that offers every mother's 
and father's child a decent chance at reaching their full potential. 
Leaving these problems unaddressed indefinitely and resorting to 
provoking greater divisions among us at a time when we most need unity 
might not be a war against this or that group of Americans, but it is 
surely a surrender, a surrender of our responsibilities to the country 
and a surrender of decency.
  Within the tired suggestions that women are singularly focused on one 
or two issues are the echoes of stale arguments from the past. Women 
are as variable in their opinions and concerns as men. Those false 
assertions are rooted in the past stereotypes that prevented women from 
becoming whatever they wanted to become, slowed our progress, and hurt 
our country in many ways. The argument is as wrong now as it was then 
and we ought not to repeat it.
  We have only these in common: our equal right to the pursuit of 
happiness and our shared responsibility to making America an even 
greater place than we found it. Women and men are no different in their 
rights and responsibilities. I believe this legislation recognizes 
that. I don't believe the ludicrous partisan posturing that has 
conjured up this imaginary war.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, a group of women Senators is here to 
talk about the Violence Against Women bill, and as my colleague from 
Arizona was referencing, this is a bill where there has been unity for 
well over a decade. We have a number of Republican sponsors. We are up 
to 61 sponsors, men and women, who have come together to say that 
violence against women is not okay.
  The first speaker is the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota 
for her well-known advocacy on this issue. Her advocacy was well known 
in Minnesota. Her work as a prosecutor brought her in contact with many 
of these women and making sure they got a fair shake in the system was 
well known and well appreciated.
  I am here to be a strong supporter for the Violence Against Women 
Act, and I hope this bill passes and that this bill passes today. It is 
because Senator Leahy has worked on a bipartisan basis in his committee 
that we were able to bring out this bill.
  This bill was first passed in 1994 under the leadership of our Vice 
President, then-Senator Joe Biden, who is well known for his strong, 
muscular, robust approach to law enforcement. What he saw was that so 
many of the victims of crime were women and that they were victims both 
in streets and neighborhoods. They were also terrible victims in their 
own home where they were battered and abused. They found that when they 
came to the judicial system, they were battered again because they were 
ignored and had no one to stick up for them and were always told: Oh, 
it is your fault. What are you doing? Joe Biden changed the law, and we 
worked on a bipartisan basis.
  Ever since 1994 we have continually reauthorized this legislation, 
looking at new needs and new technology and new creative ways of 
responding to these needs for prevention, intervention, and even 
prosecution. What we want to do today is pass this legislation that has 
been refreshed, reformed, and also brings some new approaches.
  The chairman of the committee has done an outstanding job and is to 
be commended. The Violence Against Women Act authorizes two Federal 
programs for domestic and sexual violence in our communities, the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources. The STOP 
grant is the largest national grant program in the Justice Department. 
Roughly half of all violence-against-women funds goes to these STOP 
grants, and they go to every community.
  What is it they do? They coordinate community approaches to end 
violence and sexual assault. They fund victim services such as shelters 
and the toll-free crisis hotline and fund legal assistance to victims 
to get court orders to be able to protect themselves from the abuser or 
from the stalker. They also have training for police officers, 
prosecutors, and judges so they know how to do a good job. It also 
helps with grants for victims of child abuse, something I am very 
familiar with, having been a child abuse social worker, and also 
important services in terms of rape prevention programs. This is a 
great bill and it meets a compelling human need.
  Since the original Biden legislation, over 1 million women who have 
called that hotline were desperate, who were fearful for their lives. 
And when they called that number, they didn't get a busy signal, nobody 
hung up on them; they got help, and I know that it saved lives. One in 
four women will be a victim of domestic violence during her lifetime. 
Sixteen million children are exposed to domestic violence, and also one 
in six women has experienced attempted or completed rape, and now even 
men are the subject of rape.
  Twenty-five percent of rape crisis centers have waiting lists for 
advocacy groups. I want to talk about that in more detail. There are 2 
million victims of physical and sexual violence each year; 20,000 in 
Maryland. On average, 1,000 female victims are killed by their abusers 
and one-third of all female homicides are domestic violence. These are 
numbers and statistics, but they also represent real people.

[[Page 5719]]

  We help over 70,000 victims every day through hotlines and services 
and shelters, but regrettably there is a waiting list. So we need to 
pass this legislation because it gives us the authorization to be able 
to help those in need. It meets these compelling human needs to protect 
people, and in my own State it has had enormous, positive consequences.
  There is something that was developed through the Department of 
Justice called the lethal index. It means when a police officer goes 
into a home, he or she has to assess how dangerous it is. Should they 
yank the kids out? Should they take the abuser and put them in jail or 
do they call in a social worker to try and intervene? Should they give 
the family more time, give them family counseling so they can get 
people off the ledge and out of a violent situation so they are able to 
work on the long path toward family stability?
  Well, my local law enforcement police officers tell me this lethal 
checklist has been a tremendous tool to being able to assess the level 
of violence when they are in that home and to know when people are in 
danger and they have to get them out right that minute. Again, they 
also know when there is the opportunity for other interventions to be 
able to help the family. This helps families, it helps police officers, 
and it helps our community. We need to empower victims to be able to 
help themselves by providing help in these abusive relationships.
  Studies show that victims who use community-based domestic violence 
services--when they are available--are almost never victims of murder 
or attempted murder. That is a powerful line that if we had this 
intervention and prevention we can not only reduce violence but we can 
reduce homicides as well.
  We need to pass this bill because it is crucial to our families, to 
our communities, and it also shows the country that we are serious 
about governing and keeping this legislation going.
  I want to also comment on some of the other important programs. As I 
said, I want to talk a little bit about my role. I am an appropriator--
and in fact, I will leave shortly to go to a markup. But I have moved 
the Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill. I worked so closely with 
the gentlelady from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, also a very 
strong advocate in the interest of women and protecting women here and 
around the world. We worked on a bipartisan basis in this year's bill 
and put money in the Federal checkbook for those STOP grants, for those 
sexual assault services, for transitional housing grants, and also for 
other help in our communities. We also took a serious look at the whole 
issue of forensics.
  Forensics is a subject of much debate and unfortunately much backlog. 
In my bill, in the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, we funded overall 
in the Department of Justice money to deal with forensic backlogs, but 
we also paid particular attention to something called the Debbie Smith 
Act. Let me say this: There are two different bills. There is the 
Violence Against Women Act and there is the Debbie Smith Act. The 
Debbie Smith Act was passed because of a woman named Debbie Smith who 
was subjected to the most violent, repugnant, despicable acts of 
violence against her. Working together, what we have done is actually 
put money in the Federal checkbook to reduce the backlog of DNA 
evidence. We have ensured that a high percentage of funds also go to 
labs to be able to deal with samples from crime scenes, databases, and 
other areas.
  Assuming we will debate this rape kit issue at a later time, I wish 
to thank Senator Leahy for his advocacy and Senator Cornyn for his 
sensitivity in wanting to solve the problem. I believe if we can take a 
minute and keep in our minds as our legislative goal to work together--
not who gets credit but who gets help--it is not about who gets credit, 
it is about who gets help. We want to be able to help those rape 
victims have the solace and the consolation that their government is on 
their side, using the best of scientific evidence to make sure we have 
the right person to ensure the right prosecution to get the right 
conviction.
  Right now, there is a backlog. When Justice gives out their money for 
forensics, it doesn't always go toward these issues. We can direct it. 
We can do a good job. Let's come together. Let's iron out our 
parliamentary differences so we can pass this very important Violence 
Against Women Act.
  I can take what I have done to put money in the Federal checkbook. 
Let's refresh the Federal law book and, most of all, let's keep our 
eyes on what we want to do. We want to be able to prevent domestic 
violence and violence against women, whether it is the stranger who 
perpetrates danger and commits despicable acts or against women in 
their own homes. We aim for prevention, intervention, the training of 
police officers, judges, and courts, and the right prosecutions.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to thank so much the Senator 
from Maryland for showing such a succinct way of describing such an 
incredibly complex but important bill.
  We have also been joined by the Senator from California who has been 
a long-time leader on this issue. She was here in Congress, as was the 
Senator from Maryland, when the initial Violence Against Women Act 
passed in 1994.
  I yield to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. If the Chair would 
tell me when I have used 5 minutes and then I will conclude.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Klobuchar for her 
leadership and Senator Feinstein as well. These are the two Democratic 
women on the Judiciary Committee who have been such leaders on this 
issue, as well as Senator Murray.
  I am proud to stand here today to call for the passage of the 
Violence Against Women Act. This is not a new bill, as has been 
painstakingly described to all of my colleagues. I can remember so well 
when then-Senator Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act, and 
he came to me when I was in the House and asked me to carry it in the 
House. I was as honored as I am right now.
  Yes, it took us a while to pass it, but ever since it has been 
noncontroversial. For some reason our Republican friends, although we 
have 61 people as cosponsors, are slowing it down, and it seems to me 
very clear if they didn't have objections we could pass this by voice 
vote.
  Three women are killed by their abusive partners every single day. I 
will repeat that: Three women today will be killed by their abusive 
husbands. For every woman who is killed, there are nine more who are 
beaten or injured every single day. In the name of those people--in the 
name of the three women who will be killed today--we should pass this 
unanimously.
  Has the Violence Against Women Act worked? Yes. Incidents of domestic 
violence have decreased by 53 percent since we passed this law. Why on 
Earth, when three women are killed every day and nine women are 
injured, sometimes to the point of almost losing their lives--why on 
Earth, when a bill has brought down domestic violence by 53 percent, 
would there be objection? There is no reason whatsoever for objection.
  When we go back to the votes on the bill, there are overwhelming 
votes in favor every time. This year 47 attorneys general signed a 
bipartisan letter supporting the reauthorization.
  I have story after story from home, and I am going to read a couple 
to my colleagues. A mother in Alameda County with two children had been 
in a long-term abusive relationship. She separated from her abuser only 
to be stalked and brutally assaulted by him. She called 9-1-1. She hid 
the phone during the last beating so the police could hear what was 
going on. Because of the Violence Against Women Act, she was able to 
access a Family Justice Center where she received counseling, 
relocation assistance, and she worked with a deputy DA trained by 
program grants. She was pressured not to cooperate

[[Page 5720]]

with the prosecution, but because of the Violence Against Women Act--
the investigators had been trained by that act--she overcame her fear. 
She was protected as she cooperated and gained a strong conviction of 
her abuser.
  That is a case that shows the training works, and the training took 
place because of the Violence Against Women Act.
  This is a story of an immigrant woman in Los Angeles. This happened 2 
years ago. She was stabbed 19 times by her boyfriend while she was 3 
months pregnant. During her ordeal, her boyfriend drove her from one 
part of town to the other, refusing to take her to an emergency room 
even though she was bleeding profusely. She jumped out of the car, 
screamed for help, and the abuser fled. Thankfully, she received 
medical attention. The baby was not lost, she recovered, and because of 
the Violence Against Women Act she cooperated with the prosecutors. She 
got a U visa, and she and her child could move on.
  The last case deals with Indian tribes. I know what a fierce advocate 
the Presiding Officer is in every way for Indian tribes. So I talked to 
my people back home. According to a 2008 report by the Centers for 
Disease Control, 39 percent of Native American women will face domestic 
violence--39 percent. Yesterday, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murray, and 
I stood next to a woman who is the vice-chair of a tribe in Washington. 
She, for the first time, spoke out about the abuse she received as a 
toddler. I don't think Senator Klobuchar and I and Senator Murray will 
ever forget it.
  She said: I know how old I was because I remember I was the size of a 
couch cushion. This woman spoke out about how later on she saw the gang 
rape of her aunt. Because of the situation with Indian law, if the 
abuser is not from the tribe----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will complete my statement in a moment. If an abuser is 
not from the tribe, there is no recourse--no recourse--in a place where 
39 percent of the women will face domestic violence, and we have 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to exclude people.
  I wish to ask a rhetorical question: If a person is walking down the 
street and sees three people bleeding on the street--one just has to 
know a little bit about being a Good Samaritan--a person doesn't ask 
them for their papers, they don't ask them who they are, they don't ask 
them where they live, they help them.
  Anyone on this floor who attempts to take out various groups from 
this bill is changing the Violence Against Women Act, which has never 
excluded any group. So let's be clear. Let's pass the bill. Let's get 
it done.
  I will say in closing, tribal chairman Stacy Dixon of the Susanville 
Indian Rancheria said the improvements in this bill will ``bring 
justice back to Indian country and will equip tribal governments with 
the needed authority and resources to protect our residents and restore 
faith in the justice system.''
  Let's restore faith in the justice system not just for those on 
tribal lands but for those who live in any part of our lands.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from 
California for those moving remarks and for the very important point 
that the Violence Against Women Act has never discriminated against 
people, regardless of who they are, where they live, or how much money 
they have. I appreciate those remarks, and I think it is at the core of 
what some of this debate is about.
  Overall, I still believe when we are ready to have a number of 
colleagues from across the aisle on this bill, we will get this done. 
That is why it is so important that with the work of Senator Reid and 
Senator Leahy, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, and Senator 
Crapo, who is the leading Republican on this bill, and Senator 
Mikulski, who came and spoke earlier, as well as Senator Murkowski, who 
joined us the last time we had the group of women Senators--and we have 
been working diligently on it late into the evening--I am very positive 
we are going to get this done and get this vote done.
  I see we have been joined by the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell, who has long been a leader on women's issues and has fought 
for this bill and has been a Member of Congress in the past when it has 
been reauthorized. So she knows very well that in the past this has not 
been a partisan bill; that people have come together and worked out 
whatever differences they have had, and they have been able to pass 
this important Violence Against Women Act.
  So I thank her for being here, and I yield to Senator Cantwell.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
her leadership on this issue and for her great service on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. I know she, as a former prosecutor, has provided a 
great deal of leadership on many issues, but having her voice on this 
Senate Judiciary Committee has been very important for our country.
  I come to the floor to stand with my colleagues who are here, the 
women of the Senate, to say we are standing up for women across 
America. We want the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 
Today we wish to tell victims of domestic violence that they are not 
alone. We have to make sure we are giving to local governments and to 
law enforcement the tools they need to protect victims of domestic 
violence.
  Today we are here with a clear message to victims of domestic 
violence which is that we will stand with them. We haven't forgotten, 
and we are not going to let this bill be bogged down in political 
fighting. We are going to make sure we continue to move ahead. We 
already have the support of 61 Senators, 47 State attorneys general, 
and countless law enforcement individuals who are working across the 
Nation to make sure these victims have an advocate. However, we know 
there is still opposition that remains, so I want to make sure we 
address those concerns today.
  For those who oppose the bill, I ask them to look at my State of 
Washington and the threat of domestic violence. In Washington State, 
law enforcement receives 30,000 domestic violence calls a year, on 
average, and on any given day in 2011, domestic violence programs 
served 1,884 people in Washington State. That is why the Violence 
Against Women Act is so important. In Washington, it really does save 
lives.
  People such as Carissa, one of my constituents, who was in an abusive 
relationship, was allowed to flee with her then 3-year-old daughter in 
1998. She joined me in Seattle recently to highlight the fact that the 
programs, shelter, and the assistance in starting a new life helped her 
escape that life of abuse.
  I wish to quote Carissa: ``I am standing here alive today because 
VAWA works.'' Looking into Carissa's eyes, we know this is not about 
statistics, and it is not about politics. It is about providing a 
lifeline to women who want to have a different life.
  VAWA also helps crack down on violence against mail order brides. It 
is a story that we all know too well in the Pacific Northwest. 
Anastasia King and Susana Blackwell were mail order brides who came to 
Washington State to start a new life with men they believed loved them. 
Their lives were brutally cut short when their husbands murdered them. 
This happened after they had been subject to repeated domestic abuse. 
That is why, in 2005, I sponsored the International American Broker 
Regulation Act which became part of the Violence Against Women Act. It 
empowered more and more fiances to learn if their spouses had a history 
of violent crime, and it now has become part of the reauthorization 
that is this bill. It includes enhancements that require marriage 
broker agencies to provide foreign-born fiances with a record of any 
domestic

[[Page 5721]]

violence their potential spouses might have engaged in. That way we can 
stop the abuse before it begins.
  Opponents who say the Violence Against Women Act would create 
immigration fraud and give funds to those who don't need it should 
consider the story of Anastasia King and Susana Blackwell. Anastasia's 
and Susana's lives could have been saved had these provisions and 
protections been in place. We should not deny immigrant women or 
trafficking victims resources they need to prevent abuse nor should we 
create barriers for them to get the safety they need. That is why we 
need to pass the Violence Against Woman Act.
  We also need to make it clear that Native American women will receive 
protection. Deborah Parker of the Tulalip Tribes came to the Capitol 
this week to explain why this is so important. Deborah is a tireless 
champion for the victims of domestic abuse, and she was here to tell 
her brave story. She spoke eloquently as to why women need to make sure 
their perpetrators will be charged.
  Consider that 39 percent of American Indian women will endure 
domestic violence in their lifetimes. Compare that with figures that 
estimate that 24 percent of all women in the United States will 
experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. So we need a Violence 
Against Women Act that will crack down on the domestic violence in 
tribal communities. This bill gives the tools so we can make sure we go 
after those offenders.
  Some have warned this will trample on the rights of individuals to 
have due process and full protection. That is not the case. What we are 
doing is making sure there will be an investigation on reservations of 
the suspected abuse. I think it is time we address this epidemic that 
is happening in Indian Country before it escalates more. That is why we 
need to make sure every woman in America has the rights under the 
Violence Against Women Act to be protected.
  We have a long way to go to root out domestic abuse and violence. But 
without these tools, such as VAWA, we are not going to achieve our 
goals. It is time we pass this legislation for people such as Deborah, 
for people such as Carissa, and to remember the lives of people such as 
Susana Blackwell and Anastasia King.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
very much. Deborah Parker, whom she referenced, did a beautiful job 
yesterday of explaining exactly what it meant to be a Native American 
woman and a victim of domestic violence.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can tell you, we have 
looked hard at all the issues in reauthorizing this bill. We have had a 
series of hearings and looked at the fact that domestic violence and 
sexual assault still remain in America, and many of us have worked to 
build upon the many important improvements the past two VAWA 
reauthorizations have made in reducing violence.
  I would note many things were added--including one of the issues 
mentioned here today: the U visas--on a bipartisan basis in the 2000 
reauthorization. Many of the issues regarding American Indian women 
were considered in the past. But we are simply building on the past 
bills. We have worked with our Republican cosponsors to make sure there 
was a general agreement on any additions that were made to the bill, 
and they were all made for very good reasons--as we have heard today--
to help women who need the help.
  But despite these improvements we have seen in the numbers, make no 
mistake about it, violence against women is still a problem. A recent 
survey by the National Network to End Domestic Violence helps to 
illustrate both the progress we have made as well as the work that is 
still left to be done.
  On just 1 day last year--look at this as a benchmark; 1 day last 
year: September 15--in the State of Minnesota, 44 Minnesota domestic 
violence programs reported serving 735 victims in emergency shelters or 
transitional housing and 670 adults and children through individual 
counseling, legal advocacy or children's support groups. That is a 
total of 1,405 victims in 1 day in one State.
  On that same day, there were 807 calls to domestic violence hotlines, 
which provide emergency support, information, safety planning, and 
resources for victims in danger. That works out to 33 calls per hour in 
a 24-hour period, and that is in 1 State of the 50 States.
  Because of the Violence Against Women Act, on just 1 day last year, 
all these victims were able to get access to services they may not have 
been able to get before VAWA. But one other number from that survey 
caught my eye. In just 1 day, 315 requests for services were unmet. Mr. 
President, 83 percent of those unmet requests were for housing.
  What is the reason for those unmet requests? The Minnesota 
organizations reported they did not have enough things such as staff, 
beds, translators or other specialized services. Think about that: In 
just 1 day, in 1 State, 315 people were unable to get the help they 
needed. That means we still have work to do.
  As I have worked on the reauthorization of VAWA, I have been reminded 
of how many of my experiences as Hennepin County attorney--that is 
Minnesota's largest county--are relevant still today. While I was 
county attorney, I made it a priority of my office to focus on 
prevention and prosecution of domestic violence cases.
  As a prosecutor, I saw upfront how devastating these cases can be.
  One case, a woman in Maple Grove, a suburb of the Twin Cities, told 
her mother and a friend she planned to end her relationship with her 
abusive boyfriend. She was finally going to break it off, and if 
something were to happen to her--she said this; she actually said these 
words to her mom and to her friend--she said: If something happens to 
me, ``he did it.'' That was the last day anyone saw her alive.
  A fisherman discovered the woman's body months later in the Minnesota 
River. It was a tragic end to a story of escalating abuse that this 
young woman had to live through, as she tried to break it off, to a 
tragic end.
  The woman had earlier filed assault charges against her boyfriend, 
claiming he had put her in a chokehold and pushed her into a coffee 
table. Her 3-year-old son told his grandmother he found his mother on 
the floor and that she was sleeping and he could not wake her.
  The boyfriend had actually been convicted years earlier for attempted 
murder in another case with a pattern of domestic abuse. After he got 
out, he met his new girlfriend--the one who ended up dead in the 
Minnesota River. In the end, he pleaded guilty to the murder and 
received a maximum sentence.
  I remember another case with a woman who was shot to death by her 
boyfriend who then killed himself. The man's 12-year-old daughter tried 
to get into the bedroom, and when she could not get in, she went to a 
neighbor's house for help. His 19-year-old son was also in the house. 
The police were called to that residence at least five times in the 2 
years before the tragedy.
  These stories are horrifying, and as a prosecutor one never forgets 
them. For survivors, they stay with them for the rest of their lives. 
It is stories such as these that make it so obvious that we have more 
work to do. We need to pass this reauthorization bill and we need to 
continue to build on the improvements we have made in past 
reauthorizations. One of the important improvements this 
reauthorization bill has made comes in the area of stalking. The bill 
includes a provision I added, along with my cosponsor, Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, that will help law enforcement more 
effectively target high-tech predators because stalking, similar to any 
of the other crimes recognized in the Violence Against Women Act, is 
crime that affects victims of every race, age, culture, gender, sexual 
orientation, and economic status.
  The numbers are truly alarming. In just 1 year, 3.4 million people in 
the United States reported they had been

[[Page 5722]]

victims of stalking, and 75 percent of those victims reported they had 
been stalked by someone they knew.
  Overall, around 19 million women in the United States have at some 
point during their lifetime been stalked. The National Center for 
Victims of Crime estimates that one out of every four stalking victims 
is stalked through some form of technology.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, this is a change. That is why Senator 
Hutchison and I drafted this amendment that basically says the laws 
have to be updated because law enforcement has to be as sophisticated 
as the people who are breaking the laws--as the people who were spying 
on ESPN reporters, as a recent case showed, through little peepholes in 
their hotel rooms, while they were undressing. That happened, and that 
case would have been a lot easier if this bill had been changed and 
updated with the provisions Senator Hutchison and I are adding. That 
victim, that reporter, came forward and asked that this be included in 
the law, and it is. It is another reason why we have to pass the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  The bill also includes a number of improvements, as was noted by 
Senator Cantwell, with respect to a particularly underserved 
community-- women living in tribal areas. It is a heartbreaking reality 
that Native American women experience rates of domestic violence and 
sexual assault that are much higher than the national average. All the 
bill does in this area--as the Chair knows, representing a State with a 
high population of Native Americans--is that it simply allows a tribal 
court to have jurisdiction concurrent with the other courts, with the 
Federal and State courts. I know changes have been made in the 
managers' amendment to address the particular concerns of Alaska. This 
is an incredibly important part of the bill, and I am glad we were able 
to work with the Republican cosponsors to get this part of the bill 
updated.
  The Violence Against Women Act is an important tool for ending 
violence against women, but this is not just about women.
  I often mention the case of a very sad situation where a man murdered 
his wife. They were Russian immigrants. They knew no one in town. He 
murders his wife, takes her body parts in a bag, dumps them off in a 
river in Missouri, with his 4-year-old kid in the car the entire time.
  When they got back to the Twin Cities, he actually confessed to the 
crime. When they had the funeral for this woman, there were only five 
people in that Russian church. There was the family who had come over 
from Russia--the parents and the sister--and there was myself and our 
domestic violence advocate. That little girl was there too.
  The story the family told me was this: The sister of the victim--the 
sister of the woman who was killed--was her identical twin. The little 
girl had never met her aunt because she lived in Russia. When they got 
off that plane from Russia, the little girl ran up to her aunt--who was 
the identical twin of her dead mother--she ran up to her and hugged her 
and said, ``Mommy, mommy, mommy,'' because she thought it was her 
mother.
  It reminds all of us that domestic violence is not just about one 
victim, it is about a family and it is about a community and it is 
about a country. That is why we have the opportunity to get this bill 
done, to put it up for a vote, and reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act--something we have done time and time again on a bipartisan 
basis. So let's do it again.
  Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the Senator from New 
York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, who has worked so hard on 
this bill, Senator Schumer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from 
Minnesota who has the dual experience of being both a prosecutor and a 
woman who understands how important these issues are. We men try to 
join in, but women know this so well and so strongly, whether from 
their own personal experiences, friends they know or--as in the case of 
the Senator from Minnesota who has done a great job on this--from their 
professional experience as well.
  I care a lot about this issue. I carried the Violence Against Women 
Act, the first bill, in 1994. Then-Senator Biden put it together in 
1992. Senator Boxer carried it when she was elected to the Senate. They 
asked me to carry it, and we got it passed.
  It has changed the world. VAWA has changed the world. It used to be, 
before VAWA, a woman would show up bloodied and bruised at a police 
station, and the police officer--who had no training and no knowledge 
of what to do, not his or her fault--would say: Go home. It is a family 
matter.
  Now, of course, we have laws, we have training, we have shelters, and 
women are far more protected.
  We were much too close, in 1994, to the old rule of thumb that a 
husband could beat his wife with a stick, provided it was no thicker 
than his thumb. We are much further away from that because of this law, 
and it makes a great deal of sense.
  But similar to any good and important law that has changed the world, 
we have to keep updating it. We have to keep learning from what has 
happened and make it better and stronger and tougher and covering more 
ground. We need it.
  Still, despite VAWA's good acts, in my home State, on Long Island 
alone, during 2009 and 2010, there were 19,417 cases in which local, 
county or State police officers were called to the scene of a domestic 
violence complaint. That is just in two counties in one State in this 
country.
  That is why I am so glad to see Members on both sides of the aisle 
have finally seen that saving the lives of women is, once again, above 
politics.
  It has been a pleasure, over the years, to work with my colleagues, 
and I wish to thank Chairman Leahy and Senator Crapo for their great 
leadership. It is truly a bipartisan effort, with 61 cosponsors, and 
that is how it has been in the past. It has always been bipartisan. It 
is a tribute not only to Chairman Leahy but to my female colleagues, 
many of whom have spoken out this morning and have been constant 
champions of the Violence Against Women Act.
  So this bill should be an easy one. The Violence Against Women Act 
should be low-hanging fruit. Even in a disputatious Congress, this 
should pass easily. It passed unanimously--Democrats and Republicans--
in 2000 and 2005. Recognizing today's tougher times, as well as the 
successes with which our past efforts have already been met, Chairman 
Leahy and Senator Crapo cut spending by 20 percent and reduced 
duplicative programs. So you would not think there would be opposition, 
but, unfortunately, there has been.
  So this fact is clear: It would be unacceptable to show less support 
now in 2012 for our national commitment to stop violence and abuse and 
to protect women against this plague than we have over the last 20 
years. We should not step backward. We should not halt progress. 
``Replace'' is the operative word. What has been offered is not a 
substitute or an improvement for the Violence Against Women Act. The 
so-called alternative would take violence against women and replace it 
with a different program.
  This program has worked. It needs improvements. That is why we are 
here. But it is has worked. You do not start over for ideological or 
political reasons. Most notably in the act from my colleagues across 
the aisle, the word ``women'' has been taken out of the program that 
forms the cornerstone of the Violence Against Women Act and the word 
has been replaced with ``victim.'' No one here would argue against the 
principle that all violent crimes, all domestic crimes are tragic and 
serious. But this so-called substitute negates centuries of women's 
experience that proves that violence against women, especially violence 
caused by spouses and partners and family members, is a uniquely 
pernicious and entrenched practice, one that has not even always been 
illegal. There was never a rule of thumb that

[[Page 5723]]

governed the size of a stick that wives would use to beat their 
husbands. That sums it up in a nutshell. Men were never banned from 
juries. Men were never banned from police forces and prosecutors' 
offices. It is this horrific and shameful history to which we responded 
in 1994 when we first crafted the Violence Against Women Act.
  There is another point to be made. Anyone who respects the proper 
role of the Federal Government in fighting crime should recognize that 
it is entirely rational for us to limit our police powers and funding 
in this area to a particular type of crime, one that has civil rights 
implications, one that has been hard for States and localities to 
prosecute without special support and training. That is why there is no 
substitute for the Violence Against Women Act.
  There are a number of priorities that have been included in the bill 
that I have cared a lot about.
  First is making sure that sexual assault victims do not have to pay 
for their own forensic exams. While the last reauthorization took some 
steps to fix this problem, we go further.
  Second, VAWA, having contributed immensely to our understanding and 
prevention of domestic violence, has been reinvigorated and retargeted 
at sexual assault crimes. Many aspects of the new bill will improve the 
reporting, law enforcement training, and victim support.
  Third, it expands programs that are available to victims and law 
enforcement in rural and underserved areas. This is extremely important 
to upstate New York, which has one of the largest rural populations in 
the country.
  Fourth, as I mentioned, Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo should be 
applauded for including more oversight and accountability for programs 
in this bill and finding a way to trim the authorization by 20 percent 
by consolidating programs where it makes sense.
  To make the continued need for this bill concrete personal, I would 
like to point out one massive success story in New York that has been 
made possible by VAWA. There are many others, but I want to point out 
one.
  On Long Island, thousands of women each year seek help from the 
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The coalition offers 
confidential, specialized services for victims of domestic and dating 
violence, elder abuse, children who witness domestic violence, and 
sexual assault survivors. They have a 24-hour hotline, group and 
individual counseling, legal advocacy, Safe Home emergency housing, and 
various other outreach programs. Without VAWA, these services would be 
drastically cut back.
  Specifically, the coalition receives $650,000 over 2\1/2\ years 
through a VAWA legal assistance to victims grant, $38,000 through a 
VAWA crisis intervention grant, and $12,000 through a rape advocacy 
grant. These last two may not sound like large sums of money, but they 
go a long way toward helping prevent domestic violence and dealing with 
it when it, unfortunately, happens.
  The reauthorization of VAWA is more important than ever. In today's 
economy, local municipalities, as we know, in New York and throughout 
the country are slashing their social service budgets and contracts 
right and left. Without VAWA, many groups such as the Nassau County 
coalition would be left bereft and all of the good work they have done 
over the years would no longer be there. Without agencies such as this 
one, where will a sexually assaulted Levittown woman turn for help? 
Well, I do not want to find out. I, for one, will do everything in my 
power to ensure that day never comes by supporting this VAWA, not some 
new law that has not been tested.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we are going to be joined here shortly 
by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, but I do want to 
mention one other aspect.
  Many of my colleagues have mentioned the incredibly important role 
that then-Senator Biden, now-Vice President Biden played in drafting 
this first bill in 1994. Well, there was another Senator who played an 
important role, and he is someone from Minnesota; that is, the late 
Senator Paul Wellstone, always with his wife Sheila with him at his 
side working on this important issue. When we lost Paul and Sheila in 
2002, Minnesotans lost a tireless champion in Congress; Americans lost 
what was always called--Paul was called ``the conscience of the 
Senate''; and women everywhere lost two powerful voices on domestic 
violence issues.
  I went back through the transcripts and looked at some of the 
speeches Senator Wellstone gave, before his tragic plane crash, about 
domestic violence and some of the things he said. Here are some. Of 
course, I would never do justice to him as he stood on the floor, but 
he said things like this. He said:

       We can no longer stand by and say that it is someone else's 
     problem. What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with 
     their voices and with their lives, and this violence must 
     end.

  He also said this:

       Once upon a time we used to say it is nobody's business. We 
     do not believe that any longer.

  Paul and Sheila passionately believed that domestic violence was not 
just a law enforcement issue, it was an issue about civil rights, 
justice, and human dignity. Paul often talked about his brother 
Stephen, who struggled with mental illness his entire life, and he took 
up that cause because he knew no one was there for Stephen, no one else 
would speak for him. And he felt the same way about domestic violence.
  We honor their memory--Paul and Sheila--by carrying on their work 
today.
  I wish to highlight some of the more remarkable efforts to bring this 
issue out of the shadows which the Wellstones made.
  Senator Wellstone began work on issues of domestic violence when he 
was elected to the Senate in 1990. As one can tell from the whole 
course of his political career, violence against women was always an 
issue close to his heart. In fact, Senator Wellstone dedicated his own 
salary increases each year to battered women's shelters in Minnesota 
and introduced a number of bills strengthening protections for women.
  To Senator Wellstone, family violence could no longer be dismissed as 
a ``family issue.'' That is why he made a commitment to read into the 
Congressional Record the names and stories of all Minnesota women and 
children killed at the hands of spouses, boyfriends, and fathers. In 
one 1995 floor speech, he had six stories to tell, some so horrifying 
that he refused to share the full details in the Chamber.
  In 1993 Paul and Sheila found an especially impactful way to bring 
their message to Washington. In collaboration with the Silent Witness 
Initiative, Paul and Sheila brought 27 life-size silhouettes to the 
rotunda of the Russell Office Building. Each one of the silhouettes 
represented one Minnesota woman murdered in an act of domestic 
violence. You think about this now, and you might be used to seeing 
these things. You might be used to seeing quilts that have been made 
with each square to a victim of domestic violence or silhouettes or 
other things that go around the country. But at that time, back in 
1993, that was unique. It was something people were not talking about. 
The Wellstones felt it was their duty to bring that forward, as did 
then-Senator Biden and Senator Leahy and other people who were involved 
in this issue.
  So many of the women Senators who spoke today--Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Hutchison, who I see has joined us on the floor--on a 
bipartisan basis, they all came together and said that we must get this 
done.
  Again, Senator Wellstone understood as well as anybody that this was 
an issue that had too long been ignored and found a way to bring the 
story to his colleagues in the Senate. Paul and Sheila may no longer be 
with us, but their legacy lives on. The Sheila Wellstone Institute 
continues its work by promoting awareness of violence

[[Page 5724]]

against women and ensuring that ending this problem remains a national 
priority.
  The Wellstones' sons Mark and David have also continued the work 
their parents began through their nonprofit Wellstone Alliance. Among 
many other things, Wellstone Action and Mark Wellstone in particular 
worked hard to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act was 
reauthorized in 2006.
  As we look today for a potential vote on the Violence Against Women 
Act, I would like my fellow Senators to remember these words Senator 
Wellstone spoke many years ago.
  He said:

       We can no longer stand by and say it is someone else's 
     problem. What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with 
     their voices and their lives, and this violence must end.

  We all know we can no longer stand by and say it is someone else's 
problem. We cannot let our own differences, minor though they be, on 
various provisions get in the way of the fact that this has always been 
a bipartisan bill, that this bill has 60 cosponsors, that this bill was 
led by Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo from the very beginning, a 
Democrat and a Republican working together.
  This is the time to pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I came to the floor yesterday to talk 
about the important work on this bill that has been done by Senators on 
both sides. Republicans and Democrats agree that we should reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act and that we should have the very best 
legislative product possible. This should be done with input from both 
parties. That is what our Chamber does. We deliberate and then we 
produce legislation.
  Yesterday I was talking to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
talking about what his bill does, and I want to say clearly today that 
the amendment I am producing with Senator Grassley and many other 
cosponsors builds on the sentiments the chairman expressed yesterday.
  It seems very simple to me that what the Republicans are asking is 
that our substitute, which has many cosponsors--we believe it improves 
on the underlying bill. And one amendment by Senator Cornyn adds much 
to the bill, helping to get the backlog of these rape kits put forward 
so that we can stop people who are perpetrating these crimes from being 
out loose doing it again, when we have the proof that has not yet been 
tested because of the backlog.
  There are some things that can be done to improve this bill. Senator 
Mikulski and I worked together on funding the Justice Department. In 
our bill, we do add to the capability for the Justice department to 
give the grants that would make that backlog smaller. Senator Cornyn's 
amendment even improves upon that. So what is not to like about two 
other approaches that would add to this bill so that we can get this 
bill passed--or one version of it--go to conference with the House, and 
really address the issues?
  No one is arguing that we should not pass a Violence Against Women 
Act. The question is, Can we make it even better? And if so, why not? 
Why not have the kind of debate that we have on this floor that does 
that? So I think it is important that we produce the best possible 
product.
  Yesterday the chairman spoke repeatedly about a victim is a victim is 
a victim. He spoke about how the police never ask if the victim is a 
Republican or a Democrat, is the victim gay or straight, but that a 
victim is a victim. And I have--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. We have a previous 
order we need to read.

                          ____________________