attention? >> certainly not. our journalists are perfectly free to make complaints and perfectly free to join the nuj. >> i think one's got to be a bit careful, i think she was rather careful that she wasn't simply limiting this to any one news operator. >> absolutely, sir. >> so this is general because it's anonymous and, therefore, and it's, the titles are, therefore, unknown. it's a general point. but, mr. murdoch, you may not be aware of it, but i did hear evidence from a gentleman by the name of driscoll who most certainly gave evidence of bullying and won a very large settlement from one of your titles in relation to the way that he was treated. is that right, mr. jay? now, maybe you don't know anything about it -- >> i don't. >> in which case, we'll move on. ..

>> why didn't she resign? >> i think the problem with that might be that she needs a job. and that's actually been some of the evidence i received. but if you have not seen this evidence, i don't think it's necessarily sensible that you be asked to comment on it, but it

may be in the light of what mr. hendry pointed to, if you wanted to come you could look from if you want to say something about it you can, if you don't, you don't need to. >> i will just ask you -- >> i will certainly look at this. >> can i just ask you this? as far as you're aware, there's been no investigation within "news international" of allegations of bullying of staff? >> i've never heard of it. always strikes me as a happy crowd spent can i turn to the second topic in relation to -- everybody knows that "news international" recognize all its unions in 1986 and the reasons for that are well known. it is the case that, in fact,

the national union journals, indeed no union is permitted to represent journalists or any other staff to this day on any united kingdom "news international" title, that's right, isn't? >> we would have no choice i think but to. >> use a 2-wood have no choice. >> i don't know. >> you would accept the democratic decision? >> i would accept a democratic decision, but let me be quite clear. we didn't -- the nuj. there's a particular melody and head of the nuj who worked at "the sun." and when "the sun" staff overwhelmingly decided to walk through the picket line, he resigned. that sort of thing happened in each of the papers, but not at

the sunday times. but elsewhere it was. they had no interest in the nuj. >> d. except that the absence of the nuj having any form of recognition, whatever international means, journalists have got no independent place to go to be represented, should they wish to make complaints about bullying or indeed any other matter at work? >> now, i believe in internal, the staff association which i'm sure it was very welcome to raise whatever issue they wanted. >> that staff association was set up by "news international" itself, and, indeed, funded by "news international," wasn't it? >> probably. sos could have a staff association somewhere. where the staff could talk to us if they wanted to asked a whole. and report to him on the

company. >> that staff association made an application to the public official that deals with these matters for a declaration, or certificate of independence, which failed because the certification officer found that the organization was under the influence of the employer, is that right? >> i don't know. >> do you accept that were the nuj permitted to represent members in "news international" titles, that would be at least one step towards the eradication or prevention of the unethical story gathering practices which lord justice leveson has heard about? >> no. >> why not? >> i'm sure the people who have been arrested were once members of nuj. >> and?

>> well, didn't stop them from doing what they did. >> but if the nuj had a presence it would be somewhere for a journalist to turn, should they feel that they were under pressure to do something unethical. >> it didn't work out that way, when the nuj was better. -- when the nuj was their. >> and, indeed, one of the journalists who gave evidence through ms. stanistreet said that the absence of the news, the absence of the nuj meant that there was nowhere to turn. >> no. >> you don't accept that? >> right. there's the editor. everyone has access to everybody. >> are you aware that the nuj for a long time been seeking the insertion and contracts of employment, not just that "news

international," but other titles, of a conscience clause? that's to say, a provision by which it is forbidden to discipline a journalist who refuses to do something which is unethical or against the code of practice? >> i had never heard of it. >> do you think it's a good idea of? >> yeah. i think that, i wouldn't do it through the nuj come but i think, for us to say as a condition of employment, contracted for a journalist, they have a right to do that. yeah, i think that's a good idea. >> thank you. final matter then is in relation to the industrial relations legislation. mr. jake showed you an article yesterday by mr. blair about what labour was proposing to i think you're aware that labour introduce a statutory mechanism whereby a trade union could apply to a state body, said the

arbitration committee, for recognition come compulsory recognition eyed an employer, provided it had the support of the relevant workers. of that procedure contains within it a provision by which, if the employer already recognizes a trade union for collective bargaining, no further union can make an application, and that's very understandable. but there's and embellishment on that principle in that the legislation says that if an employer has a voluntary agreement with a non-independent trade union, like "news international" staff association, that, too, will prevent any independent union making an application. you're aware of these things, mr. murdoch? >> i am afraid i am not.

up on these issues. >> that embellishment is referred to in trade union circles as the dniester clause, the staff association clause. what i want to suggest to you is that you have some discussion, or people at "news international," had some discussion with mr. blair or officials of his side to ensure that that provision was in the legislation, so that at the nuj, any of the union, could not make an application for recognition for collective bargaining at "news international." >> now. -- no. bakken i've be no, or i don't know anything about this. which is that? >> i know that i had never approached mr. blair or spoke to mr. blair about it. otherwise i had no knowledge. >> thank you, sir.

anybody else? thank you. mr. murdoch, thank you very much indeed for the time that you devoted again to the preparation of the evidence. the statement i think will go on the website almost immediately. the exhibit, although one already is on the website of the exhibits will in due time on the website, it's simply a question of time. but i do assure you it will happen. >> thank you. >> we're just concerned particularly about the thompson matter. >> thank you very much indeed. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> coming up live on the c-span networks today, we will start with c-span, the house gavels in with morning our speeches at 10 a.m. eastern. later, miller's will take up cybersecurity legislation around noon eastern. senate gavels in in just a couple of moments at 9:30 a.m. eastern. they will continue work on

reauthorization of violence against women's bill. you can see the senate live here on c-span2. c-span3 will be light at 1030 eastern with the senate agriculture committee markup. again, live on c-span3 at 10:30 a.m. eastern. >> prime minister david cameron tackle several questions yesterday in the british house of commons. specifically about culture secretary jeremy hunt, testimony from former chair of "news international" james murdoch. mr. himes special adviser at the smith resigned after james murdoch's testimony in front of inquiry. will surely as much as we can into the senate tells in at 9:30 a.m. >> thank you, mr. speaker but i'm sure the whole house will wish to join in paying tribute to 33 engineer regiment,

explosive ordnance disposal whoe died on wednesday the 18th of april from wounds he sustained d in afghanistan. he was described by all who served with him as a superb soldier. his dedication and his couragend will never be forgotten, and we send our condolences to his his lo family's, to his family and his loved ones. this morning i had meetings with minister colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall of further such meetings later today. this use, i >> order. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to associate myself with prime ministers tribute. and in doing so asked by right honorable friend if you will bnfirm that although british servicemen and women arewome scheduled to leave afghanistanv in 2014, the actual pace of withdrawal will be determined and foremost for the need to minimize the risk to members ser inarmed forces serving afghanistan? >> here, here. he t >> my honorable friend makes ani important point. tby i can confirm that by the end of

2014 we won't have anything like the troops numbers we have not and we won't be in a combat role. do believe in having a training role with the afghan army, particularly the officer training role that president karzai has personally asked for us to undertake. the speefed the reductions between now and the end of 2014 will be done in acofferedance with the conditions on the ground and what is right in terms of transitioning from allied control to afghan control and at all times, of course, paramount in our minds, is the safety and security of our brave armed forces who i pay tribute again to today. >> can i join the minister in his tribute, he had the utmost courage and save maryland afghan and british lives and our deepest condolences to his

family and friends. today we the catastrophic news that britain is back in recession. i'm sure the prime minister spent the last -- -- -- spent the last 24 hours thinking of an excuse why this has nothing to do with him. what's his excuse? >> these are very, very disappointing figures. i don't seek to excuse them, i don't seek to try to explain them away. and let me be absolutely clear, there's no complacentcy at all in this government in dealing with what is a very tough situation that frankly has just got tougher. i believe the truth is this. it is very difficult recovering from the deepest recession in living memory, akochnied as it was by a debt crisis, our banks have too much debt, our households have too much debt, our government had too much debt. we have got to rebalance our economy. we need a bigger private sector, we need more exports, more investment. this is painstaking, difficult

work but we will stick with our plans, stick with the low interest rates and do everything we can to boost competitiveness and jobs in our country. >> mr. speaker, should the talk of this arrogant prime minister, the reality is, this is a recession made by him and the chancellor. over the last 18 months since his the catastrophic spend regular view, our economy has shrunk and this is a slower recovery from recession even than the 19 poss and the reality is that it's families and businesses who are paying the price for his arrogance and complacency. why doesn't he admit it, it's his scat strosk economic policy, his plans for austerity, cutting too far and too fast that landed us back in recession. there's not a single business

organization or serious commentator or international body that thinks these problems emerged in the last 24 months. the debt crisis has been long in making. the failure to regulate our banks has been long in making. the government overspending has been long in making. this is a tough and difficult situation that the economy is in, but the one thing we musten -- mustn't do is abandon our plan because the solution to a debt crisis cannot be more debt. we must not put at risk the low interest rates that are absolutely essential to our recovery that would be absolute folly and that is why there is no business organization, no international economic organization that suggests we follow that course. >> it's all bluster. his plan has failed. that is the reality. stay with the people, mr.

speaker, who said that britain was a safe haven. the chancellor said it on monday and we are back in recession. he was the person, he was the person who said we were out of the danger zone and this is what has happened. as even his own ventures are say, the complacent, arrogant boys don't get it. now let's turn p the economic disaster of this government to the political disaster of the culture secretary. we now know from the evidence published yesterday that throughout the time the culture secretary was supposed to be acting in an impartial matter -- manner, he and his office were providing a constant flow of confidential information to news corporation about statements to be made in this house in advance, in private cushion with the regulation yacht and his discussions with opposing parties. having seen the 163 pages published yesterday, is the

prime minister seriously trying to tell thinks secretary of state was acting as he should have done in a transparent, impartial, and fair manner? >> let me finish off on the economy, which he has moved off. >> order. let's hear what the prime minister has to say on the economy or anything else. prime minister. >> we will not let anyone forget who got us into this mess in the first place. more spending, more borrowing, more debt that is what caused these problems, it cannot be the solution to these problems. now let me turn, mr. speaker, let me turn, mr. speaker, to the inquiry. i set up the levinson inquiry. the terms of reference of the inquiry were agreed by the leader of the liberal democrat party and the leader of the

labor party. and i believe that to step in and try and prejudge that inquiry would be wrong. and let me be clear. let me be clear, lord justice levinson has made that precise point this morning. let me read to the house what lord justice levinson has said. perhaps the house would like to listen. let's hear -- >> let's hear what the prime minister has to say and then the questioning will continue. prime minister? >> lord justice levin said said this this morning, it is very important to hear every side of the story before drawing conclusions. and then he said this. although i have seen requests for other inquiries and investigations, and of course i do not seek to constrain parliament, but it seems to me

that the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed. now having set up this inquiry, having agreed with this inquiry, he should listen to the inquiry. -- >> mr. speaker lord justice levinson is responsible for a lot of things but he's not responsible for the integrity of the prime minister's government. in case he's forgotten, that's his responsibility as prime minister. now, mr. speaker, it beggars belief that the prime minister can defend the secretary because he wasn't judging this bid, he was helping the bid by news corporation. two days before, on the 25th of january, they were not only oco-lewding with news corps to provide them information in advance, they were hatching a plan to ensure, and i quote, it would be game over for the opposition to the bid.

does the prime minister really believe that is how a judge and his advisors are supposed to act? >> the leader of the opposition clearly doesn't think what lord levinson this morning mat -- said this morning matters. let me remind him what he said yesterday about the levinson inquishry. he said this. i think -- this is the leader of the opposition speaking. i think that it's right that the levinson inquiry takes its course. he went on, the most important thing is that the levinson inquiry gets to the bottom of what happened, of what labor did, of what the conservatives did, and we reach a judgment about that. isn't it typical of the right honorable gentleman, in the morning he sets out his very clear position put in the afternoon, he cannot resist the passing political bandwagon.

totally, totally, totally -- >> order. i said the prime minister must be heard. the leader of the opposition must be heard. both will be heard, however long it takes. it's very clear. >> totally pathetic answers. he's the prime minister. if he can't defend the conduct of his own ministers, his ministers should be out the door. he should fire them. now, now, he doesn't even try to defend the secretary and what he did. the secretary of state told this house on the third of march of this year in answer to a question from the honorable members of banberry, and i quote, today we are publishing the consultation dumont, all the submissions we received, all the exchanges between my department and news corporation. but he did not. because 163 pages have now

emerged. the prime minister doesn't defend him over giving confidential information to one party in the case he doesn't defend him over co-lution. is he going to defend him about not being straight with his house of commons? let me make absolutely clear about the culture secretary -- >> let me make clear about the culture secretary who has my full support. the culture secretary, the culture secretary will be giving a full account of himself in this house of common this is afternoon and in front of the levinson inquishry and he will give a good account of himself for this very simple reason, that in judging this important bid, the culture secretary sought independent advice from independent regulators at every stage although he did not need to and the culture secretary took that independent advice at every stage, although he did not need to. the way that the culture

secretary has dealt with this issue is in stark contrast to the governments in which he was a member. >> mr. speaker, i do say this to the prime minister. while his culture secretary remains in place, while he refuses to come clean on his and the chancellors' meetings with rupert murdoch, the shadow of sleaze will hang over this government and mr. speaker, mr. speaker, it's a pattern with this prime minister. paulsen, rebecca brook, now the culture secretary, when is he going to realize -- now he is flip-flopping all over the place on it.

the closeness between politicians and media proprietors has been going on for years and this government is going to sort it out. whether it is a proper regulation of the press, whether it is cleaning up our financial system, whether it's dealing with our debt, i don't shirk my responsibilities, what a pity he can't live up to his. >> order. >> thank you, speaker. if my right honorable friend brings good news to the manufacturing and engineering secors in lincoln. we've seen an increase in turnover to around 70.5 million , confirms a circa 50 million investment and they are involved in the first new engineering school.

what -- would my right honorable friend accept my invitation to visit for himself and see the excellent progress? >> i'm very grate to feel my honorable friend for the invitation, i will try to take it up. what is happening in our economy, the very disappointing news today, but underneath that, there is a rebalancing that needs to take place and that is taking place in terms of manufacturing investment, in terms of exports, in terms of government getting behind that with more investment in apprenticeships, more investments in technical hubs like the one at the university of lincoln and cutting business taxes so we get britain working and making things again. >> mr. speaker, on monday, the prime minister said that he'd gone on an economic rescue mission. is it not fair to say that that mission has failed spectacularly in lifingt the

figures today? >> if you look at the recession that we suffered a 7% contradiction of our g.d.p., much bigger even than what happened in america and it is worth remembering, the biggest bank bailout anywhere in the world, it wasn't in america, it was here in britain. getting out of the recession, the financial crisis and the debt crisis is difficult, painstaking work but this government is committed to do do -- to doing just this. >> gordon burgewhistle. >> i met the chief executive of the fourth largest manufacturing group in the u.k. they have a substantial factory in berlin. he has been instructed by his u.s. board to increase the turnover of his u.k. operations. he's concerned about the lack of skills. can my right honorable friend assure me that the investment

is coming? >> what is interestinging mr. speaker, is that if any member of parliament wants to talk about manufacturing success or business success in their constituency, they are shouted down by the opposition. because all they want to hear is bad news and to talk our economy down. we are investing in skills. we are putting more money into apprenticeship schemes, putting more money into the technical colleges. i was seeing expanse and growth plans and it's good to hear what's happening in his constituency. >> does the prime minister agree with his chancellor who said in 2008 that, and i quote, once you've got a down turn, you cannot possible stop public expenditure. will he stick to his complacent plan of cutting too far. >> well read. point is, we inherited -- we --

we inherited from the party opposite a budget deficit of 11%. the budget deficit we inherited was bigger than greece, bigger than spain, bigger than portugal. if you don't deal with your debt and deficit, you will never keep interest rates low and it is low interest rates that offer us the best prospect of getting out of this difficult economic situation we're in. >> thank you, thank you mr. speaker. >> we'll leave prime ministers questions at this point of the u.s. senate is about to begin their day. a quick reminder for complete coverage of the british phone hacking investigation is available on our website, c-span.org. u.s. senate is continuing work today on a bill aiming to reduce domestic violence. lawmakers will turn to a pair judicial nominations with votes on those expected at about noon eastern. live now to the senate floor in the prayer today is

televangelist joel posting. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by reverend joel osteen, senior pastor of the lakewood church in houston, texas. the guest chaplain: thank you, senator. let us pray. father, we receive your blessings with grateful hearts and thank you for the favor you show us. as we pray for those who lead our nation, we ask that you bless this body and those who serve in it. we thank you that these lawmakers serve with honor and integrity, and that you will continue to bless our nation through them. give them wisdom that they will

make good decisions, courage that they will hold fast to your truth, and compassion that all should prosper from their laws. we receive your presence here today, father, and pray that these lawmakers will remain mindful of you, and that they will honor you in everything they do here. in jesus name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 26, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, it's my pleasure to ask

unanimous that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the hraoefrbd. under the previous order -- the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume s. 1925, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, it is my pleasure to be able to introduce joel osteen, the pastor of lakewood church in houston, texas. he is a native texan and attended oral roberts university in tulsa, oklahoma. for 17 years, pastor osteen worked behind the scenes for his father john who founded lakewood church in 1959. in 1999, his father passed away, and 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"

best-seller list for two 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's 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 tphurpblgment is what has -- hope and encouragement is what has attracted me and my family to watch pastor osteen on sunday mornings, and i have been to his church. he welcomed me and my daughter bailey, whose 11th birthday is today. they welcomed me to lakewood church two years ago, and i got to see this awesome place that he fills every single sunday, sometimes more than the houston rockets ever had, i have to say.

i do want to ask -- or say that the chaplain of the senate, dr. barry black, who works with us every week here in the senate and with all of our staffs, was wonderful to help assisting to bring pastor osteen to the podium to open our senate this morning. it's 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. so thank you, mr. president, and i want to thank pastor osteen and his wife victoria; wonderful people that i've gotten to know through the years, and they have inspired so many of us in our trevails of life. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: excuse me. the senate is now considering s. 1925, with the time until

11:30 for debate only. the republicans will control the first 45 minutes, the majority will control the second 45 minutes. at 11:30 today the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the costa and david campos guaderrama nominations to be united states district judges of texas. there will be two votes on 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 after the, probably around 2:00 today. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that two fellows in the office of senator patty murray -- stephanie wilkerson and eric brooks -- be granted tphraorpts for -- granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the senate is now debating the

violence against women act. we began debate on this legislation by consent, and we'd like to complete action on this legislation also by consent. we've been working to enter into an efficient consent agreement with only a couple of relevant amendments and 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 incidents of violent crime is to incarcerate those who commit it. we couldn't agree more, and we'd like the chance to improve the law in that respect. now, mr. president, on another and sad note, i rise this

morning to acknowledge the loss of an american hero and patriot. it's my sad duty today to report to my colleagues that kentucky lost one of our finest heroes in uniform. and this particular loss is very personal to me, as i knew this outstanding young man very well. captain 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 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 combat medal with combat star, the global war on terror expeditionary medal, the global war on terror service medal, the korean defense service medal, the army service ribbon, the overseas service ribbon, and the nato medal. captain utley also received basic parachutist badge and his

thailand jump wings. he was a great young man. he was a great son, says charlie, dan's father. 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, mr. president, 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 scholarship program, a rigorous and prestigious scholarship program for the finest students in kentucky. it prepares them for a lifetime of leadership and service, and

dan was one of the best mcconnell scholars to ever grace the program. i couldn't agree more with what my good friend, dr. gary gregg, the director of the mcconnell scholars program says of dan's loss. dr. gregg says "america has lost a rising star." dan was born in bowling green, kentucky, on april 13, 1979, raised in glass tkpwoe, kentucky. he went to glasgow high school where he played soccer and was a member of the academic team. he was 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 -- anything to do with the outdoors. dan graduated from high school in 1997, and he was awarded the mcconnell scholarship to attend the university of louisville. dan was a workhorse of the mcconnell scholar says dr. gregg. 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 outshown 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 really 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 the state senators and representatives with whatever they needed. dan graduated from u. of l. 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 you the growth and maturity this

young man achieved in such a very short time. he was in law school after 9/11. and after he witnessed what happened 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 toby agrees. "dan was ready to live life and he was probably smarter than everybody sitting in law school," she says. "that was not stimulating enough for him, and he was ready to do great things. so in 2003, dan joined the army and went to o.c.s." in almost a decade of army service, captain utley served in many posts, all of them

challenging and proved his skill and talent. he was stationed or deployed in south korea for 24 months, in kuwait for 12 month months, in afghanistan for 13 months, and his final deployment in mali lasted sievedden months. -- lasted seven months. he served in capacities such as tactical communications platoon leader, operations officer while in kuwait, aid to caisso camp fa general in the 160th brigade. after successfully completing a civil affairs qualifications course, dan was anined to the civilian affairs battalion airborne as the team leader. i particularly remember when he called and told me he was being made an and was

going to get a new shoulder holster as par of his job protecting the general he served, says dr. gregg. it was a position of great honor and he was humbled at being chosen, but he wanted to talk most about his cool, new sidearm. 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 presence of the terrorist group al qaeda which has its roots in the algerian civil war now poses a threat of violent extremism in the country, the article states. that's why the u.s. army and specifically captain utley was in mali in the first place. as a team member on the department of defense's civil

military support element, captain utley was quoted in this article on the valiant work he and hisful low soldiers have been doing just a few months before his 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 the fort bragg in north carolina. mr. president, we're thinking of captain dan utley's loved ones today, especially his wife captain katie utley, his father charles l. utley, his mother linda h. utley, his brother and sis fer in law, charles l. utley

ii and maria, his brother and sister-in-law, matthew utley and michelle, his nephews, maso mac. his niece, his maternal grandmother pauline haynes, his parents-in-law chris and peggy michael, his brother if law matthew michael, and many other beloved family members and friends. i also know for a fact that many faculty members at the university of louisville, staff members for the mcconnell center, and current and former mcconnell scholars will dearly miss dan. i certainly will, mr. president. 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, captain 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 presiding officer: 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 h.r. other designees, with the republicans controlling the first ha 45 minutes and the majority controlling the second are 45 minutes.

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i just want to express my areerks to the lender for his remarks about captain utley and 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 noi how deeply -- and i know how deeply our leader feels this loss. i think certainly would join in my expression to the family, and i recall general meyers, former chairman of the joint chiefs, when someone suggested that soldiers who were injured or lost their lives were victims, he said, they're not victims; they're heroes. they committed themselves to serve their country. they believe that our country is worth the defense and think you're willing to put their lives on the line for it, and they're heroes and certainly this captain was. mr. mcconnell: i'd just like to thank my friend from alabama for his kind remarks about this

brave, young man. mr. sessions: thank you. mr. chairman, this sunday, just a few days, april 29, 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. that's how it is that we say that nearly 40 cents of every dollar we're spending now i is borrowed. we added $4.5 trillion to the debt. we're in our fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits and heading to the fifth year. prior to these four years, the learchlt deficit we ever had was about $480 billion.

we've more than doubled that every year since. it's a systemic problem, 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 a $45,000, $45,000 -- every american man, worth and child is carrying as their burden, as a result of the overspending of this congress. for perspective -- and we need perspective -- the speckive is that this is larger than any of the western world including greece. our per-person debt is greater than that of the per-person debt of greece.

yet at this time of financial crisis, the majority in the senate refuse to perform its legally required duty and moral responsibility to produce a budget plan. it's part of the united states code, passioned in 1974, the budget act. a budget requires also as a part of that act only 51 votes to pass. it cannot be filibustered. it's given a priority. in 1974, congress obviously was disappointed that we weren't moving forward effectively with budgets and that a budget is crucial to the financial stability of a nation, and that's why they passed the budget act. and it said, you can't filibuster it in the senate. it's guaranteed right to have a vote. it's required to be brought up in committee by the april 1 and moved forward by 15eu7. and that's what the statute

requires. unfortunately, it doesn't require that congress goes to jail if it doesn't pass one or perhaps as senator heller from nevada suggests, maybe congress ought t not to be paid if they don't pass a budget. maybe that would be a reform that would be good for us. so they even refused -- the majority refused to bring up a budget, even attempt to pass a budget, as -- this year and as they refused to do the past two years, two years before that. so the absence of a budget is not simply a case of inaction. the senate majority has pursued a systematic, deliberate, and determined policy -- i believe a politically driven policy -- to keep a budget off the floor. why? to shield its conference from public accountability and to attempt to 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 your vision financially for the country is would be in a time of deep financial crisis, when we are on an unsustainable path. so we're not able -- willing to even see a plan. they are not willing to present a financial future of america. and when criticized about it, the white house says one thing, speaker pelosi another one, the republican leader here -- democratic leader here has another explanation. none of them are coherent and none of them make real sense. why, i guess it's because there is no explanation. there can be no justifiable reason why this responsibility is not fulfilled.

they said, well, maybe one day -- maybe it wouldn't pass ultimately. maybe we wouldn't agree. but the house -- republican house felt it's responsibility to comply with the law and it has for the last two years -- last year and will again this year -- lay out a long-term plan for america that changes our debt course and puts us on a financial path to stability. that's responsibility. oh, yes, the senate called it up here, for what reason? just so they can 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, said, let's see if you want to vote for that. you voted against 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 97-0, 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 running the senate to produce a financial plan. his own budget received -- this year's budget was brought up in the house and it didn't receive a single vote there. yet both he and the senate democrats continue to call for higher taxes. they say, we must have higher taxes. but 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're going to spend the money? they just say, send us more; we need more; we're not going to cut spending; oh, we can't cut spending; that would be tairchlt but you need to send us more money and maybe one day we'll pass a budget, maybe not. americans shouldn't send one more dime in 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 sol lyn-- on solyndras and hot tubsn las vegas. then you can talk to me about more money p. that's what the american people are saying. that's what they said in 2010 i thought pretty clearly but the message has not been received.

national review"national reviewy wrote, "senator conrad" -- that's our fine budget chairman, our democratic chairman -- "said it was too hard to pass a budget in an election year." close quote. well, so that was the argument, one of the arguments was, there is no need to bring up a budget. it's an election year. we don't want to be having to vote before we've got 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 saw us actually take tough votes on what we're going to have do about the future of the republic. mr. low sp*y goes -- mr. lowry

goes on "senate democrats haven't passed a budget in 2011 or 2010 year. this year is a presidential election. 2011 was an off year. 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." close quote. i think there's a lot of truth to that. so can't pass a budget this year. it's an election year. well, last year wasn't. so this sunday, april 29, we'll have gone three full years since the last time the senate democrats have brought a budget to the floor of the senate. three years. they pwroepbt dues a plan -- they won't produce a plan in truth because they're unable to produce a plan. they do seem to be -- and it's hard, i have to admit. the house has done it, but the

senate seems unable to do it. they're not able to unite behind a financial vision for this country that they're willing to go to the american people, advocate for and publicly defend. now, that's my view of it. maybe that's unfair. i don't think so. why not otherwise? 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're 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 and floats 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's been carefully avoided is actually letting the american people see the numbers so they can be total and we can know precisely the impact of it. last year our colleagues indicated we'd have a budget committee hearing on the budget, that they had a plan, and it was going to be monday, and then it was going to be tuesday, and then the democratic conference met, and they laid out some outline, broad outline for it. and then apparently they told senator conrad not to have ao budget markup. so we didn't even have anything brought up in the budget committee last year as required by the law. but, you can 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's what the outlines of it appear to be. so i would ask, that's a pretty tough budget to go to the american people for. increase spending and increase taxes and the department. i don't think that was popular. maybe politically it was foolish as senator reid said to bring up such a budget to the american people. maybe they ought to look at the ryan budget in the house. it's much more responsible. it reduces spending, simplifies and lowering taxes, creating a growth environment, and it puts us on a financial path of the next 30 years that anybody that looks at america would say, wow, they've changed. they got a plan that will get them out of this fix they're in. they've gotten off the path to the waterfall and they're on a sound course now. so i'll encourage my colleagues

who think that there's a legitimate reason not to lay out a plan, not to fight for the future of america, not to -- a reason not to advocate for the kind of changes we all know have got to occur, if you think those are not important, then i invite you to come to the floor and dispute what i've said and explain why we don't need to move forward as the law requires us to do. mr. president, i don't know how things will happen, but as the ranking member of the budget committee, in seeing the numbers, i know that they're not going to be easily confronted. it is not going to be easy. we're going to have to look at the almost 60% of a budget now

that's entitlements and interest on the debt. interest on the debt, i believe last year was calculated by the congressional budget office to go from $240 billion to over $900 billion under the president's budget. annual interest payment on the trillions of dollars that we now owe in debt. that's unsustainable. so i know it's not going to be easy. i will 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. and if so, it will be an honest budget. it will be a budget that won't be easy, and the american people may be surprised at some of the things that would be required to be accomplished. but it would put us on a path to a financially prosperous

america. get us off the road to debt and decline, put us on a path to growth and prosperity. that's what we've got to have. and until the world financial community and the american people understand that we are on a good path and not a bad path, we're not going to see the economic growth that we should be seeing. and it's through growth and prosperity and more jobs that we'll pay more taxes. it will be through those actions that will put america on the way to meet the great challenge of our time. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: will the senator withhold his request? mr. president? mr. sessions: i withdraw the request, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent to speak for, not to exceed 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. johnson: thank you, 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's been three years since the united states senate has passed a budget. i know a lot of americans have heard that date. they've heard the talking point. but it's but a thousand, umpteen days since we passed a budget. but it's not a talking point. it's simply unbelievable. it's jaw-dropping. the united states government is the largest financial entity in the world and it's been operating now for three years without a budget. it's a $3.8 trillion-a-year entity. i come from the private sector. i'm an accountant. and when i tell the voters, the

citizens of wisconsin that the federal government hasn't passed a budget, they really are amazed. that's why i call it an amazing anniversary date. the united states united states senate has not fulfilled a basic responsibilities. it is required by law to pass a budget by april 15 of every year. it's a reasonable requirement. it's a reasonable responsibility. the house republicans fulfilled this responsibility. they put forward a plan. they've shown the american people what they would do to solve our looming debt and deficit problem. the united states senate hasn't. why hasn't the majority here 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. 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 they have a solution, they simply don't want the american people to know what it is. trust us, we'll 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's the reason we haven't passed a budget here in the senate for three years now. i guess they could claim that 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, the united states senate, by a vote of 0-97. not one member of the president's own party gave it a vote. as a matter of fact, not one member of the party, of the

president's own party was willing to bring that budget to the floor for a vote. republicans had to do that. and now this year's budget, three weeks ago in the house of representatives, again the president's budget was brought forward to the house by a republican -- not a democrat. it lost 0-414. again i ask the american people, 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 see 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 passed a budget. they have been responsible. republicans have been willing to be held accountable. that's our job. it is well past time for the united states senate to fulfill its responsibility, to bring a budget to the floor. not just vote on one, but work on it, and pass one so that we can go to conference and we can reconcile that with the house budget that the united states finally after three years will start operating under a budget in the next fiscal year. i know the budget control act set spending caps. i mean, i get that. washington is going to make sure that it continues 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, and 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 $3.3 trillion. if we were to pass president obama's budget and live by it, in ten 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 two years. just in case anybody is still confused, we have a spending problem in this nation. it's not that we take too little from the american people. it's because we spend too much. i know the american people are frequently subjected to phrases like draconian cuts. i think this proves that we're not cutting anything. in the two, the federal government spent $2 trillion. last year, or the current fiscal year it is projected we'll spend $3.8 trillion. we've virtually doubled spending in just ten 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 ten-year spending. in the ten-year period from 1992

to 2001, the federal spent a total of $16 trillion. from the two through 2011 -- from 2002 to 2011 the federal government spent $28 trillion. the argument moving forward is president obama's budget in ten years would spend $47 trillion. the house budget proposes spending $40 trillion. now, you don't have to be a math major or engineer to do that math. both $40 trillion and $47 trillion is greater than $28 trillion. we're not cutting spending. we're just trying to reduce the rate of growth and that's an incredibly important distinction. don't be misled. we're trying to get our debt and deficit under control. you know, a few months ago -- or a couple months ago president obama said he had the solution. his buffett rule was going to stablize the debt and deficit. here's a little history. i hope the american people look at this. president bush in his first four

years in office ran a total deficit of $.8 trillion, $800 billion. back in oshkosh, wisconsin, i wasn't happy with that. his second two years didn't improve -- or his second four years. he had a total deficit of $1.2 trillion between the years 2005 and 2008. again, i don't think there are very many fiscal conservatives that were happy with that result. now president obama has increased that dramatically. during the four years of his administration, the total deficit will be $5.3 trillion. that's not total spending of about $14.4 trillion. we are borrowing 37 cents of every dollar we spend and our debt now exceeds the size of our economy. and again president obama's solution? i realize this is hard to see,

but he's proposed the buffett tax. if we were to have actually enacted that tax, over four years it would have raised $20 billion. i know you really can't see it, but there really is a line there. it doesn't even fill in the marker lines here. $20 billion to solve a $5.3 trillion problem. i'm sorry. that's not a serious proposal. it's just class warfare. let me show you one of the problems that president obama refuses to address. the looming bankruptcy of our social security program, the program that millions of seniors rely on, that americans plan their retirement around. you hear all kinds of -- you hear it frkl frequently that sol security is solvent until the year 2025. no, it is not.

it is solvent because of accounting fiction called the trust fund, which is sumly government bonds -- which is simply government bonds held by the government. the analogy is it's like you had $20 and you spend the $20 and you write yourself a note and put in your pocket and say, i got $20. no you don't. nor does the federal government. it has bonds which, by the way, it can print any day of the week. it has to sell those bonds. social security went cash-negative, which means it has paid out more in benefits than it took in in cash receipts in the year 2010. 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's insolvent. it's bankrupt. it needs to be addressed. this president refuses to address it.

when we project out and we see another $1 $1 trillion in debt according to the president's budget, i am i am afraid we art even realizing the other problems. if we fail to meet the growth targets that president obama has projected in his budget by just 1% -- you add $3.1 trillion to that deficit figure. that's a 30% increase. i know when they passed the health care law, the american people were told, they were hoodwinked that it would actually reduce o our deficit. it won't. the way they were going to pay for six years' worth of pending is with 10 years' worth much receipts and reductions in medicare. now, the receipts, by the way, 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 you don't bend the cost curve down by increasing the costs to provide it. but that's 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. now, we haven't imposed the provider reductions under the s.g.r. fix, the doc fix. about $208 billion. what makes anybody believe that we'll actually impose the $665 billion of savings in medicare? if we move the ten-year window forward to when obamacare really kicks in, when the full spending occurs starting in about 2016, the total cost of the health care law won't be $1.1 trillion. it'll be $2.4 trillion.

and that's conservative. it's not taking into account the millions of employers that will be put into the exchanges of highly subsidized rates. but using a conservative cost figure of $2.4 trillion, grow the taxes, fees, and penalties by a reasonable 578 amount -- $6 billion -- that leaves a $1.6 trillion deficit risk. how is that going to be filled? are we designe going to borrow e we going to take it out of medicare? somehow i think we'll 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 the debt ceiling debate 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 that the creditors take to the united states and say, you know what? i'm not going to loan you anymore money. or what's more likely to occur is they're going to say, oh, i'll loan you some money but not at these raitsz. if you take a look a at the borrowing costs of the united states, from 1970 to the year 2000, our average borrowing costs for the federal government wawas 5.3%. from 2010 to 2012 or average borrowing was 1.5%. that's a difns oif we just revert to that average, and by the way, back -- the united states was a far more creditworthy borrower. our debt to g.d.p. ratio is 65%.

currently our debt to g.d.p. ratio exceeds 100%. if we revert to 5.3%, that would cost the federal government $060 in added interest expense per year. that's 60% unfortunate discretionary spending -- that's 65% of the discretionary spending. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed his minutes. mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent for two more moings. the presiding officer: without objection. john onso here's the problem. this is a huge problem. it's one that's being ignored because we simply refuse to address it. mr. johnson: this body refuses to pass a budget to lay out a plan to fix it, to stablize one of our primary metrics, a key one, the debt-to-g.d.p. ratio, stablize it and start bringing it down.

the other key metric is the percentage of government in relation to the size of our economy. 100 years ago that was 2%. last year it was about 24%, which means 24 cents of every dollar filters through some form oof government. i don't find the federal government particularly efficient. it's the private sector that creates long-term, self-sustaining jobs. it is the pricket that we need to -- it is the private sector that we need to rely on to grow and create jobs. the vision for america, we're 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 my freedom. that's our choice. but until the majority party in

the senate lays out their plarntioplan,the american peopla choice. they won't understand what the plan is from the other side. let me chos me close by saying s well past time that the united states senate fulfills its responsibility and pass a budget. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a erm quo. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recogni. the national is currently in a

quorum call. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that former proceedings under the quorumes you is spended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: close to ten minutes. 14 minutes. 14 minutes, approximately 14 minutes. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. today i rise to discuss the violence against women act and the policies that impact the lives of women. since its originals enactment in 1994, the violence against women act has been reauthorized twice by unanimous consent under both democrat 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. the legislation has worked by and large, even though thr outstanding issues like spending inefficiency and needed improvements to oversight. was most large pieces of

legislation, including the violence against ways and means acwomen act,there are debates ad philosophical differences about elements of various provisions in the bill. and while the senate should be allowed to debate an eye 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 towards women, a commitment that should be maintained. whatever differences we might have over-- over particular provisions in the bill, surely we are united in our concern for the victims of violence in our determination to do all that we can to prevent violence against the innocent regardless of

generalder. i recognize that women suffer disproportionately from particular forms of violence and other abuse which this legislation is intended to address. and i believe it does address and that's why i support it. but our motivation to act on their behalf resides in our respect for the rights of all human beings, male and female, all races, creeds, and ages a, to be secure in their persons and property, to be protected by their government from violent harm at the hand 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 of

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 don't have male and female pretty well parties. and we don't need to accuse each other of caring less for the concerns of one half of the population than we do for the other half. the truth is both parties have presueded over achievements -- presided over achievements and increases in opportunity for women. both parties have nominated women to the supreme court, both have 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 towards 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 codes to changes in education policy, to improvements in workplace environments, 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 don't. but i do think there is much for all of us to be proud of. regrettably, and there's 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

aparticipations mis-- 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 spofd war on -- supposed war on women or the use of similarly outlandish rhetoric by partisan operatives has two purposes, and both are political in their purpose and effect. the first purely political -- the first is to distract citizens from real issues that really 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've 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 with the contributions women make to the health and progress of our society. i can certainly speak to their beneficial pwabgt on my life and -- impact on my life and character. but i'd 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 that 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 isn't a veteran

disagrees with my opinion on some issue, he or she must against all our veterans. in america, 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, 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 that when a politician or political party resorts to dividing us in the name of bringing us together, it usually means that 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 declares 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%. 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 prices, 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 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 it wanted to become, which 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 only have 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 presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, a group of us women senators are here today to talk about the violence against women bill. and i as my colleague from ariza was referencing, this is a bill in fact, there's been unity for well over a decade. we have a number of republican sponsors on this bill. we're up to 61 sponsors, men and women have come together to say violence against women is not okay. this bill must pass. and our first speaker today is the great the senator from maryland, senator mikulski. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: mr. chairman, thank you. and i'm going to thank the gentlelady from minnesota for her ongoing 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 her steadfast standing up for them and making sure they got a fair shake in the system was really well known and well

appreciated. i'm here to be a strong support for the violence against women act, and i hope that this bill passes, and i hope that this bill passes today. it is -- because senator leahy has worked on a bipartisan basis in his committee to bring this bill out. this bill was first passed in 1994 under the leadership of our vice president, then-senator joe biden, well known for a strong, muscular, robust approach to law enforcement. and 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 and then found that when they came to the judicial system, that they were battered again because

they were ignored and had no one to stick up for them and were always told, oh, it's your fault. what are you doing? 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's been refreshed, reformed and also brings some new approaches to this. senator -- the chairman of the committee has done an outstanding job and is to be commended. 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 services. the stop grants is the largest national grant program in the

justice department. roughly half of all violence against women funds go to these stop grants, and they go to every community. and what is it they do? they coordinate community approaches to end violence and sexual assault. they fund victims services like shelters in the toll-free crisis hotline. and they fund legal assistance to victims to be able to get court orders to be able to protect themselves from the abuser or from the stalker. it also includes training for police officers, prosecutors and judges, so they know how to do a good job. victims of child abuse grants, something that i'm 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 one million women have called that hotline

that were desperate, that were fearful for their life. and when they called that number, they didn't get a busy signal. they didn't get hung up on. they got help. and i know that it saved lives. one in four women will be victims of domestic violence during her lifetime. one in four. 16 million children are exposed to domestic violence. and also one in six women have experienced attempted or completed rape. and even men now are the subject of rape. 25% of rape crisis centers have waiting lists for advocacy groups. and i want to talk about that in more detail. two million victims of physical and sexual violence each year, 20,000 until maryland. on the average, 1,000 female victims are killed by their

abusers. one-third of all female homicides are domestic violence. mr. president, these are numbers and statistics, but they also represent real people. we help over 70,000 victims every day. 70,000 victims every day through hotlines and services and shelters. regrettably, there is a waiting list. we need to pass this legislation because it gives us the authorization to be able to do so. it meets these compelling human needs to protect people. and in my own state, it's had enormous positive consequences. there's something that was developed through the department of justice called the lethal index. it means that when a police officer goes into a home, he has to, or she has to assess how dangerous is it? do you yank the kids out?

take the abuser and put them in jail? or do you call in a social worker to try to intervene, give the family more time, give the family counseling so that we can get people off the ledge, out of a violent situation, but be able to work on the long path for 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 index, the level of violence when they are in that home. they know then when people are in danger and they have to get them out right that minute. they also know when there's the opportunity for other interventions, again, 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 really are almost never victims of murder or attempted murder. that's a powerful line. that if we had this intervention and prevention, we could 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 shows the country also that we are serious about governing and keep legislation going. i want to also comment on some of the important programs, as i said. and i want to talk a little bit about my role. mr. president, i'm an appropriator. and in fact i'll leave shortly to go to a markup. but i have moved the

commerce-justice-science spending bill, and i worked so closely with the gentlelady from texas, senator kay bailey hutchison. again, a very strong advocate in the interest of women, both in protecting and helping them both here and around the world. working on a bipartisan basis in this year's bill, we put money in the federal checkbook for those stop grants, for those sexual assault services, for than transitional housing grants, and also for other help in our community. we also took a serious look at the whole issue of forensics. forensics is the 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.

now, let me just say this. there are two different bills. there's the violence against women, and there's the debbie smith act. the debbie smith act was passed because of a woman named debbie smith who was subjected to the most vial, repugnant, despicable acts of violence against her. what we do working here is that we've actually put money in the federal checkbook to reduce the backlog, to reduce the backlog of d.n.a. evidence. it ensures that a high percentage of the funds also go to labs to be able to deal with samples from crime scenes, the databases, and others. if we do debate this rape kit issue at a later time, i want to thank senator leahy for his advocacy and senator cornyn for his sensitivity in wanting to solve the problem.

i believe if we take a minute and we keep in our mind and as our legislative goal that we work together, not who gets credit but who gets help; its not about who gets credit. it's about who gets help. we want to be able to help those relationship victims, have solace that their government is on their side, to make sure that we have the right person and have the right prosecution to get the right conviction. and right now there is a backlog. when justice gives out their money for forensics, it doesn't always go on these issues. we can direct it, we can do a good job. let's really come together. let's iron out our parliamentary differences so we can pass this very important violence against women, i can take what i've 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's a stranger who perpetrates danger and despicable acts or in their own home. prevention, intervention, training of police officers, judges and courts and the right prosecutions. mr. chairman, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, thank you so much to the senator from maryland. she always has a succinct way of describing an incredibly complex but important bill. and we also have been joined by the senator from california, who has been a longtime leader on this issue, was here in congress, just like the senator from maryland, when the initial violence against women act passed in 1994. senator boxer.

mrs. boxer: thank you. if you could tell me i've used five minutes and then i will conclude. the presiding officer: the senator willer notified. mrs. boxer: i want to thank senatothankthe senators for ther leadership. these are the two women on the judiciary committee who have been such leaders on this and senator murray as well. i'm proud to standed here and call for passage of the violence against women act. this is not a new bill, as has been painstakingly described to awful you. i can remember -- described to all of you. i can remember so well when then-senator biden wrote the violence against women act. yes, it took us a while to pass it but ever since it's 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 that if they didn't have objections, we could

pass this by voice vote. three women are killed by their abusive partners every single day. mr. president, i'm going to repeat that. three women today will be killed by their abusive husbands, and 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, unanimously. now, has the violence against women act worked? yes. incidences of domestic violence have decreased by 63% since we passed that law. why on earth when three women are killed every day and nine women are injured sometimes to the point of almost losing their life, why on earth when a bill has brought down domestic violence by 53% would there be objection? there is no reason, no reason

whatsoever. you go back to the votes on the bill in the past. overwhelming votes every time. 47 attorney generals signed a bipartisan letter supporting the reauthorization. now, i have story after story from home, and i'm going to read a couple to you. a mother in alamita county had been in a long-term abusive relationship. she separated from the abuser only to be stalked and brutally assaulted by him. she called 911. 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 the deputy d.a. trained by program grants. she was pressured not to cooperate 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 gaininged a strong -- and gained a strong conviction of her abuser. that's a case that shows that training works and the training took place because of the violence against women act. a story of an immigrant woman in los angeles. two years ago this happened. stabbed 19 times by her boyfriend while she was three 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. 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 new visa and she hndz

an-- and she and her child could move on. the last case deals with indian tribes. i know what a fierce advocate you are for indian tribes, mr. president. so i talked to my people back home. according to a 2008 report by the center centers for disease , 39% of native american women will face domestic violence -- 39%. now, yesterday senators klobuchar, murray, and i stood next to a woman who is a vice chair of a tribe in washington. she for the first time spoke out on the abuse she received as a toddler, and i don't think that senator klobuchar and i and senator murray will ever forget. she said, "i know how old i was because i remember, i was the size of a couch cushion." this woman spoke out, and she spoke out about how later on she saw a rape occur, a gang rape of

her aunt. and because of the situation with indian law, if the abuser is not from the tribe -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed five minutes. mrs. boxer: i will complete in a minute. because the abuser -- if an abuse certificate not from the tribe -- if an abuser is not from the tribe, there is no recourse. no recourse in a place where 39% of the women will face domestic violence, and we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to exclude people from this, exclude people. now, i want to ask a rhetorical question: if you're walking down the street and you see three people bleeding on the street, you just have to know a little bit about being a good samaritan, you don't go and ask hem for their papers, you don't ask them who they are or where they live. you help them. you help them. and anyone on this floor who will attempt to take out various

groups out of this bill, they are changing the violence against women act, which, mr. president, has never excluded any group. so let's be clear. let's pass the bill. let's get it done. and i will say, in closing, tribal chairman stacey dixon said, "the improvements in this bill will bring justice back to indian country. we will equip tribal governments with the needed resources to protect our governments 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 land. thank you very much. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president,? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much to the senator from california for those moving remarks and for the important point that the violence against women act has never

discriminated against people, regardless of who they are, where they live, how much money they have, and i really appreciate those remarks, and i think it's really at the core here of what some of this debate is about. but overall, i still believe when we already have a umin of colleagues from across -- when we already have a number of colleagues from across the aisle on this bill, that we will get this done. that's why it is so important that when the wor with the workr reid and with senator crapo, the lead republican on this bill, senator mikulski, senator murkowski, who joininged us the last time we had the group of women senators and who's been working diligently on that late in the evening, i am very positive that we're going to get this done and get this vote done. i see that we have been joined here by the senator from washington, senator cantwell, and she has long been a leader on women's issues and has fought for this build and has been a member of congress in the past

when it's been reauthorized. so she knows very well that in the past this has not been a partisan bill, that people have come together, they have a worked out -- they've worked out whatever differences they have and have been able to pass this important violence against women act. and so i know that senator cantwell has joined us and, please, senator cantwell, thank you for being here. ms. cantwell: thank you. i thank the senator from minnesota for her leadership on this issue and for her great service on the senate judiciary committee. i know as a former prosecutor she's provided a great deal of leadership on many, many issues, but having her voice on the senate judiciary committee has been very, very important for our country. i come here to stand with my colleagues who are here, the women of the senate, to say that we are standing up for women across america. we want the reauthorization of the violence against women act, and today we want to tell

victims of domestic violence that they are not alone. we have to make sure that we are giving the tools to local governments, to law enforcement, the things that they need to protect the victims of domestic violence. today we're here with a clear message to the victims of domestic violence, and that is we will stand with you. and that we haven't forgotten and we're not going to let this bill be bogged down in political fighting, but we are going to make sure that we continue to move ahe had had. we already have the support of 61 senators, many attorney generals and countless law enforcement officials who are working to make sure that these victims have an advocate. but we know that ther there is l opposition that remains, so i want to make sure we address those concerns today. for those who are opposed to the bill, i would ask you to look at my state, washington, and the threat of domestic violence.

in washington state, law enforcement received 30,000 domestic violence calls a year, on average, and in any given day in 2011 domestic violence programs served 1,884 people in washington state. that's why the violence against women act is so important. in washington it really does save lives. people like carissa, one of my constituents who was in an abusive relationship. she was allowed to flee with her then-three-year-old daughter in 1998. she joined me to highlight the fact that the programs, the shelter and the help in starting a new life helped her escaped that life of abuse. i want to quote her when she said, "i am standing here alive today because of our works." you know this is not about statistics it is not about

politics. it is about providing a lifeline to women who want to have a different life. the act also helps crack down on violence against pail-order brides. it is -- against mail-order brides. it is a story we all know too well in the pacific northwest. two mail-order brides came to washington state. they are blieivtheir lives werer their hut husbands killed them. i sponsored the international broard act. it empowered foreign-born fee an says to learn if their spouse had a history of violent crime and it now has become part of the reauthorization that is this bill today. it includes enhancements that require marriage broker agencies

to provide foreign fee an says with a record of any domestic violence that they are potential spouse might have engaged in. that way we can stop the abuse before it begins. opponents who say that 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 sue susanna. their lives could have been saved had the provisions been in place. we should not deny immigrant women or trafficking resources the resources theengdz to prevent abuse. nor should we create barriers to them to get the safety they need. that's why we they'd to pass the violence against women act. and we also need make it clear that native american women will receive protection. deborah parker of the talaleb tribe came to the capitol this week to explain why this is so important. deborah was a tireless champion for the people and for the

victims of domestic abuse, and she was here to tell her brave story. she spoke eloquently as why women need to make sure that their perpetrators will be charged. consider that 39% of american indian women will endure domestic violence in their lifetime. compare that with figures that estimate that 24% 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, and this bill gives the tools so that we can make sure that we go after those offenders. some have warned that this will trample on the rights of individuals to have due process and full protection. that isn't the case. so what we are doing here is making sure that there will be an investigation on reservations of the suspected abuse. so i think it is time that we

address this epidemic that's happening in indian country, before it escalates more. and that's why we need to make sure that 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, like vawa, we are not going to achieve our goals. so it is time that we pass this legislation, for people like deborah, for people like carissa and to remember the lives of people like susanna and anasthasia king. i thank the president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much to the senator from washington. and deborah, who she referenced, did a beautiful job yesterday of just explaining exactly what it meant to be a native american woman and a victim of domestic violence. as a member of the judiciary committee, mr. president, we have -- i can tell you that we

have looked hard at all of 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 that the past two vawa reauthorizations have made in reducing violence. and i would note many things were added, including one of the issues here today, the new visas were added on a bipartisan basis in the 2000 reauthorization. many of the issues regarding american indian women were considered in the past. so we are simply building on the past bills and we have worked with our republican cosponsors to make sure that there was a general agreement on any additions that were made to the bill, and they were all made for very good reasons. and as you've heard today, to help women who need the help. but despite these improvements that we've 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 us to illustrate both the progress we've made as well as the work that's still left to be done. on just one day last year -- just look at this as a benchmark -- one day last year, september 15, in the state of minnesota, 54 minnesota domestic violence programs reported serving 735 victims in emergency shelters or transitional housing and 670 adults and children through the individual counseling, legal advocacy, or children's support group. mr. president, that's a total of 1,405 victims in one day in one state. on that same day, there were 807 calls to domestic violence hot-lines which provide emergency support, information safety planning, and resources for victims in danger. that works out, mr. president, to 33 calls per hour in a 24-hour period, and that is in one state of the 50 states.

because of the violence against women act, on just one day last year, all of these victims were able to get access to services that they may want have been able to get -- may not have been able to get before vawa. but one other number from that survey caught my eye. in just one day, 315 requests for services were unmet. 83% of those unmet requests were for housing. and what's the reason for these unmet requests? the minnesota organizations reported that they didn't have enough things like staff, beds, translators or other specialized services. think about that. in just one day in one state, 315 people were unable to get the help that they need. and that means we still have work to do. as i've worked on the reauthorization of vawa rk i've been remind -- i've been reminded of many of my experiences as hannapin county, that's minnesota's largest county, are still relevant today. i made it a priority to focus on

prosecution of domestic violence cases. as prosecutor, i saw upfront just how devastating these cases can be. one case, a woman in maple grove, a suburb of the twin cities, she told her mother and a friend that 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." and that was the last day that anyone saw her alive, mr. president. 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 and she tried to break it off to a tragic end. the woman had earlier filed assault charges against her boyfriend, claiming that he had put her in a choke hold and pushed her into a coffee table. her three-year-old son told his grandmother that he found his mother on the floor and that she was sleeping and he could not wake her up. the boyfriend had actual been convicted years -- 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. that's 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, mr. president, 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 couldn't 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 two years before the tragedy these stories are horrifying, and as a prosecutor, you never forget them. for survivors, they stay with them for the rest of their lives. it's stories like these that make it so obvious that we have more work to do. we need to pass this reauthorization bill, mr. president, and we need to continue to build on the improvements that we have made in past reauthorizations. one of the important improvements that this reauthorization bill has comes in the area of stalking.

the bill includes a provision that 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, just like any of the other crimes recognized in the violence against women act, is a crime that affects victims of every race, age, culture, gender, sexual orientation, and economic status. the numbers are truly alarming. in just one year, 3.4 million people in the united states reported that they had been victims of stalking and 75% of those victims reported that they had been stalked by someone that 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. you know this is a change, mr. president, and that is why senator hutchison and i drafted this amendment that basically

says that the same -- 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 are spying on espn reporters, as a recent case showed, through little peepholes in their hotel rooms while they're undressing. that happened, mr. president, and that case would have been a lot easier if this bill had been changed and updated with the provisions that 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's 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 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, mr. president, as you know, from a state with a high population

of -- of native americans, is that it simply allows the tribal courts to have jurisdiction concurrent with the other courts, with the federal and state courts. and i know that changes have been made in the managers' amendment to address the particular concerns of alaska. this ais an in-- this is an incredibly important part of the bill and i'm glad that we're able to work with the republican cosponsors to get this part of the bill updated. the violence against women act, mr. president, is an important tool for ending violence against women, but this is not just about women. i often mention this case of a very, very sad situation where a man murdered his wife. they were russian immigrants. they knew no one in town. murders his wife, takes her body parts in a bag, dumps them off in a river in missouri with his four-year-old kid in the car the entire time. when they got back to the twin cities, he actually confessed to the crime. and when they had the funeral for this woman, there were only five people in that russian

church. there was the family that had come over from russia, the parents and the sister, and there was me and our domestic violence advocate. and that little girl was there too, mr. president, and the story the family told me was this. the sister of the victim, the sister of the woman that was killed, was her identical twin. the little girl had never met her aunt because she lived in russia. and 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, and ran up to her and hugged her and said, "mommy, mommy, mommy," because she thought it was her mother. and it reminds all of us that domestic violence is not just about one victim, it's about a family and it's about a community and it's about a country. and that is why we have the opportunity today 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 yield the floor i see we've been joined by the senator from new york, a member of the judiciary committee that worked so hard on this bill, senator schumer. mr. schumer: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: let me thank first, mr. president -- first, mr. president, i have 13 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and requests be printed in the recordment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: and i want to 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 -- know this so well and so strongly, whether from their own personal experiences, friends they knew, or, as in the case of the senator from minnesota, who's done a great job on this, from their professional experience as well. so, mr. president, i care a lot about this. i carried the violence against women act, the first bill, in

1994. senator biden, then senator, 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's 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's a family matter. and 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're much further away from that because of this law. and it makes a great deal of sense. but, like any good and important law that's 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's just in two counties in one state in this country. that's why i'm so glad to see that members on both sides of the aisle have finally seen that saving the lives of women is once again above politics. it's been a pleasure over the years to work with my colleagues, and i want to thank chairman leahy and senator crapo for their great leadership here, and now it is truly a bipartisan effort with 61 cosponsors, and that's how it's been in the past. always has been bipartisan. it's a tribute not only to chairman leahy but to my female

colleagues, many of whom have spoken out this morning, have been constant champions of the violence against women act act. -- violence against women act. this should be low-hanging fruit. this should pass easily. it passed unanimously. democrats, 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%, reduced duplicative programs. so you wouldn't 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 hold progress. replace is the operative word

here. 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's why we're here, but it has worked. you don't start over for ideological or political reasons. most notably in the act, for 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. now, 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 hasn't even always been illegal. mr. president, there was never a rule of thumb that governed the size of the stick that wives could use to beat their husbands, and that sums it up in a nutshell. men were never banned from juries. men were never not on police forces and prosecutor's offices. it is this horrific and shameful history to which we responded in 1994 when we first crafted the violence against women act. and there is another point to be made here. 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's why there is no substitute for the violence against women act. now, there are a number of priorities that have been included in the bill that i've cared a lot about, making sure

that sexual assault victims do not have to pay for their own forensic exams. the last reauthorization took some steps. 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 law enforcement training and victim support. third, it expands programs that are available to victims in law enforcement in rural and underserved areas. extremely important to upstate new york which has one of the largest rural populations in the country. and fourth, as i mentioned, senator leahy and senator crapo should be applauded for including more overnight and accountability for programs in this bill and find a way to trim the authorization by 20% by consolidating programs where it makes sense. to make the continued need for this bill concrete and personal, i'd 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 county coalition against domestic violence. the coalition offers confidential specialized services for victims of domestic and dating violence, elderly abuse and children who witness domestic violence. they have a 24-hour hotline, group and individual counseling, legal advocacy, safe home and emergency housing. without vawa, these services would cease. these services would be drastically cut back. specifically, the coalition receives $650,000 over two and a half years through vawa legal assistance to victim grant, $38,000 through a vawa crisis intervention grant, $12,000 through a rape advocacy grant. these might not seem, the latter two in particular, like large sums of money, but they go a

long, long way to helping prevent domestic violence and deal with it when it unfortunately happens. so the reauthorization of vawa is more important than ever. local municipalities, we know, new york and throughout the country, are slashing their social service contracts and budgets right and left. without vawa, many groups like this county coalition, would be left bereft and all the good work they have done over the years would no longer be there. without agencies like this one, where will the sexually assaulted levittown woman turn for help? i don't want to find out. i will do everything in my power to ensure that day never comes by supporting this vawa, not some new law that has been untested. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, mr. schumer. mr. president, we will be joined shortly by the senator from hall of new hampshire, senator shaheen.

many of my colleagues have mentioned the incredibly important role that then-senator bidden, now vice president bidden played in drafting this first bill in 1994. well, there was another senator that played an important role, and that's someone from minnesota and 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 that senator wellstone gave before his tragic plane crash about domestic violence and some of the things he said, and here are some. of course, i would never do justice to him as he stood on this floor, but, mr. president, 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, senator well stone. 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 wasn't just a law enforcement issue. it was an issue about civil rights and justice and human dignity. paul often talked about his brother steven who struggled with mental illness his entire life, and he took up that cause because he knew that no one was there for steven, no one else would speak for him, and he felt the same way about the victims of domestic violence. we honor their memory, paul and sheila's, by carrying on their work today. i want to highlight some of the more remarkable efforts to bring this issue out of the shadows of the -- that 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. he dedicated his own salary increases each year to battered -- a battered women's shelter in minnesota and introduced a number of bills strengthening protections for women. to senator wellstone, this family violence could no longer be dismissed as a family issue. that's why he made a commitment to read into the congressional record the names and stories of all minnesotan 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 lave-sized

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, mr. president, that was unique. it was something people weren't talking about. the wellstones felt it was their duty to bring that forward, as did then-senator bidden and senator leahy and other people that were involved in this issue. and so many of the women senators that 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 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. now, paul and sheila may no longer be with us, but their legacy lives on. the sheila wellstone institute continues their work by promoting awareness of violence against women and ensuring that ending this problem remains a national priority. the wellstones' sons mark and david have also continued to work where their parents' work 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. so as we look today for a potential vote on the violence against women act, i would like my fellow senators to remember these words that senator wellstone spoke many, many years ago. again, 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. and so we all know that we can no longer stand and say it is someone else's problem. we can't let our own differences, minor that they may be on various provisions, get in the way of the fact that this has always been a bipartisan bill, that this bill has 61 authors, that this bill was led by senator leahy and senator crapo from the very beginning, a democrat and republican working together. this is the time, mr. president, to pass this bill. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president. 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 from 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's 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 that i am producing with senator grassley and many other cosponsors builds on the sentiments that the chairman expressed yesterday. it should seem very simple to me that what the republicans are asking is that our substitute, which has many cosponsors because we believe it improves on the underlying bill, and one amendment by senator cornyn that 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 been yet 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, and 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 on that. so what's 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 shouldn't 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's 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 is the victim a republican or a democrat. is the victim gay or straight. but that a victim is a victim. and agree -- the presiding officer: would the senator suspend. we have a previous order i need to read. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following -- under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, greg jeffrey costa of texas to be united states district judge for the southern

district of texas. david campos guarderrama to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i believe -- i believe under the regular order i would be recognized now and then senator grassley would be recognized, would be the regular order but i understand the senator from texas, did you need some more time? we're not on vawa now. we're on the nominations, i said under the regular order i'd be recognized for 15 minutes and senator grassley for 15 minutes. how much 0 more time did the senator from texas need? mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i was i believe perhaps -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is correct on the order that is in place

now. mr. hutchinson: mrs. hutchison: however did the other side on vawa go over the allotted time? the presiding officer: they did not. the senator from texas was actually speaking on their time. the senator from vermont has the order. mr. leahy: 0 would the senator from texas tell me how much time she see needs? mrs. hutchison: i would like up to five minutes to finish on the vawa bill and then go forward with, i do have a support for the two judgeships that are also going to be voted on at noon. mr. leahy: maybe this is an easy way out of this. i ask consent the senator from texas be given five minutes out of the republican side now, without anything showing an interruption in the record here, to finish the vawa statement. we then go back to my time on the judges, and i would assume

the republican side would be glad to have her have the rest of the time on the judges. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. hutchison: i do appreciate that because i want to make sure that everyone knows that the republicans have an addition to the violence against women act that we think will strengthen it. for instance, just a couple of additions from what we talked about yesterday, we got a letter today from the national center for missing and exploited children. and i would ask unanimous consent that the letter be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: it says they strongly support two provisions in our substitute bill. it says that we have a mandatory minimum for possession of child pornography, and that they feel strongly that possession of child pornography is a serious

crime that deserves a serious sentence. therefore a reasonable mandatory minimum for this offense would be in order. and i stated yesterday about a situation where a judge gave one day, a one-day sentence where the individual was in possession of hundreds of images and videos of 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. really. one day. mr. president, this is america. i can't even imagine that that would be the case. our bill strengthens the underlying bill by saying that we would have a mandatory minimum of one year. my goodness, i think that is a minimum that this body would want to adopt. we also want to make sure that we can locate registered sex offenders who abscond and the letter that we have put in the

record says that law enforcement efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to determine the fugitives' physical location and apprehend them. here twor stories that our bill would strengthen the built -- the ability to help the situation. johnny burgos was convicted in new york for assault of a minor. following release from prison he registered as a sex offender in new york but left. the u.s. marshals in the new york-new jersey regional fugitive task force believed he was living in pennsylvania. they attempted to obtain the records from cell phone companies, insurance companies, the new york and pennsylvania departments of motor vehicles but because it was necessary to get grand jury subpoenas for those records the process took too long and the investigation suffered. in the interim, he is believed to have committed another sexual

assault in maryland. our bill would strengthen the capabilities for the u.s. marshals service to get that information on a timely basis. this one is even worse, mr. president. joseph duncan, who shortly after his release from custody in 2005 absconded from minnesota and traveled across country to idaho, where he kidnapped dylan and shasta greene from their home in the middle of the night. in the course of the kidnapping he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a hampler. he then took the children to remote campgrounds across state lines into montana where he brutally abused them and killed dylan. a child. he was essentially lost by three states and no one even knew where he was to look for him. our bill strengthens the u.s. marshals other -- marshals service's capabilities to attach

to wherever these thugs might be who are doing these heinous crimes and by also add our bill has a strengthening of the rape kit issue that senator cornyn is trying to get able to offer as an amendment to senator leahy's bill, the majority bill. senator cornyn has been trying for a long time to strengthen the ability to stop this backlog and let the rape kits tested so that the perpetrators, we have the evidence to get them so they will not commit these crimes against other innocent people like dylan and shasta groen. and i hope that we will be able to have a modest one amendment and my substitute, so that we will be able to go to conference with strong strengthening of the underlying bill, which, mr. president, i intend to support.

i'm going to support the violence against women act, even if it falls short in these areas. but why not strengthen it in these areas so that all of us know that we have done the best we can to send a bill to the house for its consideration and then a conference committee where we can pass this bill without further delay. thank you, mr. president, and i thank the distinguished chairman for giving me this time. when the regular order is -- comes back, i do want to speak in favor of the two texas judges upon whom we're going to vote. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president,, of course i will speak further about the violence against women act because i believe the leahy-crapo bill has the best balance possible to protect the most people possible.

but on the nominations today, we're finally going to vote on the nomination of gregg costa and david guarderrama to fill emergency judicial vacancies in the u.s. district courts, the southern and western districts of texas. they're judicial emergency vacancies. i mention that because these are more examples of what i've been concerned about for the last few years. senate republicans have simply refused to move promptly to confirm consensus nominees. these are nominees like so many of president obama's nominated who are qualified, they enjoy bipartisan support, made to wait and wait and wait and wait before finally being able to be confirmed. it's a destructive development. it's a new practice in the senate. i can say this is one, i've

served here during the presidencies of president ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w. bush, now president obama. this new practice has kept the senate behind the curve, it's kept federal judicial vacancies unfilled, it's overburdened the federal courts, it's kept americans from getting prompt justice. i want to share with the senate and the american people a chart. look at this chart, mr. president. this compares vacancies during the term of president bush and president obama. i mention this because look at where the vacancies were when president bush came in. for a short time i was chairman of the senate judiciary

committee, president bush was president. even though 60 nominees had been pocket filibustered of president clinton's, i said we're going to change the routine. look how quickly i brought the vacancies down, way down, under president bush. i then worked with the republicans to bring them down further, even though they did not move as fast on president bush's nominees as i had. and back when i was chairman again, still continued to bring it down. but then what happened when president obama came in, all of a sudden they said, well, this is great that you brought down the vacancies under president bush, and we're glad to have the vacancies under president bush come down, but now the vacancies are going to come back with president obama. two qualified nominees, i agree these are highly qualified nominees from texas.

they were passed out of our committee way last year. they should have been confirmed last year. they are typical consensus, noncontroversial nominees. delayed for no good reason. in fact, we have 24 judicial nominations currently before the senate. i've heard them say, well, the president has to send up more nominees. why don't we confirm the 24 that are sitting here on the calendar waiting for final vote? we have others, working through the committee process. in fact, ten of those nominations that have been pending the longest, every single democrat in this body has signed off on them. ten that have been pending the longest are all to fill judicial emergency vacancies. so again i show this chart, i know this to show how quickly

democrats moved, while republicans did not move as quickly, they also moved for president bush's nominees. but we do that -- did that with president ford. we did that with president carter. we did it with president reagan. we did it with the first president bush. we did that with president clinton, except for the 60 that were pocket filibustered by the republicans. we did that, as i just showed here with president bush. why does it have to be a different thing for president obama? i mean, why can't we treat president obama the way we did all these other presidents i've mentioned since i've been here? the way we did president ford's nominations and all the others. i cannot understand what it is, why president obama has to be treated differently.

it's not fair to him. but more importantly, mr. president, it's not fair to the federal judiciary. these vacancies mean that there are millions and millions of americans, a hundred million americans, i believe it is. 150 million americans are in districts, states with judicial vacancies. that means justice delayed. and if justice is delayed, justice is denied. mr. president, we can and should do better. maybe some feel that there's an advantage to take partisan shots at president obama. i disagree. they should do as we've done in the past, help the federal judiciary. that should be kept out of partisan politics. it's to our advantage to all of us. because when you go before a

court in this country they do not ask whether you're a republican or democrat. you're coming to seek justice. you should be allowed to do that. so let's -- let's speed up. i will vote for these two judges, the two senators from texas will vote for these two judges. but they were ready to be voted on way last year. time to get moving. mr. president, i yield the floor and reserve serve. and reserve the balance of my time. i yield the floor and reserve the balance of mile time. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise to speak in favor of gregg costa and david guarderrama for nomination to the federal district bench. i do want to say that mr. costa --

and i will mention this again -- but mr. costa asked not to be confirmed until after the case that he was working on was finished. and his case was the prosecution of allen stanford, robert allen stanford, who swindled so many texans of money in which they had invested, texans and americans, frankly -- he was all over the country in his representation -- and mr. costa asked not to be confirmed until he could finish that case because it was complicated and he was the lead on it. so there has been no delay on our part at all on his nomination. and as i understand it, we have confirmed the same -- roughly the same number of district judges as president george bush and president clinton did in their first terms, and to my knowledge, we're not holding up

nominations at all. and, in fact, of course, senator cornyn and i both highly recommended mr. costa and mr. guaderrama to the president for his nomination because we have a process that assures that we nominate to the president the most qualified people who would fill these spots. and we have a bipartisan legal committee that vets them, people who know the legal community in texas and so, therefore, they know the reputations of these lawyers and our -- our committee system has worked very well. i did it with senator graham. i do it with senator cornyn. and we agree on the quality of these nominees. so i -- i don't think there's a delay here and i'm very pleased to be able to have nominated

these two fine lawyers to the president. and i'd like to talk about mr. costa, who did ask to wait for his confirmation but now is ready because the -- the case was decided. he will be serving in the southern district in galveston, texas, where i was born. mr. costa was born in baltimore, maryland, and grew up in richardson, texas. he attended dartmouth college, where he graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in government, and then continued his studies at the university of texas school of law, where he served as editor in chief of the "texas law review" and received his jurs doctorate with high -- juror issue doctorate with highest honors in 199. mr. costa's professional career includes being a law clerk for supreme court chief justice william rehnquist in 2001, as well as his current position, serving as an assistant united states attorney in houston.

as the colead counsel for the united states in the prosecution of robert allen stanford, mr. costa secured a conviction of 13 charges of conspiracy, wire and mail fraud. mr. costa has been credited by his colleagues as the glue that held the case together. his dedication to this case and these victims shows the core of his character and the fact that he asked for a delay in his confirmation that -- because he wanted to finish this case and assure that it was done so that the convictions would be obtained, make me proud and pleased to support his nomination to the federal bench. i'm also pleased to support the nomination of judge david come post -- david guaderrama to the western district of el paso, texas. he moved to texas at a young

age. he obtained two bachelor's degrees from new mexico state university in political science and psychology, then earned his juris doctorate degree from university of notre dame law school in 1979. in 1987, judge guaderrama was appointed as the first chief public defender of el paso county and continued in that service until he was elected to the 243rd judicial district court in testament to his servio the el paso community, judge guaderrama has served as a u.s. magistrate judge for the united states district court for the western district for the last two years. during his three decades serving in the texas legal system, judge guaderrama has earned many accolades for his help and leadership in initiating and enacting several successful judicial programs in west texas. he has demonstrated a strong commitment to the el paso community and i am confident he

will serve on the federal bench well and support his nomination. mr. president, i would just say that senator cornyn also supports these two judges. of course, senator cornyn sits on the judiciary committee. our judicial evaluation committee, which is bipartisan and has served so well to give us the highest-quality nominees on the bench, did select both of these nominees as their first choices after their interviews and their -- the input from the legal community in both el paso and houston, which includes the galveston part of the district. so they've been well vetted, they have been supported i think by both sides of the aisle, and we are very pleased to put forward these two quality nominees. and senator cornyn as well is

very strongly in support of them. so with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i know we're about to vote on these judges and i would ask that the remaining time that this be -- my statement be included as in morning business. mr. president, the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country, says -- quote -- "the grassley-hutchison substitute

was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day. the substitute includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies." now, i know that it was well-intentioned by its lead sponsors, but the republican proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way, both republicans and democrats coming together working with victims and advocates from all over the country. and i regret to say that the republican proposal undermines core principles of the violence against women act. it would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims, including battere