victims in same-sex relationships. the improvements in the bipartisan leahy-crapo violence against women reauthorization act, they're gone from the republican proposal. it is no substitute. it does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims. the presiding officer: the question is on the costa nomination. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on the confirmation of gregg jeffrey costa of texas, the yeas are 97, the nays are 2. the nomination is confirmed.

the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes the legislative session, the period for debate only on s. 1925 be extended until 2:30 p.m. today with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that i be recognized at 2:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the question is on the guarderrama nomination. all in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are

considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session.

'

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak on an issue that is profoundly important and meaningful to this body at this moment in history.

we face a critical juncture in the nation's history when we must -- and we absolutely must -- renew the violence against women act and, indeed, strengthen it for the sake of women but also our families around connecticut and this country. i want to thank my colleagues for voting to proceed with consideration of s. 1925, the violence against women reauthorization act. vawa is critically important. it is bipartisan legislation that gives victims of domestic violence and sexual assault access to the services that they so desperately need. this crucial law supports both the organizations that provide these services and the law enforcement agencies that assist the victims as they pursue justice and as a law enforcement official, i saw firsthand in my duties as state attorney general for connecticut how important

and practical and meaningful this law is. we have a responsibility not only to authorize but also to strengthen vawa right away. some 17 years have passed since the original violence against women act and we've made great strides, but we cannot be complacent in our efforts to protect our nation's children and women. in a time when the women of our great nation face relentless attacks on their rights, we cannot afford to lose ground that we have gained over the last 17 years. we must address the grave concerns of domestic violence and sexual assault which are in no way partisan. there is nothing republican or democrat about a victim who suffers from this grave ill, as chairman leahy has so eloquently and powerfully stated.

s. 1925 is a bipartisan bill written over months of negotiations and consultations with critical law enforcement and victims' advocacy groups and it supports a number of organizations in my home state of connecticut whose mission is to protect women who experience violence in all forms. this bill provides resources to help a number of organizations in connecticut fulfill their vital mission to protect more than 54,000 -- i'm going to repeat that because that is a staggering number -- 54,000 domestic violence victims in connecticut alone. organizations in connecticut received nearly $5 million in fiscal year 2011 from the violence against women act, but many domestic programs in connecticut and around the country are reporting huge staff shortages and resources needs

that are necessary to respond to the hundreds of thousands of women in need. it is truly an epidemic in this country that we must counter and fight just as we would an epidemic of infectious bacteria or other kinds of insidious sources. vawa would give these service providers the resources they need to protect women, men, children, victims of domestic and sexual violence. and we have the opportunity to renew -- to commit to end domestic violence with updates and stronger measures in this act. first on accountability. i'm pleased that s. 1925 builds on the accountability provisions in current law so we can make sure that vawa grant money is used effectively and efficiently to support victims.

on internet abuse, a new frontier in the fight against domestic violence and sexual assault, we must strengthen provisions dealing with internet abuse to protect women and others from those kinds of threats, intimidation, harassment, even physical assaults facilitated by 9 per net. domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking can be even more dangerous and more threatening on the internet age, requiring broader and stronger protection. we must protect the thousands of women who fall victim every year to violent crimes facilitated by cyber stalking and impersonation with consequences that are truly horrific and reprehensible. i'm proud to have introduced a companion bill to the violence against women act that enhances current law for the internet age this legislation, the internet

abuse act, expands the ability of law enforcement to prosecute criminals who use the internet to intimidate, threaten, harass, and facilitate acts of sexual violence against women, children, and others. the vawa proposal before us includes key concepts from the internet abuse act, such as one key provision that strengthens existing provisions against cyber stalking. we must take this act to the new frontier of internet abuse and make it real against the very pernicious and reprehensible cyber stalking, cyber harassment, cyber assault that is as much a fact of life as the oral forms of domestic abuse. this provision gives law enforcement the able to go after more real instances of criminal harassment and abuse on-line.

and i want to stress at the same time the provision dramatically strengthens free speech protections. currently, the government can prosecute individuals for merely annoying on-line communications as well as communications that may be generally offensive but not directed at a specific person. this provision removes those authorities from the law so that prosecutors will spend their limited resources focusing on real causes of harassing and abusive conduct on-line. the law also focuses on vulnerable populations. as we strengthen vawa, we must ensure that all victims of domestic violence are protected and have access to the services that they need. although vawa has been strengthened and updated in every past reauthorization, the needs of some of our most vulnerable communities still have not been fully addressed.

an example, elder abuse. though the vawa reauthorization in 2000 included provisions to deal with domestic abuse in later life, our nation's elders continue to be victims of domestic violence. i am pleased that provisions that i drafted with my distinguished colleague, senator kohl, which improve the protections for elder victims of domestic abuse have been included in this reauthorization of vawa. lgbt protections. it would be simply unconscionable to deny any victim -- any victim -- of domestic violence the support he or she needs. for that reason, i strongly support the provisions that ensure that all victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, have access to lifesaving services. we are talking about lifesaving

services. nobody ever asks, in my experience, what the sexual orientation of a victim was when that person was, in fact, battered, brutalized and there should be no such question that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered individuals experience domestic violence at the same rate as the general population. and yet these individuals face discrimination as they attempt to access victims' services. that should not be acceptable in this country. in fact, a survey found 45% of lgbt victims were turned away when they sought help from a domestic violence shelter. clearly, there is a real need to improve the access and availability of services for this vulnerable population, and i support measures in the act that ensure that victims of domestic and sexual violence, regardless of their sexual

orientation or gender identification can access those services they need. there are protections in addition, broader protections for native american communities. this bill makes great improvements to the law enforcement tools available to native american populations. and members of the tribal council of the tribal nation in connecticut have appealed to me to protect the tribal provisions in s. 1925 and make sure that any amendment, any amendments are barred if they weaken those protections. in short, all victims of domestic violence deserve access to the services that they need, and many of my colleagues here today i know agree. in fact, 61 from both sides of the aisle have signed on to the violence against women reauthorization act, and i thank every single one of them for

stepping forward and speaking out on this profoundly meaningful and important issue. we have the opportunity to work to eliminate domestic and sexual violence, which is a scourge in our society, costly and suffering as well as -- costly in suffering as well as dollars, and i encourage my colleagues to keep faith with the hundreds of thousands of victims who look to us for the support that they need. we must vote as soon as possible, hopefully today, to reauthorize the violence against women act. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: madam president, i have seen the good that the law called violence against women act has done in providing victim services in my state of iowa.

we all recognize the harm that flows from domestic violence. it's both on the victims and also the families of victims. i have supported reauthorization of the violence against women act each time that it has come up. violence against women reauthorization on each of thesizations has been highly bipartisan. we have passed consensus bills. we have not played politics with reauthorizing the law. that's until now. this time it seems to be different. i don't know why it should be. the majority turned this issue into a partisan issue. in the judiciary committee, the majority gave no notice that it would inject new matters into the violence against women act. when the committee held a hearing on this issue, these

ideas were not discussed. their need has not been demonstrated. we do not know exactly how they will work. it was clear that committee republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material and of course, a majority refused during negotiations when we asked that they be removed. republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the leahy bill. probably 80% to 85% of the substitute that we're offering is the same as the leahy bill. this includes whole titles of the bill. we could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize violence against women, but the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill. they didn't want it to pass with

an overwhelming bipartisan majority. now the media has reported that this was a deliberate strategy of the majority. a recent political article quoted a prominent democrat senator. the article said that he -- quote -- "wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the g.o.p. block it, then allow democrats to accuse republicans of waging a war against women, end of political quote. this is a cynical partisan game playing that americans are sick of. every town meeting, people say to me when are you going to get together, stop the partisanship? and this is especially the case on this bill. republicans aren't even blocking the bill. we have called for the bill to be brought up. instead, the majority has taken six months to reauthorize this

program that has expired last october. that says something about the priorities of the other party. for instance, last week, we wasted time on political votes. that seems to be the case in the senate most of this year. the senate can pass a bill to reauthorize violence against women by an overwhelming margin, but it seems like the other party doesn't want that to happen. when they say unfavorable things about republicans and women, they aren't being forthright. a few weeks ago, the democratic congressional campaign committee sent out a fundraising email. the email stated in part -- quote -- "now there are news reports that republicans in congress will oppose reauthorization -- reauthorizing the violence against women act." enough is enough. the republican war on women must

stop now. will you chip in three dollars by midnight tonight to hold republicans accountable for their war on women?" end of quote of that democrat missile. the majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get violence against women act reauthorization bill that would actually help these victims. my fellow senators, there is no war on women except the political one. it's a figment of imagination of democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment or high gas prices. instead of talking about those issues, particularly high gas prices, they would rather make up a war against women. all evidence points to the other side sure being more interested

in raising money. the media has also reported that the bill is coming up now because of the democrats' desire to gin up a republican so-called war on women were derailed last week, i suppose by other issues. it should be clear at the outset that republicans are not blocking, have not blocked and never threatened to block the senate's consideration of this bill. the judiciary committee only reported the bill to the senate two months ago. it was march before the committee filed the usual committee report to the entire senate. democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up right now. it was up to the majority leader to decide when the bill should be debated. he finally decided, not right after the bill was reported out of committee or not right after the committee report was filed

but to do it now. why not back then? as long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process. and as the previous speaker said, i hope we can get it done this very day. several other important points i want to establish. first, i hope a consensus version of women -- or violence against women will be reauthorized. if a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if the bill does not pass because contrary to the statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services. violence against women act, the bill before us, is an authorization bill only, not an appropriation bill. this bill does not allow the

expenditure of one dime of money because that results through the appropriation process. appropriators can and will fund violence against women act programs, regardless of whether this bill is reauthorized. this is exactly what happened over the past year. we think that new issues have arisen since the last violence against women reauthorization. these issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization. that can happen. we should give guidance to the appropriators. that's what authorization committees like in this case the judiciary committee is all about. i support the appropriators continuing to fund violence against women act while we're trying to put together a consensus bill.

violence against women is being funded, despite the expiration of its previous authorization. no existing rights of anyone are affected if violence against women is not reauthorized. no existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than this partisan bill. i should say the majority's bill, not the partisan bill. second, the majority controls how bills move in the senate. as i said, the current violence against women reauthorization expired six months ago. if reauthorization was so important, i would think the majority party could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago. they didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are at stake.

this is true even though the prior reauthorization is expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed. third, nothing like the majority's bill where it does not reflect consensus will become law. it's a political exercise. the other body, meaning the house of representatives, doesn't seem like it's going to pass it the way that the majority party here wants it to pass. if we want to pass a consensus violence against women reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the alternative that senator hutchison and i are going to present to the senate. fourth, the majority's bill as reported out of committee was and is fiscally irresponsible. according to the congressional budget office, the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new direct

spending. that will increase the deficit by that same amount. the reason is the immigration provisions that we said previously were nonstarters. these were some of the provisions that the majority refused to take out. those provisions are bad immigration policy. nonetheless, i'm glad that the majority has now found an offset for this spending. the republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does, in fact, the majority bill. there are many ways in which this substitute does that. under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims, less to brats. it requires that 10% of the grantees be audited every year. this is to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually being used for the purpose of the

legislation to combat domestic violence. this is a very important point. the justice department inspector general conducted a review of 22 grantees under this law between 1998 and the year 2010, and of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements. the violations ranged from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner. and when this happens, money is not getting to the victims, and the taxpayers' money is being wasted. give some examples. in 2010, one grantee was found by the inspector general to have

questionable costs for 93% of the nearly 9 hoobts they received -- 9 hoobts they received are from the justice department. a 2009 audit found nearly $500,000 of a 680 thousand dollars grant was questionable. an inspector general audit from just this year found that this law's grant recipient in the virgin islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending. a grant to an indian tribe in idaho found $250,000 in improperly spent funds. this included, can you believe it, $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position. in michigan this year a woman at a -- at the law's grant

recipient used grant funds to purchase goods and services for personal use. we should make sure, then, that violence against women money goes to victims and not to waste like this. that hasn't been the case, obviously, under the current situation. so our republican substitute deals with this spending problem. the substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayers' funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. that will ensure that more money is available for victim services. money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims. in addition, the republican alternative limits the amount of violence against women funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5%. that means that money that now

is over the 7.5% suggested limit is going to bureaucrats and not to victims. and, of course, the underlying bill, the leahy bill, contains no such limit. if you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expended should be capped at the 7.5% level. the republican substitute amendment requires that 30% of the stop grants and grants for arrest policies and protective orders are targeted to sexual assault. the leahy-crapo bill sets aside only 20% instead of that 30% to fight sexual assault. the substitute that senator hutchinson and i offer hopefully this afternoon requires that training materials be approved

by an outside accredited organization. this ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology. this will result in a more effective assistance to victims. the leahy-crapo bill contains no such requirement. the hutchinson-grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatance. and i'll give you an instance. the majority bill said that college campuses must provide for -- quote -- "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution" -- end of quote of charges of violence or stalking. this would -- this would have codified a proposed rule of the department of education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that if

proved, rightly should have -- rightly should harm reputation. but if established on a barely more probable than not standard reputations can be ruined unfairly and very quickly. the substitute eliminates this provision. now the majority has changed their own bill's language. i thank them for that. i take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language. the substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating double jeopardy. the majority bill also would give indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-indians

based on actions allegedly taking part -- or place in indian country. noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have minimum contact with the forum, the congressional research service has raised constitutional questions about this provision. the administration and supporters in this body pursue their policy agendas headlong without bothering to consider the constitution. the substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the constitution. we have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provision in the judiciary committee bill, those provisions are. i strongly support funds to reduce the backlog of testing rape kits, but that bill

provides that only 40% of the rape kit -- rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog. the substitute requires that 70% of the funding would go for that purpose and get rid of the backlog sooner. it requires that 1% of the debbie smith act funds be used to create a national data base to track the rape kit backlog. it also mandates that 7% of the existing debbie smith act funds be used to pay for state and local audits of the backlog. debbie smith herself has endorsed these provisions. the majority bill has no such provisions, making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is pro-victim. true reform in the violence against women reauthorization should further that goal.

combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes. the hutchinson-grassley substitute creates a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for federal conviction for forcible rape. the majority bill establishes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. that provision is only there because republicans offered it and we won that point in our committee. child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women. our alearn tiff -- alternative establishes a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age. i believe that the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher in light of the lenient sentences that many federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions. but the substitute is at least a

start. this is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography. the alternative also imposes a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault. this crime involves can sexual assault -- involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim unconscious. the leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault. the status quo appears to be fine for the people that are going to vote for the underlying bill if the hutchinson-grassley amendment is not adopted. instead, the hutchinson-grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim. it increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum crime where it results in

life-threatening bodily injury too or the permanent disfigurement of the victim. it increases from 10 to 15 years the maximum sentence for this crime when serious body bodily injury to the victim results. the leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence and the victims thereof. the substitute grant administrative subpoena power to the u.s. marshals service is to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders. the the -- the leahy bill does nothing to locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders and the substitute cracks down on abuse of award of new visas for illegal aliens and the fraud against violence against women self-petitioning process. the majority bill does not

include any reforms of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in the program. one of the senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the violence against women act. but in the past, there were no deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions. we always proceeded in the past on consensus fashion. domestic violence is an important issue, serious problem. we all recognize that. in the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it. when the other side says this should not be about politics and partisanship, why, heavens, we obviously agree. it's the majority that has now decided that they want to score political points above assisting victims. they want to portray a phony war

on women because this is an an election year. they're raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue. and i demonstrated that in one of the emails that we come across -- come to our attention. there could have been a consensus bill before us today as in the past. there is controversial now because that's what the majority seems to want. we look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer an vote on our substitute amendment. that amendment contains much that is in agreement with the leahy bill. the substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to proarkt victims of domestic violence. -- protect victims of domestic violence. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from akaka. excuse me, the senator from

hawaii. mr. akaka: madam president, i rise today in support of s. 1925, the violence against women reauthorization act of 2011. since its enactment in 1994, vawa has enhanced the investigation and prosecution of incidents of domestic and sexual violence and provided critical services to victims and their advocates in court. it has truly been a life line for women across the country, regardless of location, race, or socioeconomic status. for these reasons, vawa's two prior reauthorizations were overwhelmingly bipartisan. this year, however, a number of

my colleagues are opposing the violence against women act reauthorization because they object to, among other things, the authority that it restores to native american tribes to prosecute those who commit violent crimes against native women. this bill's tribal provisions address the epidemic rates of violence against native women by enabling vawa programs to more directly and promptly respond to their concerns and needs. these tribal provisions are critical to the lives of native women and doubly important to me as chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs and a native hawaiian. native women are two and a half

times more likely than other u.s. women to be battered or raped. these are extremely disturbing statistics. 34% of native women will be raped in their lifetimes. and 39% will suffer domestic violence. that's more than one out of every three native women. we must come together to put a stop to this. last summer i chaired an oversight hearing entitled "native women, protecting, shielding, and safeguarding our sisters, mothers, and daughters." i heard the heartbreaking series that lie behind the grim and

troubling statistics on violence against american indian, alaskan native and native hawaiian women. my committee heard from the chief of the katabe nation who gave a moving account of his experience growing up with domestic violence and the impact it had on women and children in his community. he also spoke of the importance of reauthorizing vawa. we heard from officials who described how existing laws are failing native women. we heard, for example, that women in tribal communities live in a confusing and dangerous jurisdictional maze in which the absence of clear lines of authority often leaders to offenders, many of whom are

nonnative men, escaping investigation and prosecution, to say nothing of punishment. this outrageous and unacceptable situation has led to repeated offense against native women that too often spiral into violence with tragic consequences for the women, their children, and their communities. my committee also heard that native women are being increasingly targeted by the traffic -- sex trafficking industry, and that many have, according to police reports from tribal communities across the country, simply vanished into this terrible underworld. a draft bill to address violence

against native women was circulated through a wide range of stakeholders for feedback. this led to stringent provisions in a draft bill which i introduced as s. 1763, the stand against violence and empower native women act. the senate committee on indian affairs held a legislative hearing on my bill the following month and then reported it out of the committee in december. since then, i've worked closely with my good friend and colleague, senator leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee, as he developed s. 1925 which now includes the save native american women act. s. 1925's tribal provisions empower tribal courts to

prosecute crimes of domestic violence, dating violence or violations of protection orders regardless of the race of the alleged abuser. this bill also strengthens research in programs to address sex trafficking. since vawa was enacted 18 years ago and reauthorized twice since then, the hallmark of the law is that it has expanded its protections to classes of once neglected victims. accordingly, s. 1925's tribal provisions are consistent with vawa's history as well as its intents and purpose which past congresses have embraced. last week 50 law professors from

leading institutions across the country sent a letter to congress expressing their -- quote -- "full confidence in the constutionality of the legislation and in its necessity to protect the safety of native women." unquote. and just this week the white house released a statement of administration policy, stating that it strongly supports these provisions which will -- and i quote -- "bring justice to native american victims." unquote. i commend chairman leahy for his dedicated leadership in developing this bill. he has truly worked in the spirit of aloha by partnering with the indian affairs committee and other offices to craft a vawa reauthorization

bill that reasserts vawa's intent, purpose and history. i would also like to say mahala, thank you to each of these bill's other bipartisan sponsors. as we all know, domestic and sexual violence continues to occur, and far too many women across the country are victims of these horrible acts. we have heard from victims from service providers and from law enforcement that these crimes can leave victims with lasting emotional and physical scars what i will endangering their -- while endangering their security, their families and their lives. this bill will strengthen the violence against women act and extend its protections to include native women that are

underserved in the current system. this is not an issue that should divide us along partisan lines. on the contrary, it should unite to us take a stand against these awful crimes. so i urge you to join me and the rest of s. 1925's cosponsors to protect our sisters, mothers and daughters and pass this bill. madam president, i yield my time. thank you very much, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i rise to speak about

our federalist structure and the real danger of the federal government unduly interfering with the ability of states and localities to address activities and concerns in their communities. everyone agrees that violence against women is reprehensible. the violence against women act reauthorization has the honorable goal of assisting victims of domestic violence, but it oversteps the constitution's rightful limits on federal power. it interferes with the flexibility of states and localities that they should have in tailoring programs to meet particular needs of individual communities. and it fails to address problems of duplication and inefficiency. first, violent crimes are regulated and enforced almost exclusively by state governments. in fact, domestic violence is one of the few activities that the supreme court of the united states has specifically said that congress may not regulate under the commerce clause. as a matter of constitutional

policy, congress should not seek to impose rules and standards as conditions for federal funding in areas where the federal government lacks constitutional authority to regulate directly. second, the strings that congress at tafps to federal funding -- attaches to federal funding in the vawa reauthorization restrict each state's ability to govern itself. rather than interfering with state and local programs under the guise of spending federal tax dollars, congress should allow states and localities to exercise their rightful responsibility over domestic violence. state and local leaders should have flexibility in enforcing state law and tailoring victims' services to the individualized needs of that you are communities -- of their communities rather than having to comply with one-size-fits all federal requirements. third, even if the federal government had a legitimate role in administering vawa grant programs, the current reauthorization fails to address many instances of duplication and overlap.

among vawa and other programs operated by the department of justice and by the department of health and human services. nor does it address the grant management failings identified by the government accountability office. my opposition to the current vawa reauthorization is a vote against big government and inefficient spending. and a vote in favor of state autonomy and local control. we must not allow a desire by some to score political points and an appetite for federal spending to prevent states and localities from efficiently and effectively serving women and other victims of domestic violence. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, madam president. when my wife, fran ni, and i decided that i should run for senate, we were greatly influenced by the example set by senator paul wellstone and his

wife, sheila. the wellstones' example served as a constant reminder of what public service is all about. it's about helping others. it's about giving a voice to those who otherwise might go unheard. it's about making the law more just and more fair, peurbl for those who -- especially for those who need its protections the most. frannie and i have a personal responsibility to carry on the wellstones legacy. we all do. and you know what? i think that paul and sheila would be proud of what we're doing here today. we are on the verge of reauthorizing the violence against women act. paul and sheila were extraordinary people, an unlikely couple. sheila was born in kentucky to southern baptist parents. paul was born here in washington, the son of russian

jewish immigrants. but love and fate, they work in mysterious ways, and they brought paul and sheila together. sheila's family moved to washington where she and paul became high school sweethearts. paul went to north carolina for college, and sheila went back to kentucky. but a freshman year apart was more than they could bear. sheila moved to north carolina to be with paul. they got married, a year later they were proud parents. they eventually would have two more children. the wellstones were a big, happy family. after paul earned his ph.d. in political science, the wellstones moved to minnesota where paul had a successful teaching career at carleton college. sheila, meanwhile, worked two jobs. she was a full-time mother and a part-time library aide. a happy life in minnesota would have been enough for most people, but not for paul and sheila.

their compassion knew no limits. they wanted to make the world a better place for others, and they set out to do just that. paul ran for public office. he and sheila worked as a team during paul's senate campaign, as they did in all aspects of their lives. paul's opponent outspent him by a large margin, but what paul and sheila lacked in resources, they made up for in grass roots support. a tireless work ethic and a nonparalleled commitment to the people of minnesota, also quite a bit of charm. improbable as it must have been seemed at the outset, paul won and was elected to the united states senate in 1990. the wellstones went to washington, the city where they first fell in love. at the time sheila wasn't really a public figure, at least she didn't view herself as such.

in fact, sheila was a bit shy, and she avoided public speaking when she could. but sheila started spending time at women's shelters in minnesota and elsewhere, listening to painful stories about domestic violence and assault. she realized there are a lot of women across the country who needed a voice, who needed someone to speak up for them. sheila set out to become that person. here's what she said -- and i quote -- "i have chosen to focus on domestic violence because i find it appalling that a woman's home can be the most dangerous, the most violent and tph-bgt, the most -- in fact, the most deadly place for her. and if she is a mother, it is dangerous for her children. it's time that we tell the secret. it's time that we all come together to work toward ending

the violence." unquote. sheila matched her words with actions. she became a champion for survivors of domestic violence in minnesota and throughout the country. each year she hosted an event in the capitol to raise awareness about that issue. that annual event continues to this day. and like i said, sheila and paul were a team. so sheila worked very closely with paul to champion the violence against women act, a landmark federal law that affirmed our nation's commitment to women's safety. signed into law in 1994, vawa increased the number of beds in shelters that were available to women who needed refuge. it provided critical support to law enforcement officers and prosecutors so they could respond more effectively to incidents of domestic violence.

they funded support services and crisis centers for victims. and perhaps most importantly vawa sent a message: domestic violence no longer will be tolerated in america. since vawa was enacted, incidents of domestic violence have been reduced significantly. vawa has improved lives. it has saved lives. it is part of the wellstones' proud legacy. vawa is part of this institution's legacy, too. when it comes to violence against women, members of the senate always have been able to come together. vawa has been reauthorized twice. both times it had unanimous support in the senate -- unanimous support. the vawa reauthorization bill that we're considering today is in keeping with vawa's bipartisan tradition.

its 61 sponsors come from across the country and from across the aisle, and i am grateful to senators leahy and crapo for their leadership on this bill. the vawa reauthorization act renews our national commitment to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault, a heinous crime that remains all-too common in america, even while domestic violence is becoming less common. the vawa reauthorization act addresses the alarming rates of violence against women in indian country, by giving tribes jurisdiction to prosecute acts of domestic violence in their communities. and vat with a reauthorization act -- and the vawa reauthorization act cuts red tape and spending by consolidating grant programs and improving accountabilit accounty mairves. this is a good bill. i am also proud to have worked on two provisions.

i will like to thank chairman leahy foirnviting me to do so and for including those provisions in the final bill. first, the vawa reauthorization bill includes the provision from the justice for survivors of sexual assault act, one of the first bills i wrote after being sworn into the senate. survivors of sexual assault never again will suffer the indignity of pain for for reining sick medical exams. vawa provides state and local governments with funding to administer these exams which also are known as rape kits and are used to collect evidence in sexual assault cases. the problem is that under current law, grant recipients can charge the survivor for the upfront cost of administering the exam, leaving the surrifer to seek reimbursement later. too often survivors aren't

reimbursed. they get lost in the maze of paperwork aor are left high and dry when funds run out. can you imagine if we required crime victims to pay for the police to gather evidence, like fingerprints or d.n.a. from a crime scene? of course not. and we shouldn't require is sick r. victims of -- and we shouldn't require victims you have sexual assault to pay for rape kits. this is common sense. i am grateful to senator charles grassley you the judiciary committee's ranking member, for his ongoing support for this bill. he was an original cosponsor when i introduced it in 2009, and when i reintroduced it last year. survivors of sexual violence have endured enough already. they should not have to pay for rape kits. and they won't have to once this bill becomes law. the vawa reauthorization bill

also includes the housing rights for victims of domestic and sexual violence act, legislation that i introduced with senators collins and mikulski last fall. this bill will help women stay in their homes when they are most vulnerable, when they need a roof over their heads the most. the link between violence and homelessness is undeniable. by one account, nearly 40% of women who have experienced domestic violence will become homeless at some point in their lives. nearly 40%. once a woman becomes homeless, she becomes even more vulnerable to physical or sexual abuse. in my state, nearly one in three homeless women is fleeing domestic violence, and half of those women have children with them. that's not the world that sheila

wellstone envisioned. nobody should have to choose between safety and shelter. while the link between violence and homelessness is undeniable, it is not unbreakable. we need shelters and transitional housing programs for women who are fleeing danger. and the vawa reauthorization bill provides continued support for those programs. but there also are things we can do to prevent women from becoming homeless in the first place. my housing rights legislation will make it unlawful to evict from federally subsidized housing a woman just because she is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. this bill is for every woman who

has hesitated to call the plirks to enforce a protective order because she was afraid she would be evicted from her home if she did so. i am grateful to the many wonderful organizations that have worked with me on this bill. they include women's victims advocacy groups like the minnesota coalition against sexual assault and the minnesota domestic abuse project. they include tenant advocacy groups like the national low-income housing coalition. they include legal aid societies like mid-minnesota legal assistance, and they include leaders of the housing industry, too. in fact, i recently received a letter from the national association of realtors, the institute for real estate management, and other housing industry representatives expressing their support for this bill. they wrote that they -- quote --

"believe that preserving housing for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual asawcialghts and stalking is critically important." i could not agree more. that's exactly what this bill does. madam president, sheila wellstone isn't with us today. sheila and paul and their daughter marsha were tragically taken from us too soon, but sheila's example is with us. her legacy is with us, and her words are with us and i'd like to close with those. here's what sheila said. "we really have to look at the values that guide us. we have to work toward an ethic

that respects every individual, to be physically and emotionally safe. no one, regardless of age, color, gender, background, any other factor deserves to be physically or emotionally unsa unsafe. in a justic just society, we plo act together to ensure that each individual is safe from harm. in a just society, i think we have to say this over and over and over: we are not going to tolerate the violence." madam president, the vawa reauthorization bill is another step toward a more just society, as sheila described it. and i look forward to it becoming law. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president,

i rise today with the surest conviction that this body united as a group of democrats and republicans can an will rote vote to ensure the women and children of this country are tree from domestic abuse. i believe that opposing the bill before us would defy every ounce of common sense that i have in my body. i am a proud spar sponsor of the violence against women act, as most of my colleagues here in this body, because it is unfathomable that any individual could oppose efforts that women and children are free from violence. the bill would reauthorize several essential grant programs that have made a tremendous difference in my state great of west virginia and across this nation. here whaifs a heard from the we have virginia coalition against domestic violence team coordinators. the violence against women act is the most critical piece of federal legislation affecting the safety of survivors of domestic violence and their children in every county of west virginia. the law supports cost-effective responses to the crimes of

domestic violence. vawa funds innovative, successful programs that are the core of our nation's response to domestic violence. sexual assault, dating vcialtiog violence s action echoes through the hills of most remote communities. without have a washings the efforts of law enforcement, victim advocates and judicial personnel would be fragments. compartmentalized and worse counterproductive to each other. vawa saves lives. it changes communities, tr it offers safety and creates chance of hope. mr. president, we know that since it first passed in 1994, the violence against women's act had reduced domestic violence by more than 50% through the critical programs it funds. still, violence against women and children is a terrifying relate at this time in this country. let me share with you some startling statistics that

illustrate the scope of this problem. according to the west virginia foundation of rape information and services, our are state's sexual assault coalition, one in six women in west virginia will be a victim of an attempted or completed rape. according to the west virginia coalition against domestic violence, on any given day, licensed domestic violence programs in west virginia provide services to nearly 600 women and children and men. every seven minutes a call is made to domestic violence hotline in west virginia. one-third of homicides in west virginia are related to domestic violence. more than two-thirds of women murdered in west virginia are killed by a member of their femme or household. in 2010, there were 11,174 investigations into domestic violence allegations in west virginia. which required 272,450 hours of law enforcement involvement. this legislation is a fight on behalf of the women whose

stories are contained in those numbers. but whose live lives are invalue and more important than any strategy could ever hope to portray. and no one can better speak to the importance of the violence against women act that every day is improved because of the programs supported by the law. madam chairman, growing up in a small community in farmington, west virginia, violence against women and children was unfpa thonl. i could not have even thought of t the most beautiful people were my mother, grandmother, sis terks aunts, cousins. they all were the most beautiful people i ever could have hoped to grow up with. my grandmother affectionately known as grandma kay really kept the community together. she was a symbol of strength, the woman others would turn to for place to stay or a hot meal in times of trouble. and how i grew up, we celebrated and admired the women who raised us and those around us. we thanked them and we loved them and we showed them our

appreciation and respect. tses incomprehensible to me how anyone can make the decision to inflict physical pain on someone else, a woman, a child, or even a man. truly life is tough enough without involving violence. once again, madam president, for each and every member of the senate who will cast a vote on this bill, the question comes down to this: what is it that we truly value in what are our priorities? ensuring that women and children have adequate protection against violence just makes common sense. and to the people of west virginia, i know this is at the highest priority. of course, atrocities are not unique to my state. nationally domestic violence accounts for 22% of the violent crimes experienced by women and 3% of the violent crimes against men. approximately 37% of the women seeking injury-related treatment in hospital and emergency rooms are there because of injuries

inflicted by a current or a former spouse or partner. in tough economic times like those that we are experiencing now, women are more likely to become a victim of domestic violence. according to the national network to end domestic violence, domestic violence is more than three times as likely to occur when couples are experiencing high levels of financial strain as when they're experiencing low levels of financial strain. women whose male partners experience two or more periods of unemployment over a five-year study were almost three times as likely to be victims of intimate violence than were women whose partners had stable jobs. 73% of the shelters attributed the rise in abuse to financial issues, stress, and job loss were also frequently cited as causing increased victims seeking shelter. it goes on and on and all we're asking for is to make this a nonpartisan issue. come together as americans, come together as senators, not

worrying about our political differences. this is one bill that brings us all together for our common cause. it is the most decent cause and something that's needed in america. i urge the support of all of my colleagues to please support this, and let's come back together as americans. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i rise to join my colleagues in calling for passage of the violence against women act. i'm disheartened that in the past several months, petty partisanship and gamesmanship has held up policies crucial to women. since vawa was originally passed in 1994, the annual incidents of domestic violence has decreased by 53%. many victims, rather than hiding in fear, are now reporting incidents of abuse. reports of abuse have increased by 51%, and this law has transformed our criminal justice system and victim support systems.

the law has worked well because it encourages collaboration among law enforcement, health and housing professionals and community organizations to prevent and respond to intimate partner violence. in one recent instance in my state, a man was on pretrial release after being charged with stalking his wife. thanks to the funding which is training our officers and prosecutors, this individual was being electronically monitored and was caught violating the conditions of his release when he went into his estranged wife's home. the supervising officer was immediately notified of this violation, and police officers found the man with the help of g.p.s. and arrested him in his estranged wife's driveway. thank goodness this woman was protected and this incident did not add another victim to the 73 deaths caused by domestic

violence each year in north carolina. unfortunately, though, the well-being of women in north carolina and around the country hangs in balance until we in congress take action on this act. domestic violence also hurts our economy. it costs our health care system $8.3 billion each year. the reauthorization of this act streamlines crucial existing programs that protect women while recognizing the difficult fiscal decisions facing the federal government today. 13 existing programs would be consolidated to four, which will reduce administrative costs and avoid duplication. new accountability provisions will also require strict audits and enforcement mechanisms to aim to ensure that these funds are used wisely and efficiently. in fact, title 5 of this bill includes one of my bills, the violence against women health initiative. my bill provides vital training and education to help health

care providers better identify the signs of domestic violence and sexual assault. it helps medical professionals assess violence and then refers patients to the appropriate victim services. this training would have helped yolanda haywood, a woman who as a young mother of three found herself in an abusive marriage. her husband abused her regularly and one night punched her in the face and split her lip and that sent her to the emergency room. she obviously needed stitches. as she sat on the examining table, the physician who was sewing her lip back asked who did this to you? yolanda quietly said my husband. the physician responded her by telling hershey -- quote -- needs to learn how to duck -- her she -- quote -- needs to learn how to duck better. she finally left that abusive relationship. embowrd by her abusive relationship, she went to medical school and teaches

students at a prestigious university the importance of identifying and treating domestic violence and sexual assault as well as working in an e.r. at a recent visit to a woman's domestic shelter in charlotte, i met a counselor who shared this story with me. a young boy had just been at the shelter and spent his first night. the next morning, this counselor was talking to this young boy. he said i slept with both eyes shut last night. and the counselor said to the young boy, well, how do you usually sleep? he said i usually sleep with one eye open and one eye closed because the last time that i slept with both eyes closed, my mommy and i both got hurt. so this is the kind of experience that this bill will help. this will protect women and children. for all of the progress we have made combating violence against women, this must continue to be a priority. i urge each of my colleagues to support the reauthorization of

the violence against women act because it literally saves lives in north carolina and around the country while ensuring a better future for our children. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to talk about another vital program that we must reauthorize and continue before it expires. that's the national flood insurance program. right now, that is due to completely expire at the end of may, so i wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, particularly that of the majority leader, so we take this up in time, as soon as possible, put it in line absolutely as soon as possible so that this can be extended and there will be no interruption. madam president, this is an important program for the

country. it provides vital flood insurance for millions of americans. many of those properties cannot have a real estate closing on them, cannot be transferred without that important flood insurance, and it's particularly important in my home state of louisiana where the risks of flooding, coastal and otherwise, are even greater than the national average. now, madam president, unfortunately, we have been on a path the last few years of just barely hobbling along, really using a band-aid approach to extend this necessary program just a little bit at a time. this got to its worst state in 2010 when we not only extended it just a little bit at a time but we actually allowed it to lapse, to expire for several days at a time on four different occasions, a total of 53 days.

now, what happened? each of those times, the program expired, many, many real estate closings, tens of thousands of real estate closings around the country came to a screeching halt. they were canceled, they were put off. here we are in a very soft economy, trying to eke out of a real estate-led recession, and yet for no good reason, because of our inability to, frankly, get our act together and organize ourselves and extend this noncontroversial program, we had lapses in the program and thousands of real estate closings were put off. that lapse occurred, as i said, in 2010, four different times for a total of 53 days. since then, madam president, we have improved a little bit. we have extended the program for six months at a time under

legislation i have introduced, but now we need to take the next step and not just continue to hobble along but have a full reauthorization with important bipartisan reforms of this national flood insurance program. madam president, there has been a lot of work done in that regard. the u.s. house has done a complete reauthorization bill, and they reported that bill by an overwhelming vote of 406-22 last july 2. so they have acted. they have done their part going back going on a year ago, about nine months ago. here on the senate side, we have made important bipartisan progress. on the banking committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction, we have worked hard to put together a full five-year reauthorization bill with reforms on a bipartisan process. as ranking member of the

relevant subcommittee, i have put a lot of work into this with many others, including my subcommittee chairman, jon tester, and we reported that bill through the entire committee. it got a strong report out of committee and is ready for action on the senate floor. so now, madam president, we need to take that next step. we need to get it on the senate floor, pass it through here and reconcile it with the house bill. there are no major substantive obstacles. this is a true bipartisan effort. we have worked well together and through a number of issues. really, the only issue is getting time on the senate floor and moving this forward so that we can do this full-scale five-year reauthorization before the program expires this may 31. so again, madam president, i just come to urge all of us and

in particular the majority leader who sets the schedule to define that time, to put it in line for as soon as possible. we're on the violence against women act, which we support being on. i believe next we're moving to student loans. i have no problem with that. let's put this important measure in line right after that, as soon as possible, so we can take it up and accomplish this task well before the may 31 deadline. this can get done. as i said, there are few, if any, substantive hurdles to this. we can get this done. we can produce a long-term reauthorization. we can produce good reforms in that bill, as we have in the senate committee bill, as the house has. we just need to move it through the process. and i certainly commit to everyone, starting with the majority leader, that if we get

that minimal amount of time on the senate floor, we'll certainly work to have that process run as smoothly and as quickly as possible. i would work with senator tester in that regard toward that end. we will continue to work through the senate floor. finally, in support of this plea, madam president, let me ask unanimous consent to introduce in the record this letter dated february 13 of this year. this letter is to the majority and minority leader from a long list of senators, both parties, urging that we take this action, urging that we schedule this for the senate floor absolutely as soon as possible and get this job done. as i said, this letter was dated february 13. obviously, a few months have passed since then and the clock is ticking, and that clock runs out on may 31.

so again, madam president, i urge us, particularly the majority leader, to please put this necessary and important and bipartisan legislation in line for floor consideration as soon as possible. we can get this done. we can get this done by the current deadline. we can get this done for the good of the american people and on a bipartisan basis, and i urge us all to work toward that end, as jon tester and i have been doing, as the committee chair and ranking member have been doing. i certainly know the ranking member of the committee, senator shelby, strongly supports this plea. so, madam president, at this time i ask unanimous consent to submit this letter for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. again, i hope we all come together in well enough time to take care of this important business also. i bring it up now well before

the deadline because the clock is ticking. a senate bill would have to be reconciled with the house. we need to get floor time absolutely as soon as possible, and i look forward to that and i look forward to working with senator tester and others on that on the senate floor. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise, as do all of my democratic colleagues and quite a few of my republican colleagues, in support of the violence against women act. mr. president, i have remarks that i think will extend beyond the time we have left, so i would ask the clerks if they would let me know when two minutes has passed and i will try and conclude over a three-minute time frame so other of my colleagues can speak on this very, very important piece of legislation. i also ask unanimous consent for the entire text of my remarks to be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, the

violence against women act, which is known as vawa, has been in effect for 18 years, and it's saved lives and strengthened families all over our country. i speak as a coloradan, and i will have statistics that point out the concrete effect that the violence against women act has had in my state. it was a landmark piece of legislation. it changes the way we think about and respond to domestic violence. it's made literally a difference in millions of women's lives all over the country by bringing perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse to justice. it's made a difference by providing safe and secure support services to victims of crimes. it's established a national domestic violence hotline, and just so much more. it's little wonder that such a commonsense and far-reaching concept that's in legislation has found support from members of both sides of the aisle. i mentioned colorado.

let me give you some numbers. in 2010 alone, 60,000 victims of domestic violence contacted state crisis hotlines to seek help and the funding that vawa provides not only gives our law enforcement beefed-up resources and tools for catching and progress perpetrators, it supports critical services for victims and survivors. so the resources literally saved the lives of women from durango to craig and from pueblo to denver and i want to commend all the important organizations in my state that make it all possible. and the great news is that today, right now, we could make -- take an opportunity, grab an opportunity to make this an even better piece of legislation. so in concluding, mr. president, i want to say we all agree that violence against women is flat-out unacceptable and this is a necessary and carefully constructed bill that will protect the lives of women in colorado and throughout the

country. so let's come together in the senate of the united states, put aside our differences and pass what's a strong, important, bipartisan bill. the families and the communities of my state and our country are counting on us. mr. president, thank you. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i, too, rise today to discuss the incredibly important -- the incredible importance of the violence against women act. for nearly 18 years, the violence against women act has been the centerpiece of our nation's commitment to end domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual violence. congress authorized the violence against women act in 2000 and again in 2005 with overwhelming bipartisan support. i'm a long-time champion of the prevention of domestic violence because i've seen the impact of this abuse firsthand in idaho.

the act provides critical services to victims of violent crime as well as agencies and organizations who provide important aid to those victims. the violence against women act has been called by the american bar association the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in our country. this legislation provides access to legal and social services for survivors. it provides training to law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, attorneys, and advocates to address these crimes in our nation's communities. it provides intervention for those who have witnessed abuse and are more likely to be involved in this type of violence. it provides shelter and resources for victims who have nowhere else to turn, who are literally victims in their own homes. and there is significant evidence these programs are

working. in idaho the number of high school students reporting that they have experienced violence by a dating partner has dropped since the center for healthy teen relationships began its work in 2006. the u.s. department of justice reported that the number of women killed by an intimate partner decreased by 35% between 1993 and 2008. the legislation is working at our collective efforts across this country to respond to this epidemic are working. but our fight against domestic violence is far from over. last year, in my state, 22 people were killed by a domestic partner. approximately one in three adolescent girls in the united states is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner. nearly one in ten high school students nationwide were hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or

girlfriend. future tragedies of the kinds we've seen in idaho and across this country have to be prevented. and while we may not all agree on the specifics of this reauthorization, all of us agree on one very important thing, and that is that we must end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the united states. no bill is ever perfect and as we go through the process of working through this bill on the floor, we will see amendments brought seeking to perfect and improve it. i will support some of those amendments. others will support some of those amendments. and the bill will be addressed as all bills should be on the floor of the senate. but when we are done, and the debate is over, and the voting on the amendments is concluded, i urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization of this critical program.

we must continue the life-changing work that this legislation helps us to accomplish. thank you mr. chairman -- mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. as we speak, the alaska native -- excuse me, the alaska network on domestic violence and sexual assault, their 24-hour hotline that allows folks to seek assistance, their number is ringing. this evening, 363 alaskans will spend the night in an emergency domestic violence shelter or in transitional housing provided by the alaska domestic violence program. programs like the lee shore center in keni, we have the wish shelter in ketchikan, the number of alaskans seeking shelter is rising on the order of over 5% a year.

these programs and the alaskans who benefit from them are all supported by the violence against women act. as we debate and deliberate on the reauthorization of vawa, the violence against women act, we express our respect for the volunteers, for the professionals who support and who constantly advocate on behalf of these victims. these are alaskans like peggy brown and katie te phas who lead the effort in my state, across the state. others like them throughout alaskan communities. it's important that as we, again, reauthorize the violence against women act that we do so as a tangible display of our support for their very important work. let me share some statistics with you as others have shared from their respective states. in alaska, somewhere between 25% and 40% of all domestic violence assaults are witnessed

by children. on a national scale, more than 90% of abusers are people that children know, love, and trust. i come to the floor today to express my support for the leahy bill, for s. 1925. i have proudly cosponsored this effort and came on very early in the effort. it is the product of literally thousands of hours of work by domestic violence advocates, dedicated senate staff members. i do believe that it represents a real improvement in the services that are offered to victims, even in a difficult budget environment. i want to give a few illustrations here. back in 2010, there were more than 800 alaskans who sought pro bono legal assistance from the alaska legal services corporation and the alaska network on domestic violence and sexual assault. a little over 500 of these victims could be served. another 300 had to be turned

away due 0 the lack of -- to the lack of resources. turning people away who are victims because we don't have the resources to provide for the help. this bill establishes a new pro bono legal program within vawa to ensure that victims of domestic violence have access to lawyers. back in 2011, 12% of alaska high school students reported that they were hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or their girlfriend and 9% reported they had been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want it. this bill focuses resources on the protection of our young people and rightfully so. because 70% of all reported sexual crimes in the united states involve children. this legislation devotes needed resources to protect our children and it also devotes increasing resources to protect our elders, who are

increasingly victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. again, a side that most people don't want to acknowledge or talk about but our statistics cannot be denied. in addition, s. 1925 sends a message to offenders they will be held accountable. in the remote native villages of alaska where the victims of domestic violence literally have no place to hide, reauthorization of vawa will mean that there will be more funds to hire village public safety officers or vpso's who are first responders in the last frontier. i -- i'd like to express my appreciation to the judiciary committee for including a provision that i had requested concerning the alaska rural justice and law enforcement commission. the rural justice commission is a joint federal-state, and tribal planning body. it was created by late senator ted stevens back in 2004 to coordinate the public safety

efforts in our remote rural villages. it is in danger of shutting its doors at this point in time and the legislation before us establishes a framework for the rural justice commission to continue. it's very important work. now, last weekend there was a great deal of concern that arose particularly amongst alaska -- alaska tribes that the version of s. 1925 that came out of the judiciary committee diminished the ability of the alaska tribes to issue domestic violence protection orders that would enjoy full faith and credit from the state of alaska. the concern that we had here was the result of an inadvertent technical drafting error that expanded certain tribal powers within indian country but it appeared to repeal other existing tribal powers that are currently held by alaska tribes.

our state has very little indian country. we do not have reservations with a small exception of one reservation down in southeastern alaska. so for the past couple days i have been working along with senator begich to address this issue. and have worked on a technical correction to address the concern in a way that ensures that alaska tribes lose none of the jurisdiction or the authority that they tremendously prel have to issue and to enforce their domestic violence protection orders. it was just this morning that i received a copy of a letter from ed thomas, who is president of the central council of tribes of the state and he has come out and clearly endorsing the adam. i would note that senator leahy has included these technical corrections in the substitute amendment that he intends to bring forward, and by certainly urge that it be adopted. now, as my colleague from idaho

just mentioned, there is a divergence of views within this chamber on what the reauthorization of vawa should say, it's important to i think point out that we are in agreement on the vast majority. well over 80% of the provisions in s. 1925, the disagreement is in -- in a few smaller areas. there are senators who -- whose ideas were not incorporated in the leahy bill, and wish to be heard and i think it is appropriate that they are heard. but, again, i would concur with my colleague from the -- the senator from idaho in stating that when violence against women act was first initiated back in 1994, it was a bipartisan effort, it was a collaborative effort. this effort this year with the reauthorization should be no less. i have every confidence that this body will once again act in

a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize this very critical piece of legislation. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from -- the senator from missouri, sorry. mrs. mccaskill: 35 years ago i was a very young assistant prosecutor. there weren't any other women that were assistant prosecutors in kansas city and i got assigned a lot of cases that the men in the office used to jokingly call women's work. which meant that i got a lot of cases on welfare fraud and food stamp fraud and then as i spent more time in the office, i got sexual assaults and i got domestic violence. and i remember like it was yesterday the feeling of helplessness as i sat across the desk from a woman who had been beaten to within an inch of her life, and i remember calling the police department and asking

for help and them saying, you know, hon, let it go. tell her to go home. i remember her asking me what do i do about my children? i have no money. i don't really want to prosecute him, i don't think he'll leave me alone. i remember not being able to sleep at night because i was so worried about the women that had really no place to go. no one to guide them through the terrifying journey that the criminal justice system can be, much less the terrifying journey that their life was. that was 35 years ago. when i ran for prosecutor in 1992, i ran and said i'm going to start a domestic violence unit. because i've since then spent time working on the laws in jefferson city and also on the board of a domestic violence shelter, one of the first in

kansas city, and then i became prosecutor and we started a domestic violence unit and the police department still pushed back and said these aren't real crimes and if the victim doesn't want to testify we have no evidence to go forward and i said to them wait a minute, we go forward on homicides and the victim can't testify. we should build these cases around the facts and circumstances, regardless of the mental state of the victim and i remember feeling so helpls that we had no resources. and then i remember as the jackson county prosecutor in kansas city when the violence against women act passed and i remember all of a sudden thinking, you know, we're going to turn the corner on this. and is it still a huge problem? yes. but there is -- if you were there 35 years ago on the front lines and you knew the progress

we made today, you wouldn't be voting "no" in the judiciary committee on the reauthorization of the violence against women act. you wouldn't be doing that. so let's move forward. let's make sure that the victim advocates that arrived on the scene as a result of this important piece of legislation, let's make sure they stay on the job. let's make sure there aren't any young prosecutors today that are going home sleepless, much less victims, that look at someone who claims they love them, claims they're their protector, but at the same time knowing that person is capable of taking their life. let's make sure that those women have someplace to turn to, their children have someplace to turn to. let's reauthorize this act today and make sure that all the women out there have that help and assistance they need at their time of need. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it really is a shame that it's taken us so long to get to this point, but i'm glad to see that we're very close to having this body move forward on this legislation. the violence against women act has helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and families, and twos certainly a -- it was certainly a no brainer to make sure that all women had access to that assistance. you know, i was so proud to have been here serving in the senate in 1994 when we first passed vawa. and along with its bipartisan support, it has received praise now from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victims, service providers, faith leaders, health care professions, advocates, survivors. it obtained that broad support because it worked. since it became law 18 years ago domestic violence decreased by

53%. we made a lot of progress since that and i'm glad we're continuing on that path today on behalf of all women. debra is here with us, the vice chairman of a tribe in my home state of washington. yesterday she joined senators boxer, klobuchar and me to tell her emotional story about the devastating effects violence can have on women, especially native women. she was repeatedly abused starting at a very young age by a nontribal man who lived on her reservation. and not until after the abuse stopped around the fourth grade did debra realize she wasn't the only child suffering at the hands of that assailant. at least a dozen other young girls had fallen victim to that man, a man who was never arrested for those crimes, never brought to justice, and still walks free today. all because he committed those heinous acts on a reservation. and as someone who is not a member of a tribe, it is an unfortunate reality that he's

unlikely to ever be held liable for his crimes. the debate about this is important and her experience and the experiences of so many, including in the native american community, are why we have held strong to make sure we have the strongest bill possible. mr. president, i see the leaders on the floor, and i ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement in the record. but i particularly want to thank the courageous words of this wonderful tribal woman to help explain to all of us why the bill that we have put before the senate is so critical today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask now unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn. and a leahy substitute amendment which is at the desk be made pending and the only amendments in order to the leahy substitute or the underlying bill be the following. klobuchar 2094, cornyn 2086, hutchison 2095. there be 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for consideration of the amendments and the bill. that there be no amendment in order to any of the amendments, that there be no motions or points of order in order to the amendment. i'm sorry. that there be no motions or

points of order in order to the amendments or the bill other than the budget points of order or the applicable phoefgss to waive, that the amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative vote threshold, that upon disposition of the three amendments, the leahy substitute amendment as amended if amended be agreed to and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amended and all after the first vote be ten minutes, and there be two votes -- two minutes equally divided in the usual form. would the chair bear with me just a second? mr. president, please go ahead. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i will just briefly say i know everyone's anxious to get to work on this. we've had some pretty good work in recent days. the postal bill was extremely difficult to get that done. we had the highway bill that was

difficult to get that done. those were totally bipartisan in nature. it took awhile to get before the matter that is before us but we're there. i think it's an effort on everyone's behalf. on my side, i'm grateful to the work done by senator patty murray and senator leahy and many others. i'm glad that we're at the point where we are today. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i just would add i agree entirely with the way the senate operated on both these bills, on the postal bill which was challenging to get through, and the violence against women act, for which there is broad, probably close to unanimous agreement. the last time it was through the senate it passed on a voice vote. we're proceeding to handle that in a way entirely consistent with the senate's past procedures, with some amendments but with limited debate time on each of them. we will be able to finish this bill today. and i commend senator hutchison

and others on our side who have been deeply involved in this. senator cornyn, in bringing us to the place we are now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the substitute. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2093. mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you. mr. president, i note that my colleague from new jersey was also standing. i have about five minutes of remarks. did the senator from new jersey wish also to speak? mr. lautenberg: i plan to, but i defer if you're in a rush. mr. kyl: mr. president, i appreciate that very much. and perhaps would ask consent that the senator from new jersey follow my remarks. mr. leahy: without objection, i will not object, and i know we will be getting back on to this matter, and i will be seeking time. but i'm certainly not going to object to my two friends taking

time now. mr. kyl: thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you very much. again, i appreciate my colleague. i support reauthorization of the violence against women act. throughout my career i've worked on a number of crime victims rights measures that taken together provide the mosaic of protections for all crime victims. as a member of the house of representatives, i cosponsored the sexual assault prevention act incorporated into the omnibus crime control act signed by president clinton in 1994. among a number of reforms, this law increased penalties for stalking and sexual assault, and it changed the federal rules of evidence to allow admission of prior sexual offenses in sexual assault cases. in 1997 i successfully petitioned the skwra*z supreme court to adopt this change to arizona's rules of evidence. in 2004 i coauthored the crime victims act. this included the bill of rights for federal victims crimes, including the right to be

informed, present and heard at critical stages of the proceedings. that bill was signed into law by president bush. i also supported the 2005 reauthorization of the violence against women act which included a section that senator cornyn and i wrote to expand the federal d.n.a. collection program. and today i'm pleased to support the hutchison-grassley bill reauthorizing the violence against women act. i regret that there are competing versions of reauthorization, especially since i believe that virtually all of us support the current law. i cannot, however, vote for the leahy version for a number of reasons. first, a new section, 904, i believe is blatantly unconstitutional. this new section would give indian tribes criminal jurisdiction to arrest, prosecute and imprison nonindians for certain domestic violence offenses. adding this language to the existing law violates basic principles of equal protection and due process. all tribes require either indian ancestry or a specific quantum of indian blood in order to be a

tribal member. even a person who lived his entire life on the reservation cannot be a tribal member if he does not have indian blood. such a person, no matter how long he's lived in the area, cannot vote in tribal elections, would have no say in crafting any laws that could be applied against him by section 904. section 904 also breaks with 200 years of american legal tradition that tribes cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over nonindians. it creates a violation of the constitution equal and due process guarantees. i take issue with the new section 905 of the leahy bill which would allow indian tribes to issue exclusion orders barring nonindians from the lands within the tribes indian country. indian country is a term of art in federal law, meant to include lands allotted and sold to nonindians or allotted to indians who later sold the land to nonindians but are within the boundaries of the historic

indian reservation. many families have lived on such lands for generations. other such residents include people with indian blood but who have been expelled from membership in the tribe. section 905 would allow tribes to issue orders that bar these individuals from entering their own land, land which they own in fee simple absolute. the primary rationale for these proposed additions to vawa was to provide protection for tribal members. the hutchison-grassley alternative does that by replacing the unconstitutional provisions of the leahy bill with an authorization for tribes to seek protection orders to prevent domestic violence issued directly by a federal court. upon a showing that the target of the order has assaulted an indian spouse or tkpweufrld or child -- gifford or child in the -- girlfriend or child in the custody or care of the person. violations of the order will be subject to criminal prosecution in federal court.

while punishing an offender for any underlying crime is important, preventing crime or harm in this case is critical. and it's often easier to prosecute violations of the terms of a protective order. for example, parties who are not in romantic relationship with the defendant typically will be available to testify that the defendant entered areas from which he is excluded under the order. protection orders thus tend to provide an effective means for preventing acts of domestic violence. and because orders would be ordered by a federal court, we can be certain that such orders would comply with basic principles of due process and will be enforced. mr. president, the hutchison-grassley reauthorization of the violence against women act contains other improvements on the leahy version, and i urge its adoption. mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoenewthesenator from new jers.

mr. lautenberg: mr. president, on this floor, we talk a lot about the critical importance of family. and as i speak about my family, ten children -- i'm sorry, ten grandchildren and four children, the foundation and the inspiration for everything i do -- but for some americans, the family is instead a source of fear. domestic violence wrecks chaff vo---- wreaks havoc on our homed communities. every year 12 million women and men in our country are victims of rape and physical violence and stalking. the fums are shocking. they represent a national tragedy, but these aren't just numbers; they're lives. in 2010, 38 of new jersey's domestic violence incidents

ended in death. i have visited women's shelters in new jersey, i've seen fear in the faces of women holding their children. it takes a lot of courage for a woman to and it up and leave her abuser. as a society, we've got to be able to tell these women that you will have a safe place to go, you will have resources to help you, and you'll see justice for your abuser. today we're debating legislation to reauthorize the violence against women act for -- for which almost 1 years has provided women with support programs and the need they need to escape abusive situations. make no mistake, vawa is working for women. since interpassage, occurrences of domestic violence have --

since its passage, occurrences of domestic violence have decreased by more than 50%. but despite this progress, these horrible acts continue to abuse the victims. in fact, our progress should inspire us to work harder. domestic violence programs in our communities are on the front line and they're starved for resources. more than one-third of new jersey's domestic violence programs report not having enough funding to provide needed services. and approximately one-quarter report not having enough beds available for women and children trying to escape violent situations. since 2006, more than 40 programs in new jersey alone have received almost $30 million in funding through the violence against women act. let me be clear, it would be tragic to turn our back on

victims -- our backs on victims and the people who dedicate their lives to supporting them. while we can't stop all malicious acts, we can do nor keep women and their families safe. in 1996, i wrote the domestic violence gun ban, forbids anyone convicted of domestic volumes from getting a gun. since the law's inception, we have kept guns from falling into violent hands on over 200,000 occasions. for instance, in our gun laws, we're allowing domestic abusers to sidestep this ban on getting a gun. the loophole allows a convicted abuser to walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun, no questions asked. that's because background checks are not required for private sellers at gun shows.

since 1999, i've introduced legislation that closed the gun show loophole and keeps guns from falling into their own hand. and it passed in the senate with the vote of the vice president to break the tie. 13 years later, this gap in our law remains in place, and people can go into the gun show and walk up to an unlicensed dealer, put the money down and walk out with a gun. it is an outrage. so we ought to commit ourselves, if we want to protect domestic abused, to closing the gun show loophole. saving the lives of women should be above politics. the violence against women reauthorization act passed the senate unanimously in 2000 and

2005, and it's incomprehensible that we would turn our backs on those who are so abused. i ask those who would vote against passing this bill, think about your own families, think about your spouse, think about your daughters, think about your children, and every republican in the committee voted against reauthorizinauthorizing vawa in. every one of them voted against the bill to protect women primarily. and walk away, and today there's a different approach that they've taken. they present an amendment -- it is a sham. it actually removes the word "women" from a key part of the bill. it also fails to protect some of our most vulnerable victims. apparently some of our

colleagues would vote against protecting women if it means that they is also to protect immigrants and people in the gay and lesbian community. i call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, join us -- join us and our families. we know that you care. show it. show it in this vote that we're about to take. send a clear message that this country does not tolerate brutality against anyone, and show it with a little bit of courage. stand up and say, "no, i want to protect my fathers i want to protect those -- i want to protect my family, i want to protect those who are abused routinely in our society." that's the plea. and i just hope that each one of them will look at their -- a picture of their kids, of their families and say, "i owe you that protection. witwe work hard here with the

premise that we are protecting people. show it. with that, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i want to -- i appreciate the work the leadership has done, and i know that senator murray has been very involved with that, too, and i appreciate her help in getting us to a point where we now have unanimous consent and we can get to votes and we can finally pass this bill. you know, so many -- i think sometimes a -- you know, so many sometimes think a bill like this is an abstract matter. it is not an abstract matter to the women's organizations that support it.

it is not an abstract matter to the law enforcement who support it. and, mr. president, if i might speak personally for aempt mo, a moment, i it is not an abstract moment to me. the distinguished presiding officer and me come from probably the safest, lowest crime state in the country, but we both know that crimes do happen. we also know that in a rural state, be oftentimes domestic violence is not reported. we don't talk about this outside the family. and i know in some of those instances when i had the privilege of sesqui as a prosecutor in -- when i had the privilege of serving as a prosecutor in vermont, they didn't talk about it when i first heard about it -- usually

in the morgue, flepper hospital. i learned about it because when the body was picked up, either the undertaker or the plac polir the ambulance driver realized this was not a natural cause. and then we would sort of roll the clock back. rolling the clock back. we found all these warning signals were there. there was nowhere for the victim to go. there weren't the things we now have. they weren't there then. now they are. i was able to prosecute a number of these people. in fact, i probably brought some of the first domestic violence prosecutions we had.

but, ub know, the police will -- but, you know, the police will tell you, prosecutors will tell you, those are always after the fact. how do we stop this from happening in the first place? that's what the leahy-crapo violence against women reauthorization act is about. it is there to stop the crime before the crime happens. this bill is based on months of work with survivors and advocates and law enforcement officers from all across the country, all political persuasions, because i never knew a time when somebody would come to a crime scene and say, is this victim a democrat or a republican, gay or straight, or immigrant or not. it is a victim. how do we catch the person that did this? we listened to what these survivors, advocates, and law

enforcement officers told us. they told us which things worked, which things did not work, and which things could be improved. and then we carefully drafted the legislation to fit these needs. and that is why our bill is supported by more than 1,000 federal, state, and local organizations, service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, many, many more. and, mr. president, there's one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that senator crapo and i introduced and others cosponsor: it is to help protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. our legislation represents the voice of millions of survivors and advocates across the country. the same cannot be said b about the republican proposal brought forward in the last couple of days. that is why that proposal is opposed by so many, such a wide

spectrum of people and organizations, and i ask unanimous consent to include in the record letters of opposition from some of them. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: the national task force to end sexual and dosm stick violence against women representing dozens of organizations across the country say about it, "the substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals e engaged in ts work every daism the substitute includes damaging, nonworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs and create unnecessary inefficiency. i know is may be well-engs is abouted but it is no substitute for the work we've done in a bipartisan wait, for people across the country to bring this bill that's before us. unfortunately, it undermines core principles of the violence against women act. it would result in abandoning

some of the most vulnerable vule victims and strip out provisions to protect native immigrants, native women, victims in same-sex relationships. a victim hav is a victim is a victim. we can help you if you're in this category. but, sorry -- sorry, battered women, you're on your own, because you fit in the wrong category. that's not america. that's not the america that i know and love. and the improvements and the bipartisan leahy-crapo violence against women reauthorization act are taken out in the republican proposal and it is no ^staout. it does nothing to meet the unmet needs of vick timings. it undermines the focus of protecting women. it literally calls for removing the word "women" from the largest vawa grant program.

they're still victim ewessed at far higher rates with a far higher impact to their lives than men. shifting this focus away from women is unnecessary and harmful. it could send a terrible message. there is no reason to turn the violence against women act inside out, eliminate the focus of the victims the bill has always been intended to protect. our bipartisan bill by contrast does not eliminate the focus against women but it increases our focus to include all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. now, mr. president, i see others on the floor. i have far more i'm going to say about this, and i'm about to yield the floor in case others wish to speak. remember, this bill is the

violence against women act. let's not go away from that. carefully put together. with the best input we can get from law enforcement. from victims' organizations, i'm going to say, mr. president, from some victims themselves. this is to protect those people. in the crime scenes i have seen, decades later, i still have nightmares about some of those, but i can guarantee you every prosecutor in this country, every police officer in this country will deal with these matters and probably have the same kind of nightmares. are we going to stop all violence against women with this act? of course not. but because we have had this

legislation for years, the numbers have come down because there is a place to go, there are people to help if people stop the violence. that's what we want to do, not to be as i was in those nights in the morgue saying to the police let's find out who did this so we can catch them, rather to stop them before it happens and to protect the people so they live. that's what we're trying to do, mr. president. that's what this bill does. i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, may i inquire how much time remains on this side of the aisle? the presiding officer: 24 minutes. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to reserve 15 minutes for my

remarks and -- out of the 24 available, and if i could get some notice from the chair when we approach that. i may not use that much. i may yield it back. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you. mr. president, the violence against women act will be reauthorized, at least here in the senate, by bipartisan consensus here today. there are some different versions that will be offered. i'm sure each side thinks that theirs is an improvement over the alternative, and i will leave to senator hutchison and senator grassley to address the improvements that they have made over the bill that came out of the judiciary committee and the alternative they have proposed, but i rise to speak on an amendment that i have offered, and i would ask unanimous consent at this time to call up amendment 208 and ask for its immediate consideration.

mr. leahy: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: reserving the right to object. i do not believe i will object. is this based on the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into by the two leaders? i mean, i ask the chair, the senator from texas, is this the amendment that is referred to number 2086. mr. cornyn: that is correct. mr. leahy: issue not object. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, for himself and others, proposes amendment numbered 2086. mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this amendment that i have offered in conjunction with senator vitter, senator mcconnell, senator michael bennet from colorado and

others is a bipartisan amendment which will make sure that more of the funds contained in the money that congress appropriates to the department of justice will be used to test backlog rape kit evidence that has not been tested. i know the jargon may be a little confusing, but basically what happens is when the law enforcement officials investigate a sexual assault, they take a rape kit to collect physical evidence and bodily fluids for d.n.a. testing, among other types of tests. it is a national scandal that we don't really know how many untested rape kits there may be. in other words, criminal investigations where this critical evidence is acquired but never goes to a laboratory to be tested to identify the

perpetrator of that sexual assault. it is estimated that there are as many as 400,000 untested rape kits across the country sitting either in laboratories that have not been tested or in police lockers, evidence lockers that have not yet been forwarded for testing at a laboratory, 400,000. i heard a statistic this morning that is chilling to me by a young woman, camille cooper, who is legislative director of an organization called protect out of knoxville, tennessee. this is an organization that commits itself to combating child sex crimes and to helping those victims get justice. she said this morning in my presence that before law enforcement identifies case, ife

are untested, they can't use that evidence to then match it up against a d.n.a. databank to get a hit to identify the perpetrator of the crime. and by the nature of the crime, these are not one-time events. these are people who for some unknown reason tend to commit

serial assaults against children and women. and so what's even more necessary, more compelling to identify them early because if you wait too long, you may either run into a statute of limitations and not be able to prosecute them for that crime, but even worse, in the interim, they are committing additional sexual assaults against other victims. so it is absolutely critical that we get these rape kits tested, this physical evidence from sexual assault cases as soon as we can, match it up against the d.n.a. in these d.n.a. databanks that are maintained by the f.b.i. so we can identify the people who are committing these heinous crimes and get them off the streets sooner so that future victims will be protected from those assaults. it's also important that a person who is suspected of one of these heinous crimes to be

exonerated if, in fact, the physical evidence will rule them out from having committed the crime. my amendment to the underlying bill that's included in the hutchison-grassley version but in the event the hutchison-grassley version does not -- does not prevail today, i intend to offer and will offer my amendment that will redirect more of the money, the $100 million that's appropriated by congress under the debbie smith act to make sure that these -- this critical evidence is tested on a timely basis for the reasons i mentioned. my amendment requires that at least 75% of the funds given out in grant programs by the department of justice is used for the core purpose of testing those rape kits, but also that 7% of those funds be used to

inventory the backlog. to me, it's a scandal that we don't even know what the backlog consists of because there is actually two kinds of backlog cases. one is the case where -- where the kid is already at the laboratory and it is a part of the backlog of the laboratory, but the hidden backlog are the rape test kits that are maintained in police lockers and have never been forwarded to the laboratory in the first place. those are not typically part of this estimate of the backlog. and the experts, the people who watch this area closely estimate that if you count all of the untested kits, the ones that are evidence waiting for a laboratory to test to match up with a perpetrator of these crimes, that there could be as many as 400,000 of them untested by the labs in the backlog.

i know that my colleague, senator klobuchar, will be offering an alternative to my amendment, but i want to ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to have made part of the record at the end of my present remarks a letter from the rape, abuse and incest national network on those two competing amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i won't read the whole letter, mr. president, but i will read parts of it where this letter addressed to me says i'm writing to express concern with the draft vawa amendment by senator klobuchar. that's a follow-up, of course, to the violence against women act. unlike the cornyn amendment, we do not believe this draft amendment will make effective or positive improvements to the debbie smith act. indeed, they conclude later in the letter, they say overall, we believe that this amendment is largely symbolic and will not have any impact -- excuse me.

i want to read this correctly. will not have the impact in reducing the backlog that we find in the cornyn amendment. very quickly, there is no requirement in the klobuchar amendment that their audits actually have to be conducted, so to me that seems like a case of willful blindness to the size and scope of the backlogs and problems. there is no requirement in the klobuchar alternative for a registry. in other words, there is no way the department of justice can make sure that the money granted out to law enforcement is actually used for the purpose for which the grant was intended by creating a registry. and, in fact, the klobuchar amendment actually diverts some of the funds from the core purpose of the debbie smith act for the purpose of testing this critical evidence. and i would say it takes out a

provision for administrative subpoenas to track unregistered sex offenders. it cuts out some of the sentencing provisions in my amendment for people guilty of interstate child sex trafficking, children under 12 years of age, and it eliminates the sense of the senate provision that i have worked on with senator mark kirk of illinois condemning a web site known as backpage.com which has been identified in "the new york times" and other places as a source of advertising for underaged prostitution. something certainly worthy of our condemnation as a senate. so i will come back to talk about other aspects of the -- of this, but i would hope my colleagues would look at the letter from rain, the largest

antisexual violence organization in the united states that says that they believe that the klobuchar amendment is largely symbolic and does not do as much as the cornyn amendment would to get at these perpetrators and to identify them for what they are. with that, mr. president, i would reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, what is the time allotment at present? the presiding officer: the minority has 12 1/2 minutes total. mrs. hutchison: thank you. the presiding officer: and the majority has 12 minutes. a senator: mr. president. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to be here to join those of my colleagues who are urging that we come together

this afternoon and i'm pleased to we're -- pleased we're going to see votes on the violence against women act to reauthorize the legislation as it has passed through the judiciary committee. as we all know, domestic violence continues to be a serious problem across our country. in new hampshire, nearly one in four women has been sexual assaulted. at least a third of new hampshire women have been victims of a physical assault by an intimate partner. more than half of all women in my state have experienced sexual or physical assault over the course of their lifetimes. all of us share in an obligation to stop this epidemic and vawa is a proven tool in this fight. the real importance of this legislation lies not in the statistics but in hearing about those women who have been helped by the services that are

provided by the violence against women act. i've had a chance to visit several crisis centers around new hampshire in the past few weeks, and i've met with the survivors and the advocates who depend on this funding. i went to a crisis center called bridges in nashua where i spoke with a survivor of domestic violence. she told me that when you're a victim of domestic violence, you think you're worthless. and she said there are so many times that i would have gone back to my abuser except that i had the ability to call bridges crisis line at 2:00 in the morning and talk to somebody who could help me so that i knew i was supported. because of the violence against women act, the bridges program can operate and have a crisis line go 24 hours a day, seven days a week. because of the support that she got through the bridges program, this survivor is going

back to college, she's free from abuse, and she's going to have a life that is saved because of programs that are supported by the violence against women act. the law enforcement community has been very supportive of this legislation. they need this bill, too. in new hampshire, half of all murders are domestic violence related. i spoke to the chief of police in nashua, our state's second largest city. he gets just $68,000 from the violence against women act funding, but that allows him to have a dedicated unit within the police department that can respond to domestic violence and sexual assault cases. i heard from retired police chief timothy russell. he's a 37-year veteran of law enforcement and he now travels around the state teaching police officers how to respond to domestic violence cases. and it's funds from the violence

against women act that allow him to conduct the specialized training so that police officers can identify patterns of domestic abuse and prevent those situations from escalating. officers are taught to maintain good relationships with crisis centers and chief russell tells them if you see a victim in trouble, get a counselor on the phone to talk to them, tell them what their options are. again, thanks to funding from the violence against women act. he has resources to bring this training throughout new hampshire to police officers so that they can help the victims. i saw just this kind of cooperation and in action when i visited the family justice center in rochester, new hampshire, this week. they have made a multitude of services accessible in one place so victims don't have to go all over town or all over the county to get the help they 23450ed -- they need. they can see a counselor, get

childcare assistance, fill out an application for a protective order and women can even get their scrur ris treated and officially documented. they can get free legal help, all in this family justice center, made possible by a violence against women act grant. you know, if we don't support this because it's the right thing to do -- and i think it is -- we should also support this legislation because it saves money. it's a cost-effective approach because in addition to reducing crime, victims are less reliant on emergency rooms, they're less likely to need state assistance when they can connect with resources, they can get help with childcare and housing and get back on their feet and become productive citizens. this is the type of help that every citizen deserves and ultimately makes us all safer. i'm also pleased to see that there's particular language in this legislation that requires service providers to help any

victim of domestic violence regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status. i think sergeant joe rocky, who i met when i was at rochester at the family justice center, put it best when she said when someone calls for help in a domestic or sexual violence case, we don't ask if they're an immigrant or if they're gay. we just go. well, hopefully today we will respond in passing this bill with that same sense of urgency. let's make sure that we don't let victims, first responders, or our communities down. let's get everyone the help they need and deserve. let's pass this legislation today. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. hutchison: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise to speak on behalf of my substitute amendment along with senator grassley and other cosponsors, and i'd like to call up senate bill 2095. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mrs. hutchison, for herself and others proposes an amendment numbered 2095. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent we dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, the substitute is a bill that takes the good parts and the important parts of the reauthorization of the violence against women act that i think are universal. the parts that have passed unanimously through congress in recent years, starting 16 years ago. but the substitute also strengthens the bill, and i'm glad that we're going to get a chance to vote on something that will strengthen it, because there are some areas where the underlying bill is not as strong as our substitute bill, senate bill 2095, would be. especially in the area of abuse of children and child pornography and child sex trafficking. this is our most vulnerable

victim. the child who is abused. and i want to read from some of the national organizations for victims as they write about this important aspect, which is included in our bill but not covered as well in the underlying bill. the national center for missing and exploited children, with whom i work to try to get the amber alert to be relevant across state lines, where we have actually saved we believe 550 children who have been abducted and taken across state lines but because of the quick action of the amber alert system, they have been able to be safely brought back home. the national center for missing and exploited children says that the possession of child pornography is a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. therefore, we support a reasonable mandatory minimum

sentence for this offense. as we have testified, child protection measures must also include the ability to locate noncompliant registered sex offenders. the u.s. marshals service is the lead federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives and their efforts would be greatly enhanced if they had the authority to serve administrative subpoenas. now, that is key because it is covered in our substitute. it is covered in senator cornyn's amendment. it is not covered in either the underlying leahy bill nor in senator klobuchar's side-by-side. so this is a major area of strengthening that this very important victims' rights organization is supporting. shared hope is another children's advocate organization that says child pornography is one form of sex trafficking and is too often intertwined with

other forms of sexual exploitation, including prostitution and sexual performance. stiffer penalties will bring greater deterrence and justice for the victims. and then rain, which is the largest victims' rights organization for sexual assault, says thank you for including the safer act which is senator cornyn's amendment. we're grateful for your leadership in the battle to prevent sexual violence and prosecute its perpetrators. and then protect also says that the apologists for child pornography traffickers deny the pain and harm done by the possess oars of these images and go further to say that simple processers, which mean people who have this and have it on their computers and sell it, fuel the market for more and

more crime scene recordings of children being raped, tortured, and degraded. now, these are people who are for the cornyn amendment and they are for the protection that we have in the substitute. and it is so important that we strengthen this area to try to protect our most vulnerable victims. and that's one area where strengthening can make such a difference. the marshal service being able to have the administrative subpoena will allow them to track even known sexual preddors who have -- predators who have fled and you have a hard time finding them. i gave an illustration this morning, two children who were abducted by a known sexual predator but we didn't have the administrative ability to find that sexual predator, and ended up killing one of the children,

the children's mother, the children's boyfriend and another relative. i mean, madam president, in the underlying bill the mandatory sentences are days. we have a minimum mandatory one-year sentence for a crime of having pornography that shows 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped. now, i would think one-year minimum sentence for that kind of promotion of the degradation of children would be something that all of us could support. i've heard people on the floor say that our substitute does not fully cover some areas, like indian women. well, our bill assures that indian women are going to have the protections in a constitutional way so that the

bill is not thrown out. indian women on reservations are particularly vulnerable, and my colleague, senator murkowski, has told me that in alaska they don't have reservations to a great extent, but they do have a record of abuse of indian women, and we need to protect them. and we do it in a constitutional way in our substitute, and i think that protection is very important. it has been determined by several organizations, criminal justice organizations, that the underlying bill is not constitutional and would not work for indian women. it has been asserted on the floor that we don't protect same-sex sexual violence but we do. we neutralize in our bill any

reference or discrimination. in fact, i will read the language of our bill. no person in the united states shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national originallen, sex, or disability be excluded from participation in the, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this act. we cover every person who is a victim under this bill. and i have been made aware through really very sad stories of the need to protect men as well as same-sex domestic violence. men who have been gang raped are less likely to report it because of a shame that they feel, and it's a relatively -- it's a

different aspect than we have dealt with in previous violence against women bills. but it's real. and we do need to cover that, and we do in the substitute bill. absolutely fully. we cover victims of domestic violence in our bill, and that is what is important to all of us. immigrant women who are illegal have the same protections that they have had in every violence against women act that has been passed over the last 16 years. so we do not change that, and we do not change the authorization levels. so all of these things, along with our strengthening of the bill with the marshal's ability to get administrative subpoenas as well as the minimum sentences that are so very important, make our bill the right alternative.

i have said before that i feel so strongly about this issue that i intend to vote for, of course, my amendment, which i think is strengthening, most certainly for senator cornyn's amendment, which is a strengthening amendment to the underlying bill. it is included in our substitute as well. senator cornyn is another skporbgs as -- cosponsor, as is senator mcconnell of the substitute. i intend to vote for the underlying bill even with its flaws because i want to make sure that there is no cutting off of the aspects of this most important legislation because of the timeliness of our actions. and let me say, -- the presiding officer: the majority has three minutes remaining reserved for the junior senator from texas. the minority, sorry.

mrs. hutchison: madam president, is the senator -- does the senator wish to speak further? i'm happy to yield. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd be glad to yield to senator hutchison two of the three minutes remaining. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: thank you. i'll just say that i have had a long record in this area. when i was a member of the state legislature, texas passed the most far-reaching protection for victims of rape in the whole country. and, madam president, i was the lead sponsor of that bill. and when we passed it in 1975, it then became the model that other states used to strengthen the laws for help for these victims. one day just in this last year i was at the grocery store in dallas, texas, and a woman came up to my truck that i was

driving, knocked on the window. i had no idea what she was going to say, but i rolled the window down. and she said, "senator hutchison, thank you for the bill you passed in texas in 1975, because i was a victim of rape, and i wouldn't have gone forward without your protections. i did. and that man was sent to prison ." that's what we're here for, madam president. and that's why i have this strong substitute. thank you. and i thank my colleague, senator cornyn. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the other senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have letters in support of the legislation that we've talked about, the safer amendment, the alternative to the klobuchar amendment, from the national center for missing and exploited children, from child and family

ministries, raeub apbuse and incest -- rape abuse and incest family network and from protect. i would ask unanimous consent that all those letters be made a part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i want to talk about one aspect of senator hutchison's amendment included in my amendment, this is the administrative subpoena authority. this has been taken out of the klobuchar alternative. it is not in the underlying leahy bill. what happens is sex offenders are required to register. and if they don't register, they are much more likely to commit future acts of sexual assault and abuse, particularly against children. as a matter of fact, one of the biggest indicators that somebody's likely to rere -- reoffend is when they don't

register. what the hutchison bill does, my bill does is to give u.s. marshals information to subpoenas to help identify these unregistered sex offenders and protect future victims from sexual assault because if they're registered, if they're identified they are much less likely to reoffend and commit further acts of sexual abuse. i think there's -- we all want to see this legislation pass, but i will just reiterate for my colleagues' benefit, the letter we received from the rape abuse, incest national network that said that the alternative to my amendment that will be offered, that the alternative is largely symbolic and will not have the impact of reducing the backlog we find in the cornyn amendment. i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and to support certainly senator hutchison's and, which i commend her for her great work on this

subject. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, how much time is remaining a side? the presiding officer: 6 minutes and 20 seconds for the majority. mr. leahy: and how much on the other side? the presiding officer: zero. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that john tracy of my staff be given privileges of the floor for the rest of the -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, madam president, i just say that the leahy-crapo bill does not eliminate the focus of violence against women act. it protects all women. unlike the republican proposal which strips out so many aspects. i'll put my full statement in the record. our bill is inclusive. theirs is exclusive. a victim is a victim is a victim. we don't exclude anybody. as the distinguished senator from new hampshire said earlier

today, we don't ask w the victim is when there is a victim. madam president, in my remaining time i yield two minutes to the senator from new jersey and the remaining time to the senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: first of all, i want to salute the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee for the incredible work that he has done to bring us to this moment. i held a round table in new jersey with about 35 organizations who deal with the challenge of violence against women, and they unequivocally expressed their support for what we are doing here today and the importance in the lives of women that they deal with every day. and i know that my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to strip provisions that protect women from discrimination and abuse in

certain categories. and in my view, violence against any woman is still violence. the nation has been outraged about violence against women for almost two decades. we've seen the violence. we've continued to fight against it. we have tried to end it. in my mind, there is no doubt that i would find it very hard to understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence against any woman, no matter who they are, no matter what their class is. so i'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude violence against certain women, turn back the clock to a time when such violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace and make a distinction when and against whom such violence meets a threshold of outrage. in my mind, there can be no threshold, no such distinction. violence against any woman an outrage, plain and simple. the reauthorization of the

violence against women act doesn't affect those who are here. it affects all of us. nearly one in five women report being the victim of rape or attempted rape. one in six report being stalked. one in four women report having been beaten by their partner. of those who report being raped, 80% report being raped before the age of 25. the short-term physical and emotional trauma of such an event cannot be overstated, and that is why it is critical that we pass vawa as the committee has moved forward. with that, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i call up amendment number 2094. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mrs. klobuchar proposes amendment number 2094. at the appropriate place -- ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i thank senator cornyn and senator hutchison for their words and their work. i rise to discuss my amendment that would respond to the

problems that we are seeing with rape kit backlog which senator cornyn has identified while also reinforcing what we know is working well on this issue. this amendment would amend the debbie smith act, which just like the violence against women act, has a history of bipartisan support. the debbie smith act, as you know, was enacted in 2004. it was named after a courageous survivor of sexual assault. what this amendment does is to basically increase the percentage of debbie smith grant funds that are available for use in testing the backlog rape kit. we raise the current percentage of 40% up to 70%. so it is a significant change. the amendment also asks the national institute of justice to develop protocols to help law enforcement with sexual assault cases and to provide technical assistance and training to law enforcement and local governments. the amendment also allows funds to be used for auditing rape kit

backlogs which is one of the important issues that senator cornyn's amendment addresses. the difference between senator cornyn's amendment and my amendment is that mine does not mandate that a minimum percentage of funds be used for audits. senator cornyn's amendment also has provisions like subpoena authority for u.s. u.s. -- marshals for tracking fugitive sex offenders. i will be glad to work with senator cornyn and chairman leahy and others to get this done and to look for an appropriate vehicle to address this issue. but today, madam president, is about passing vawa without delay. we have worked on the judiciary committee for months with every group that wanted to have a say in the reauthorization of vawa, and we have worked closely with all on the committee. as you know, senator crapo has been the longtime republican coauthor of this bill. we have a number of republican supporters, and i want to end with the words of paul wellstone, who once served in the senate on boost state of

minnesota -- on behalf of the state of minnesota who was a fierce advocate of the violence against women act. he said: what are we waiting for? too many have spoken with their voices and with their lives, and this violence must end. let's get the violence against women act done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: madam president, we're about to vote. this is a time for both republicans and democrats to come together and say what we all know in our heart. we oppose violence against women. let's say it not just in our heart. let's say it in legislation, good legislation. madam president, have the yeas and nays been ordered? the presiding officer: they have not. mr. leahy: madam president, which is the first amendment to be considered?

the presiding officer: the question is on the klobuchar amendment number 2049. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their votes? hearing none, on this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 41. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment numbered 2086 offered by the senator from texas, mr. cornyn. the senate will be in order. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam chairman. those of you who supported the klobuchar amendment, here is your last chance to make sure that more money under the debbie smith act is appropriated and directed toward solving the 400,000 untested rape kit backlog in this country that is nothing short of a national scandal. we know that the people who commit these sexual assault crimes are serial offenders. if you don't catch them early, more people are going to get hurt, and the best way to catch them is to collect this d.n.a., match it against bank d.n.a., and to take them off the street and exonerate those who may be under suspicion but who are

innocent. so i hope my colleagues will support this amendment. it has the support of the rape, abuse and incest national network. it has administrative subpoenas to track down unregistered sex offenders who are more likely to commit crimes against children and other innocent victims. please vote for this amendment. it will strengthen the violence against women act, and you can be proud of your vote. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, we have been able to make very good progress on rape kit backlogs in the leahy-crapo bill. i wish we had passed, of course, the klobuchar amendment. the cornyn amendment is well intentioned, but it is going to undermine rather than enhance the progress we have made. his amendment would divert funding for the debbie smith rape kit backlog. let me repeat that. would divert funding from the debbie smith rape kit backlog reduction program. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. leahy: it would divert funding for the debbie smith rape kit backlog reduction program. it would force state and local enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous ideological reporting requirements. key victims' groups have opposed it, saying all the things it adds in there, the things that we have taken care of to help victims, things that this amendment adds would actually hurt them. i would strongly oppose it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 48. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment numbered 2095 offered by the senator from texas. the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mrs. hutchison: senate bill 2095 takes the parts of the bill that reauthorize the violence against women act and continues those, but it does important things

that are not in the underlying bill. number one, a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for aggravated sexual assault through the use of drugs or otherwise rendering the victim unconscious is not in the underlying bill, it is in our substitute. number two, it grants administrative subpoena power to u.s. marshals so that they can have the ability to quickly find a known sexual predator. this has been cited in the national center for missing and exploited children as a key part of the need to help get these offenders when they are going to prey on children. it is not in the underlying bill. it is in ours. it protects indian women on reservations in a constitutional way. the underlying bill has been questioned to constitutionality by the congressional research service. and it also does --. the presiding officer: the

senator's time has expired. mrs. hutchison: it does what the klobuchar bill attempted to do and gets the backlog out of people who committed rape and take them off the streets. please support this bill. i appreciate the time. thank you. mr. leahy: mr. president, can we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, the reason why so many people who support across the political spectrum support the leahy-crapo bill, the reason they oppose this amendment is it's going to remove the historic emphasis on women in vawa. the improvements we've made in the bipartisan leahy-crapo bill are gone from the republican proposal. there is only one real violence against women act reauthorization. this is not it. it undermines core principles.

it abandons some of the most vulnerable victims. it strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims, including battered immigrants, native women and victims of same-sex relationships. i would hope that my colleagues would strongly and roundly defeat this alternative. it guts the violence against women act reauthorization. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

tart starvote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 36, the nays are 63. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, amendment number 2093, the leahy substitute amendment, is agreed to, the clerk will read the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 312, s. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the

vote on senate 1925, as amended. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have a long speech that i am about to put in the record. i thank the bipartisan coalition for coming together on this. most importantly -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: most importantly, the coalition across political spectrum who are so opposed to the violence against women will thank us for passing this. i ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: have the yeas and nays been ordered? the presiding officer: they have not been. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays have been ordered. do you yield time? mr. leahy: i yield back all the time on our side and ... and time has been yielded back,

i've been advised, on the other side. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? there being none, the ayes are 68, the nays 31, and the -- s. 1925 is passed as amended. a senator: move to reconsider. a senator: i move to lay that on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar numbered 365, s. 2343, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965, to extend

the reduced interest rate for federal direct stafford loans and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 365, s. 2343, the stop the student loan interest rate hike act of 2012, signed by 18 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, reed of rhode island, whitehouse, merkley, schumer, hagan, shaheen, casey, conrad, brown of ohio, kerry, feinstein, landrieu, boxer, murray, sanders, mikulski and durbin. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived, debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2343 occur at noon on tuesday, may 8. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president. mr. president, there are a number of us who want to speak. the senator from montana, my senior, i want to cede to him here, but if i could ask unanimous consent that the senator from montana speak, the senator from massachusetts, and then i think -- the senator from louisiana. the senator from louisiana had a request for one minute, so if we could allow the senator from louisiana to go first and then the senator from montana and then senator reed would follow me. i ask unanimous consent for that order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy of the senator from montana and the senator from massachusetts just for me to put into the record the names of 13 young women that accompanied me to washington today to work with me in the senate in honor of take our daughters and sons to work.

ms foundation started this 20 years ago. it's a tradition we have held dear here in the senate. in fact, mr. president, over 100 young people came to the capitol today with their parents, grandparents, guardians to participate in work in the senate, and important work we did today. i want to particularly thank leader reid and leader mcconnell for opening up the senate floor today for over 75 children and their parents that had the special opportunity to be here on the floor, and i will put my entire statement into the record, but i want to acknowledge dominique cravens, martine cruz, amaya dawson, katia and anna fontana, anna riley, sarah sternberg, haley trahan and caroline and bailey

watts from pineville, louisiana. i thank the senators for giving me this opportunity, and i will submit a more former statement for the record. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i know the senator from massachusetts has a very tight schedule and a close timeline to catch a flight overseas. i think the appropriate thing to do would be to totally defer to the senator from massachusetts. he has got a very tight schedule here. i can wait a little longer. mr. kerry: well, mr. president, i am very, very grateful to my colleague. i was happy to wait, but i'm grateful to him. i thank the senator from montana, my friend, senator baucus. mr. president, i have been privileged to work with a lot of extraordinary staff members, as we all are here. we often say that none of us are any better than what our staff allow us to be. but it's rare that i have had

somebody on my team who predated my time in the united states senate. this is my 28th year now. mary tarr, who i would like to say a few words about, is my office manager, up until today, a veteran staffer of 31 years here in the senate. she is about to retire and look forward to going into the grandmother business over the course of these next years after three decades here. i think sometimes people miss or aren't aware of the difference that an office manager can make in a senate office, and it's hard to quantify sometimes, but without any negative inference to the senate itself in drawing this analogy, -- that is, you know, sort of a prison and inmates analogy -- a great manager is a little bit like the character red in the movie

"shawshank redemption." in that movie, red is described as somebody, the guy who can get stuff. not unlike the sergeant in catch-22. there are always these special people who know how to make things appear out of nowhere and make everything work. well, that is exactly the quality that mary tarr has brought to my office over these years. a mix of relationships, building relationships, institutional memory and a lot of guile at times, and they get things done. and so since the summer of 1997 when she came aboard in my office, mary has literally been my red in my office, and over the course of nearly 15 years, no matter what i needed, no matter what the office needed, no matter what we needed to get done, she managed to make that happen. i must say i was very lucky, mr. president, because i didn't have the ability to show her any

tricks. she taught me the tricks. the reason is that she came to me already a master of senate procedure. i was privileged to be the fifth united states senator that she worked for, for 15 years, i might add. before me, she had split her assignment down the middle, between democrats and republicans. she worked for patty murray, she worked for brock adams, she worked for republicans jim abner and charles percy. she knew this place, she has always loved this place, and she knew pretty much everybody who worked here. she did all the things that you need to do to make the trains run on time. kept the records, maintained the office accounts, prepared the budget, kept the payroll, preauditted expenses, ordered supplies, made sure we were in compliance with all the rules, requirements and procedures and followed them as they changed as we tie ourselves in various knots with various requirements we would dump on ourselves.