A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, on the Senate floor this morning Senator Durbin called on Republican Members to offer to give up what he called their Federal health care. I heard his comments, and he makes an interesting argument. But, once again, Democrats in the Senate are ignoring history, as the Senator did today. They are ignoring the facts and ignoring the Democrats' record on this issue.

The truth is, Republicans in this body have already offered to give up their health insurance coverage. In fact, here is the rest of the story:

During the debate on the health care law--almost 2 years ago today-- Republicans offered to forego their private coverage and instead enroll all Members of Congress in Medicaid, the government's safety-net program for low-income individuals. The Democrats in this body unanimously rejected this idea. Every Democrat voted no. This was on an amendment by former Senator LeMieux from Florida, an amendment that asked to enroll all Members of Congress in the Medicaid Program. Yet at least 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under the Democrats' new law are going to get coverage, and they will get their coverage through Medicaid.

So the President's solution for health care in this country is to put 50 percent of the newly covered individuals under Medicaid. Yet the Democratic Members of the Senate unanimously voted no. If Democrats believe Medicaid is good enough for the 24 million people they will soon force onto the rolls, my question is, Why isn't it good enough for the Democratic Members of Congress?

So I am joined today by my colleagues on the Senate floor who continue to raise questions about the health care law and so many broken promises made by this President. I am fortunate to be joined by a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.

I would ask my colleague from Iowa, as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spent a lot of time studying and debating President Obama's health care law, my question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's promises match the reality?

Well, I say to my colleague from Iowa, it is interesting that we take a look at this and so many promises that reflect one specific promise, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.''

I practiced orthopedic surgery for 25 years, taking care of families in Wyoming. Many of those families included family members who were on Medicare, the program for our seniors. Senator Grassley has made some reference in his earlier comments about seniors, people who are on Medicare, people who are having a harder time finding a doctor. This health care law clearly had an impact on seniors as well.

So I would ask my colleague from Iowa, are there specific things the Senator has been hearing as he travels around the State and visits with folks at home in terms of perhaps promises made specifically to seniors and those broken promises related to Medicare?

That clearly points out to the people around the country what they know, and if they are on Medicare that it is that much more challenging for them to even find a doctor because of the $500 billion of cuts to Medicare--and not to save Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to start a whole new government program for other people. So those are several of the promises the President made.

We just heard from my colleague from Iowa, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' We know that promise has been broken, and now the promises by the President--I will protect Medicare--which is clearly not the case, as the American people have seen, which is why this health care law is even more unpopular today than it was when it was passed.

But thinking back to the time it was passed, the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt, who is joining us on the floor, was very actively involved in the debate and the discussions in pointing out the concerns people in his home State had with regard to the health care law and the objections he heard. My recollection is that there was even an issue on the ballot about the health care law and mandates and related issues.

So I ask my friend and colleague from Missouri if there are comments he would like to add to help with this discussion of the broken promises of the Obama health care law.

Well, it does seem that way to me, to the point that now, 2 years out, Senator Coburn and I put together a report on what we are finding. It is a checkup on the Federal health law, and the title is ``Warning: Side Effects.'' That is because there are huge side effects from this health care law. The four that we have written out on the prescription pad, as we see it, on the prescription pad handed out by President Obama, No. 1 is fewer choices; No. 2, we have higher taxes; No. 3, more government; and No. 4 is less innovation. That is what the American people are seeing as the side effects of this health care law. People don't want few choices, they want more choices. People don't want higher taxes, they want lower taxes. They don't want more government, they want less government. They don't want less innovation, they want more innovation. That is what the American people asked for.

There was a reason to do health care reform--because people wanted the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford. I know that is what my colleague from Iowa sees when he goes home every weekend and talks to people in his home communities.

My understanding of the accountable care organization component is that the very health programs the accountable care organizations were modeled after, the ones the President held up as the models across the country--one was in Utah, one was Geisinger in Pennsylvania, and I believe the Mayo Clinic may have been a third--once those 350 pages of regulations came out, the programs the President said were the models we want to follow, they all said: We can't comply with these regulations. They are too stringent. They are too confining. They will not work in our program.

So if it is not going to work in the places where the President said they are doing it well, to me that means they are not going to work anywhere in Wyoming and very likely not anywhere in Iowa or anywhere in Missouri as we try to make sure patients get the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford.

That is why I continue to look at this health care law and go home every weekend and talk to people, and I continue to hear that this bill is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care of the patients--and bad for taxpayers.

When we take a look at Medicare--and Senator Blunt made a comment about Medicare and some of the changes--who is going to make these decisions? It looks to me as though, from reading through this law, it is about 15 unelected bureaucrats with this so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board who will decide what hospitals will get paid for providing various services. So in small communities, the hospital may say: Well, we can no longer offer that service. I have heard my colleagues talk about the specific loss of the ability of hospitals to even stay profitable with some of the cuts, from taking $500 billion away from Medicare, again, not to save and strengthen Medicare but to start a whole new government program for others.

Those are the things we are dealing with and why, at townhall meeting after townhall meeting, people continue to tell me they want this repealed and they want it replaced with patient-centered health care-- not government-centered, not insurance company-centered, but patient- centered health care. That is what people are asking for, and they get tired of all these broken promises the President has made.

I remember the President said he was going to bring down the price of premiums by $2,500 per family per year. What family wouldn't want that? The whole purpose of the health care law initially was to get the costs of health care under control. This didn't do it.

If I go to a townhall meeting, as I did not too long ago in Wyoming, and say: How many of you under the new health care law are finding that you are paying more for health insurance, not the $2,500 less a year the President promised, but how many are paying more, every hand goes up. Then we ask the question: How many of you believe the quality and the availability of your own care is going to go down as a result of this health care law, and every hand goes up. I know that in the Show Me State of Missouri, that is not what people want. They don't want to pay more and get less. I don't know if my colleague has been hearing things similar to that at home.

It is interesting--because I know the Senator goes home, as I do, very often to talk to many of the small business owners in the State of Missouri, as I do in Wyoming, and as Senator Grassley does in Iowa--one of the promises the President made is, he said 4 million small businesses may be eligible for tax credits. Well, it turns out that the key word there by the President is ``may''--may be eligible.

Even the fact that the White House has sent out postcards to all these small business--the IRS spent over $1 million of taxpayers' money to send out millions of postcards promoting the tax credit--the Treasury Department's inspector general recently testified that ``the volume of credit claims has been lower than expected''--as a matter of fact, only 7 percent of the 4 million firms the administration claimed.

Why? Well, because of the complexity and the whole way the system was set up, the President was able to talk big and deliver very small. That is why so many people are very unhappy with the claims in the health care law because they know these promises have been broken.

With regard to Nancy Pelosi's famous quote--that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in it--that is why I come to the floor every week with a doctor's second opinion because it does seem just about every week we do learn some new unintended consequence, something new about the health care law and another reason why Americans are unhappy with it, why it remains as unpopular, if not more unpopular, today as when it was passed, and why so many people believe the Supreme Court should find this bill unconstitutional, for the reasons that do have Americans at home in an uproar, and very unhappy that the government can come into their homes and mandate that they buy a government-approved product and pay for it or pay a fine. Nothing like this has happened before, and people are, frankly, offended.

We do not know what the Supreme Court is going to do, but I know what this body ought to do. This body ought to vote to repeal and replace this broken health care law and get a health care law in place which is what the American people wanted, which is, the care they need, from the doctor they want, at a price they can afford.

We have not seen that yet. But that is why we are here on the second anniversary of the President's health care law, to continue to point out the flaws of this legislation. Quite interestingly, when you take a look at some of the national poll numbers, for people who have talked to a health care provider--whether that be a nurse, a doctor, a physician's assistant, a physical therapist, a nurse practitioner, no matter who--they are even less supportive of it than the general public.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes, with Senator Merkley following me.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the capital formation bill that we received cloture on a few minutes ago.

In a place where we too often get bogged down by politics, this legislation reflects a strong, bipartisan commitment to creating jobs by ensuring that small businesses have access to critical capital that they need. This legislation has tremendous potential to create jobs and spur economic growth and innovation. The key component to achieving all of these goals is ensuring that small businesses have access to the capital they need to grow their businesses and create jobs.

This legislation is a rare instance in Congress where both Chambers in both parties come together to focus on this Nation's most urgent priority, and that is jobs. The President has already expressed his support for it. So let's get this bill done and off to him for his signature.

Over the past few years, I have held 12 small business opportunity workshops all over the State of Montana. Without a doubt, access to capital is always one of the most critical issues that I hear from small business owners. Access to capital makes all the difference for a small business. If the money is there, so is the expansion; so is the capacity to do more research and development; so is the next great idea. Without capital, though, there is no growth, no risk-taking, and there are no jobs.

Montana is a State of entrepreneurs. It is a frontier State. It has a tradition of self-reliance, which is clearly reflected in the entrepreneurs and the successful and innovative small businesses they have created and grown in this great State. They clearly reflect America's entrepreneurial spirit, which helps keep rural America strong and makes our economy the most innovative in the world.

Our small businesses in Montana vary from family farms, ranches, and one-man manufacturing shops, to innovative biotech companies and cutting-edge information analytics firms. Many of these newer firms have the opportunity to change the landscape when it comes to diversifying Montana's economy.

According to research from the Kauffman Foundation, nearly all net jobs created since 1980 have come from firms 5 years or younger. The role of startups in creating jobs and driving innovation has been well documented, but that ability to create jobs is limited if these firms do not have access to financing to scale and to grow their companies. So central to job creation is making sure investors and capital markets are accessible for startups.

Because of this potential for growth, we need to do all we can to empower these businesses with the tools they need to survive and thrive at every stage of their development. These young companies must be able to access the capital they need to bring innovative ideas and products to the marketplace.

Back in July I held the first of a series of hearings in the Banking Committee to examine the challenges and opportunities facing innovative small businesses as they try to access capital. A major take-away from the hearing was the need to ensure that capital markets remain within reach of startups at various stages of their development, particularly in the stages before they may be ready to go public.

A key recommendation offered at the hearing came from Rob Bargatze of Ligocyte Pharmaceuticals in Bozeman, MT. He said we should take a closer look at updating SEC regulation A to better enable small businesses to raise capital through these public offerings. The regulation A exemption was created in the Securities Act of 1933 to provide small companies with an opportunity to raise capital without being subject to full registration with the SEC.

Ligocyte is developing a new norovirus vaccine with the potential to prevent hospitalization and save significant health care costs--and to create those jobs of the future. Working through the FDA approval process is not easy. It requires years of hard work and tens of millions of dollars. It can be tough for any company to stick it out for that long or for that much money, but for a small firm in Bozeman, MT, it can be especially difficult. Access to capital to fund their clinical trials will be the determining factor in their ability to gain FDA approval.

Back in September, Senator Toomey and I introduced the Small Company Capital Formation Act to update regulation A by increasing the total amount of capital that can be raised through these offerings to $50 million, while protecting new investors. Currently, the businesses can only raise $5 million under regulation A--a limit that has not been updated in nearly 20 years and one that many view as too low to be a valuable tool in raising capital.

The bill maintains the most attractive elements of regulation A, including the ability for issuers to test the waters before registering with the SEC. It also preserves the nonrestricted status of securities sold through a reg A offering so that these securities can be resold to investors after the initial offering.

New investor protections include a requirement that issuers file an audited financial statement with the SEC--a requirement that has been included in the legislation that I introduced as well as the House bill before us today. The bill also directs the SEC to establish additional disclosure requirements and requires issuers to electronically file offering statements with the Commission.

Additionally, the bill subjects those offering or selling securities under regulation A to negligence-based liability under section 12(a)(2), and it includes disqualification provisions to prevent bad actors from making these offerings in a way that is consistent with Dodd-Frank.

From what I have heard said about the House version of regulation A, you would presume none of these investor protections are included. Let me clarify that the bill I introduced with Senator Toomey, S. 1544, is identical to the language included in the House bill, H.R. 3606, that is before us today.

The truth is that the substitute amendment that was voted on yesterday made very minor changes to this portion of the House bill, such as changing a ``may'' to a ``shall'' and adding a study by the SEC 5 years after implementation of these changes.

We should have been able to pass this bill by a voice vote here in the Senate since this bill has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Senate, with six bipartisan cosponsors. Regardless of that, I am pleased that this balanced bill also enjoyed a 420-to-1 vote in the House--420 for, 1 against. Imagine that--all but one voting Member of the House of Representatives agree on this bill.

I would also note the SEC's recently released recommendation from its Forum on Small Business Capital Formation increasing the regulation A exemption to $50 million was one of the top recommendations at this forum.

By the way, this is an idea which has been in the SEC's Forum on Small Business Capital Formation recommendations almost every year since 1993, the year after the limit was last raised to $5 million. So the idea that this is some risky new idea is not correct. In fact, at a briefing with the SEC a few weeks ago, SEC lawyers suggested that there was absolutely nothing scary about S. 1544 and that they felt very comfortable with the existing investor protections included in that bill.

The bottom line is that I am thrilled we will finally have an opportunity to pass this legislation--hopefully very soon--and get it to the President's desk.

What does this legislation mean for Montana entrepreneurs? Let me cite a few examples.

For Brett Baker, president and CEO of Microbion Corporation in Bozeman, lifting the cap on regulation A offerings will provide him with broader opportunities to raise capital. Instead of worrying about where the next phase of financing will come from, he can focus on discovery and research, working with the Department of Defense to use compounds Microbion discovered to treat antibiotic-resistant wounds. These changes will also allow a company such as Microbion to access capital at an earlier stage without diluting its earlier investors who believed in them from the earliest days of that company. And raising capital publicly through regulation A would also give folks in Bozeman who know about the company an opportunity to share in its success, something that is not possible now unless they are an accredited investor.

More broadly, this legislation is going to provide small businesses in Montana's emerging data and biotech industries with new tools and options to access capital at different stages of development, and it will also provide necessary updates to existing regulations. For example, changes to the SEC's 500 shareholder rule would ensure companies, such as investment brokerage D.A. Davidson in Great Falls, can continue to provide their employees with stock in the company without having to go through a costly and time-consuming registration process with the SEC. This Montana-grown company dates back over 75 years and has always believed in rewarding its employees so they can have a stake in the success of the firm, which now operates in 16 States. Without these changes, a company such as D.A. Davidson would be faced with the choice of costly public registration or potentially eliminating existing employee shareholders.

For companies such as Rivertop Renewables in Missoula, this legislation will provide them with an onramp to going public if that is an option they choose to take one day. Rivertop has begun full-scale production of their groundbreaking green biochemical products used in commercial products such as dishwashing detergents and de-icer. These changes will ensure that Rivertop will have multiple strategies at their disposal so they can go public at a time that is right for them and take advantage of the public markets as they continue commercialization of their products.

For Lance Trebesch of ticketprinting.com and Ticket River, this legislation will enable him to grow his ticket printing, event management, and online ticket printing firm. Since 1997 this company has expanded its reach internationally, with over 25 employees in Bozeman and Harlowton, MT.

This bill will ensure that entrepreneurs across the State of Montana will have a whole new set of tools at their disposal so they can make smart decisions about their future to develop and expand their businesses. They will have more choices and better access to capital markets, which should also give them more leeway to create and innovate.

We have seen ecosystems of support for small businesses such as these as they spring up in virtually every county in Montana. Obviously, the success of these companies has implications for job creation and growth, but there are also tremendous opportunities for innovation.

It is not surprising that in Montana so many startups have located near universities in Missoula and Bozeman. In fact, many of these firms got their start with discoveries in the labs at Montana State and the University of Montana. With this legislation, the possibilities are endless for Montana and for entrepreneurs and innovators across Montana and this Nation.

Mr. President, I look forward to voting on this legislation and getting it to the President for his signature.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we live in a time when public trust in all of our government institutions is at an alltime low and unfortunately continues to deteriorate. Recent polls indicate public confidence in Congress is at 11 percent, which is a record-low approval rating.

Americans have been skeptical of politicians in general and Congress in particular from the beginning of this Republic. It is a healthy skepticism which reflects the freedoms that are part of our democracy and the right of people to disagree with leadership with impunity under our Constitution, with some limitations. So I take it in historical context but still cannot escape the reality that the numbers today are lower than ever.

The legislative branch is not the only branch of government the public holds in low regard. Polls also indicate that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently received its second lowest approval rating in history.

One way those of us who serve in government can increase public trust and confidence is to be more transparent about how we operate and the standards to which we are held. The recent passage of the STOCK Act in the Senate is an indication of a continuing effort to alert the public to what we do as Members of Congress which bears scrutiny.

I make a disclosure each year, which goes beyond the requirements of the law, and many others do as well. The STOCK Act will bring many Members of Congress to an even higher level of disclosure--as they should be. One way we can increase our confidence in the institutions of government is to address those aspects which add to transparency and add to trust.

I think it is time for the Supreme Court to provide more transparency and accountability in two specific areas: First, the Supreme Court should allow live television cameras to broadcast open Court sessions so the general public can see firsthand how the Court operates and arrives at critical decisions that literally change our lives. Second, the Supreme Court should formally adopt the Judicial Code of Conduct, which currently applies to all other Federal judges but for some inexplicable reason does not apply to Justices of the Supreme Court. The Court should also make public the other ethics rules it follows.

The Supreme Court decisions impact the lives of every American, but access to open sessions of the Court is incredibly limited. As a result, the Court's proceedings and the way it arrives at decisions are a mystery. Most Americans will never see the Supreme Court at work unless they are willing and able to travel to Washington, DC, and wait in line for hours or sometimes sleep outside overnight on the pavement in an effort to secure one of 250 seats in the Supreme Court courtroom.

In a democratic society that values transparency and openness, there is no valid justification for such a powerful element of our government to operate largely outside the view of American people.

I am pleased to have partnered with Senator Chuck Grassley, my Republican colleague from Iowa, on the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, S. 1945. He and I continue the work of our former colleague, Senator Specter, on this important issue. Our bill would require televising of all open sessions of the Court unless a majority of the Justices determine that doing so would violate due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court. We give to the Court the last word on any given argument or case as to whether it will be public and televised.

In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is going to consider the constitutionality of one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by Congress and signed by the President in decades--the affordable care act. During the yearlong congressional debate on health care reform, every hearing, floor debate, and vote was accessible to every American with a television set or a Webcast and a computer, at all times. The American people should have the same opportunity to watch the open session of the Supreme Court as it considers the constitutionality of health care reform legislation. On this point, there is bipartisan agreement. Despite our strong disagreements about the substance of the affordable care act, Democrats and Republicans from both Chambers have written to the Supreme Court, urging them to permit live video and audio broadcasts of the health care reform argument. The Court should allow live broadcasts of the health care reform hearing and all other open sessions of Court since each of the Court's decisions has the potential to have a transformative impact on the lives of so many Americans.

There are some who say we should not allow cameras in the Supreme Court because only bits and pieces of Court proceedings would be televised,

and they might be taken out of context. That reminds me of an editorial from a few years ago, and here is what it said:

Keeping cameras out to prevent people from getting the

wrong idea is a little like removing the paintings from an

art museum out of fear that visitors might not have the art

history background to appreciate them.

Similar arguments were made when consideration was given to televising these proceedings. Nevertheless, for two decades the legislative sessions and committee meetings in the Senate and the House have been broadcast live, and the legislative branch is better for it. The majority of States permit live video coverage in some or all of their courts. It is time the Supreme Court did the same.

Mr. President, I am sure you have found when you have gone back home there are people who watch C SPAN nonstop. I have literally had people in my hometown of Springfield come up to me in the grocery store and say: Is Senator Bernie Sanders feeling well? I saw him sitting at his desk, and he looked a little bit pale.

They follow it with such close regard for the Members and the speeches that it is a surprise to many of us who live in this institution and work in it every day.

In my view, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act is a reasonable approach that balances the public's need for information and transparency with the constitutional rights of those who appear before the court. As in past years, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act enjoys bipartisan support.

I thank Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, Schumer, Harkin, Gillibrand, Begich, and the Presiding Officer, Senator Blumenthal, for cosponsoring the bill. These Senators, as well as Senator Grassley and myself, believe public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings will produce greater accountability, transparency, and understanding.

I thank Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for scheduling my bill, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. It was reported out with a strong bipartisan vote, and it is now pending on the Senate calendar. The bill has been cleared by every Democratic Senator for a vote by the full Senate. I am still hoping we can bring it to the floor as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, now I would like to touch on a related issue. Just as Supreme Court hearings should be televised to the American people, so too should the Court's ethical standards be available for review by the public. The ethics rules for all branches of government should be clear and public. When ethics decisions arise in the Senate--for example, the Senate Ethics Committee is responsible for enforcing the rules for Senators and our employees. Everyone knows the standards and expectations for Congress because they are a matter of public record. That cannot be said for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our Supreme Court has publicly adopted some limited ethics rules but not others. The Court does not have an ethics office, nor is it subject to the judicial conference which regulates all other Federal judges outside the Supreme Court. Instead, as the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court polices itself, and it asks the American people to just trust them. Of course, I have the highest respect for the Justices' abilities and their judgment. It has been my honor to come to know some of these Justices personally over the years. But if the public is asked to trust the Justices to police themselves, we are at least entitled to know the rules by which they play.

To its credit, some of the Supreme Court's ethics rules are already pretty clear. Through an internal resolution, the Supreme Court has adopted the same financial restrictions that apply to all other Federal employees. I recently sent a letter--along with Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Franken, and Blumenthal--to John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, asking him to publicly release one of the Court's resolutions which says that the Justices will follow the same regulations on outside employment, honoraria, and income that apply to other justices. The Chief Justice agreed to our requests and publicly released this resolution for the first time since it was adopted in 1991. I applaud Chief Justice Roberts' action. I encourage him and the other Justices to continue on this path by releasing all of their ethics rules.

Nevertheless, there is more work for the Supreme Court to do to increase transparency and accountability. The Court should either adopt a court resolution agreeing to follow the judicial code of conduct--the same ethics code that applies to all other Federal judges--or adopt and publicly disclose their own ethics code. Many have called for the Supreme Court to adopt the Judicial Code of Conduct.

In response, Chief Justice Roberts has explained that the Justices use the code as one source of guidance but not the only source to decide ethics questions. Given that they already apply the code in practice, it seems a logical next step for the Court to adopt its own resolution formally affirming this practice or they can adopt a resolution making it clear which ethics rules do or do not apply.

All of the Justices deserve respect for the difficult and weighty decisions they face. But as some of the most powerful members of our government, it is not too much to ask of them to make their ethical standards open and clear. By making their ethics rules more transparent, the Justices will foster greater public trust and confidence in the Court and its decisions.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that I have a high regard for the Supreme Court and all of its Justices. I do not intend to question or impugn any Justice with my suggestions. But let's be clear; we live in an era where there is a great deal of mistrust in government institutions, starting with Congress but through all branches of government. At the same time modern technology enables us to provide the American people with more access to the workings of government which could help to reduce some of this mistrust.

I, and many of my colleagues in the Senate, have worked for many years to increase openness and transparency in Congress and the executive branch. I encourage the Supreme Court to take the same approach. Televising Supreme Court proceedings and making public the Court's ethics rules would be a good start. The American people deserve to be able to watch the Supreme Court arguments and cases that can affect their lives, and they deserve to know the ethical standards that govern the Court when it decides cases.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act of 2011, which I am introducing today with Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Bennet, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Pryor.

This bipartisan bill is an important step in protecting American consumers and businesses from injuries caused by defective products manufactured outside the United States. Those products hurt American consumers--they lead to serious injuries, and even death--and they hurt the American businesses that must deal with angry customers, product recalls, and unusable inventory.

The list of recent examples of Americans injured by defective foreign products is shocking. Sadly, the situation is no better than when we first introduced this legislation in 2009. A recent rash of cases involving children's toys is particularly chilling because children are so susceptible to the effects of defective products, and because there is no worse nightmare as a parent than seeing harm befall your child, particularly when that harm is preventable.

The following are just a few of the many examples of defective and dangerous toys and children's products that are being sold to unknowing parents:

On October 27, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a settlement with a foreign toy maker because a line of its craft kits contained beads that were, unbelievably, coated with the chemical GHB, also known as ``the date-rape drug.'' Children who swallowed the beads became comatose, developed respiratory depression, or had seizures. Over 4.2 million of these toys were sold.

A week earlier, a line of wooden peg toys made by a foreign manufacturer were recalled for having small parts that could choke toddlers.

Earlier this year, there was a recall of jewelry marketed to children 12 years old and under because it contained cadmium, which can cause cancer. The cadmium levels in these products were as high as 2,300 times the legal limit in California, where the jewelry was distributed.

Foreign toys have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. In 2007, a major toy company was forced to recall 18.6 million foreign- made toys for containing lead or dangerous magnets. The same year, another major company had to recall more than 1.6 million foreign-made toys for containing lead. In 2006, a foreign-made, lead-tainted charm bracelet claimed the life of a 4-year-old. The autopsy demonstrated that the charm was 99 percent lead, 1,650 times more than the 0.06 percent lead limit specified in enforcement guidelines for children's jewelry.

However, it is not just toys and other children's products that pose risks. In 2008, a contaminated blood thinner from a foreign manufacturer caused severe medical reactions and contributed to numerous deaths. Imported food products from seafood to honey have been contaminated with unthinkable chemicals, including veterinary drugs banned in domestic production, potentially harmful antibiotics, and unapproved food additives. Tens of millions of packages of pet food contaminated with tainted wheat gluten have been recalled. Substandard tires have failed, leading to fatalities. Defective drywall imported from China has been found to contain excessively high levels of sulfur, causing houses to smell like rotten eggs, corroding copper wiring, making expensive appliances fail, causing respiratory an other health problems, and making homes unlivable. Thousands of homes have been affected. I am very pleased that tomorrow Senator Pryor will chair an important hearing of the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, focusing on this contaminated drywall, and its awful consequences.

At a hearing that I chaired in 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts explored the legal hurdles facing consumers who are injured by defective foreign products and by businesses that find that their foreign partners refuse to honor their contracts. These hurdles allow foreign manufacturers to injure American businesses and consumers with impunity. They also put American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage since they allow foreign manufacturers to offer cheaper products that do not comply with American safety requirements.

Two major hurdles to proper accountability are the inability to serve process on the foreign manufacturer and the ability of that foreign manufacturer, even if served, to evade the jurisdiction of American courts. Legislation to address these issues is both necessary and appropriate. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act addresses both concerns.

The first problem, the inability to serve process on a manufacturer, essentially means that it is difficult for an American to give a foreign manufacturer the legally required notice that it is the subject of a lawsuit. This sounds like a simple step, and it should be. Unfortunately, however, it is very hard to serve process on foreign companies abroad. Service abroad is complicated by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, to which the United States is a signatory. Under that convention, a complaint must be translated into the foreign language, transmitted to the Central Authority in the foreign country, and then delivered according to the rules of service in the home country of the defendant. This can cause months and even years of delay, not to mention great expense for Americans.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow Americans to overcome that procedural hurdle by serving legal papers inside the United States on registered agents of foreign manufacturers. The bill requires the heads of Federal Government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration to pass regulations requiring that foreign manufacturers of products regulated by their agencies register an agent who will accept service of process. It allows regulators to exclude manufacturers who only import a minimal amount of products into the United States. It imposes a minimal burden on foreign manufacturers, since they would only have to appoint one agent to accept service of process for all State and Federal regulatory and civil actions anywhere in the United

States. The bill allows the manufacturer to choose any location for that agent with a ``substantial connection to the importation, distribution, or sale'' of their products. This clear and straightforward system will allow Americans to commence their lawsuits fairly and promptly, and ensure that foreign manufacturers have proper and fair notice of the proceedings brought against them. It will not conflict with American obligations under the Hague convention, since that convention applies to service of process on foreign manufacturers in their home countries, not in the United States.

The second hurdle, the inability to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, can end a lawsuit against a foreign manufacturer before it even begins. Think about how unfair this is. A foreign manufacturer sells its defective products in the United States, injures American consumers and businesses, and then argues that it is not subject to the courts in the state where the American was injured-- in legal parlance, that the courts do not have personal jurisdiction over it. Foreign manufacturers raise this technical legal defense to avoid liability even when serious injuries or even death have been caused by their products--their defective tires, fireworks, exercise equipment, bikes, and toys.

The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will enable injured Americans to surmount this hurdle. It will make clear to foreign manufacturers that by importing their products into the United States and by registering an agent in the United States, they are consenting to the jurisdiction of the courts in the state where their agent is located. By consenting to jurisdiction, the manufacturers will be unable to engage in unnecessary and expensive legislation about technical legal issues and allow courts to settle the merits of disputes. This approach is fair to foreign manufacturers since all American manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of at least one state. This bill therefore complies with the trade principle that we should not subject foreign manufacturers to burdens not already imposed on domestic manufacturers.

Indeed, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act is ultimately about fairness. We all know American manufacturers comply with regulations that ensure the safety of American consumers and businesses. When they fail to do so, they must answer to regulators and are held accountable through the American tort system. Unfortunately, foreign manufacturers are not being held to the same standards-- injuring American consumers and businesses, and putting American manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. We must level the playing field for all manufacturers and provide justice for American consumers and businesses. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act will allow us to make a major step in that direction. It covers major product categories including consumer goods, drugs, cosmetics, and chemicals, and it requires relevant agencies to study workable approaches to ensure that foreign food producers also are brought within the ambit of the American legal system.

Because of its benefits to consumers, this legislation has the support of several leading consumer groups, including Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Protecting Americans and holding foreign manufacturers accountable when their products harm American consumers and businesses is a bipartisan issue. Everyone agrees that we should do what we can to keep Americans safe from defective products. So too, I think, do we all agree that American companies should not be at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. The Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act builds on those fundamental agreements. I am grateful to my colleague Senator Sessions, and the bill's other cosponsors, for their hard work on this bill. I know that they all feel the impacts of harmful, defective foreign products in their home states, just as we feel it in Rhode Island.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this important legislation passed into law.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 1884. Specifically, this is the crowdfunding amendment. That might be a term that is new to many, so let me explain.

The Internet provides new opportunities for capital to reach small businesses and startup entrepreneurs, and what this crowdfunding amendment does is to say that when the crowd; that is, all of those who are surfing the Internet, goes to a funding portal on the Internet, a Web site, to support a company, to invest in a company, there is an orderly process that adequately facilitates this type of opportunity while providing fundamental investor protections. So this will be an effective instrument of capital formation because, indeed, if crowdfunding becomes a situation where inaccurate information is put forward, where there is no

accountability, where there are pump-and-dump schemes, then the reputation of crowdfunding will be deeply damaged and the opportunity for capital formation will be equally affected.

This follows on a model that is already on the Internet in some other contexts. For example, you can visit a Web site called kickstarter.com, and you as an individual can look at a host of concepts that are being put forward for social and artistic activities across this country. You can say: Yes, I want to help that artist build that sculpture or so on and so forth. They may say how much money they want to raise, and you would decide what you want to donate. That is a donation model. You also can go to Web sites such as prosper.com or kiva.com, and these are peer-to-peer lending Web sites. If you go to prosper.com, you will see a whole list of folks who are saying: Yes, I want to consolidate my credit cards, I would like to borrow X amount and I am offering an interest rate of such-and-such, and here is a little bit of background, and you can decide if you want to lend to that individual or not. That is peer-to-peer lending.

Well, what crowdfunding does is to create an equal opportunity for folks to invest in early-stage businesses, startup businesses, small businesses. Imagine, for example, you run into someone at a cafe who says: I have this new idea for a coffee shop called Starbucks. I am going to call it Starbucks. Would you like to help me launch this?

And you say: Well, another coffee shop--I don't know if the world needs another coffee shop.

Maybe you jump in and maybe you don't. Then years later, you say: Oh, I should have seized that opportunity.

Well, through a crowdfunding portal, you get to hear those stories. You get to read those stories being presented by folks from across the country about their efforts, and you can decide if you want to participate.

Now, crowdfunding is in the larger capital formation bill that comes to us from the House, but that particular formulation is deeply flawed, and I am going to walk through a series of differences between the House bill and the Senate bill for my colleagues so they can understand why we need to pass amendment 1884.

The first factor is that the House bill does not require someone listing themselves or asking for startup money to provide any financial information. Well, that is a huge mistake. If there is no information, there is nothing to guide, if you will, the wisdom of the crowd.

What we do in this Senate amendment is to create a simplified format. If you are seeking less than $100,000, then your CEO simply certifies what the financials are for the company. If you are seeking from $100,000 to $500,000, then you need to have a CPA review the financial statements. If you are seeking more than $500,000, then you need to have audited financial statements. So, as the amount of money you are asking for increases, the degree to which you need to do due diligence financially and present the details increases as well.

There is certainly nothing that would prevent a particular Web site from establishing its own standards above and beyond these particular levels.

A second thing is it is critical there be accountability for the accuracy of the information. The House bill not only doesn't even require information, but they put out information and there is no accountability. Basically, it is an invitation to spin any story one likes.

What the Senate bill says is, in order for this capital market to work well one has to stand behind the accuracy of their information. It has basic liability accountability; that is, as a director or officer of this organization, they are standing behind the accuracy of what they put out. It has a due diligence protection so this is very balanced. It has a requirement that the information be relevant or germane to the conduct of the company. So that is another protection for the business itself. So it is balanced between the two. But this can give investors a basic belief that what is being set up are reasonable amounts of information proportional to the request and that the officers and directors are standing behind this information. That creates the foundation for an effective marketplace.

A third distinction between the House bill and our amendment No. 1884 is the House bill does not require companies to go through an intermediary. In other words, under the House bill, if someone wants to promote their company, they can simply put out an e-mail. An e-mail can say anything they want because they are not responsible for the accuracy, and they can send it to everyone in the world. They can proceed to put up popup ads that simply promote their company--again, with no accuracy required. But by creating an Internet intermediary and that intermediary has to register, we create a streamlined formulation so they have a funding portal registration much simpler than a broker dealer. But in doing so, they agree they are not going to take any position on the various investment opportunities they are listing. So you truly are the marketplace. They are not saying, by the way, that particular offering by that company is a sweet deal. They can't pump it; they can't favor it. So you are a neutral marketplace, again, enabling the investor to know they are getting straightforward information, not something that is spun.

Another distinction is the House bill has no aggregate caps. The result of that is that a person could lose their entire life savings in one fell swoop. The Senate bill puts on very reasonable proportional caps that say if one's income is $40,000 or less, their cap is $2,000; if they are between $40,000 and $100,000, their cap is 5 percent of their annual income; if they are over $100,000, it is 10 percent. So it allows for larger amounts of money from those who have much higher incomes but provides basic aggregate cap protections so we don't end up with folks who are on public services because they were swindled out of everything they had.

Another key distinction is that under the House bill one can list their offering and close their offering within a single day, which provides absolutely no feedback loop for any type of detected deception. Under the Senate bill, we create a 3-week period from one's listing to their closing. So one lists their idea. If enough people sign up to reach one's funding request level--say one has requested to raise $600,000. If enough people sign up and they are investing $100,000 here, $1,000 there that one reaches their goal, as soon as the 21-day period expires, then they close. So that does give time for some sort of feedback loops regarding any sort of fraudulent activity.

Another distinction is that the House bill allows a company to pay promoters and not disclose it. That is called pumping. If one has ever seen the movie ``Boiler Room,'' one can see a basic classic pump-and- dump scheme, where a roomful of folks on the phone are calling people, cold-calling them, and they are saying: Hey, I am calling because I am giving you this incredible investment opportunity and here is the story. They can say anything they want and they can talk people into buying that stock and then the stock is actually being purchased from the folks who own the boiler room. Then, as soon as they sell all the stock they have, they quit making phone calls, the value of the stock drops, and everybody who invested loses out. That is a classic boiler room. That is a classic pump and dump. The House bill allows paid promotion with no disclosure.

The Senate bill says if they are going to get on the blog's site within a Web site portal and say favorable things about a stock and if they are paid by the company to do it, they have to disclose that. They simply say: Hey, I am employed by such and such, but I want to bring to your attention some merits of this. But at least the public knows where they are coming from.

Another essential issue is the issue of dilution. Dilution is not a solution in this world; it is a problem. Those are folks who get in on the front end and think: I got in on this idea early. I am going to benefit from having made this effort, and find out later a bigger investor came in and the stock was diluted in a fashion in which they are basically written out of their share of the ownership. So the Senate bill directs the SEC to provide investor protections in this area.

These are key distinctions. These are the distinctions between a solid foundation for capital formation in this incredibly exciting new opportunity, new

market, and simply a path to predatory schemes that the House is providing. That is why I am encouraging my colleagues to support the amendment Senator Bennet, who will be speaking next, and I have put together and a number of our colleagues have joined us, including Senator Landrieu and Senator Scott Brown. This is a credible foundation for an exciting idea.

Let me close with this notion; that is, that across America, Americans have $17 trillion invested in their retirement accounts. If they were to put 1 percent of those funds into this type of crowdfunding startup, they would be providing $170 billion of investment potential for small companies and startup companies. That is an incredibly powerful potential form of capital to put America forward. It is small businesses that create most of the jobs, and this capital formation idea will help in that. Let's get it done.

I certainly deeply appreciate the contributions of my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, who will make his points.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say I am enormously touched and gratified by the warm words my colleagues have spoken on both sides of the aisle. I am particularly moved by the fact of the men of Maryland who are here today. I am moved by the wonderful words of Senator Cardin, my colleague. I am moved as well that Governor O'Malley is here today.

When I came to the Senate, Senator Paul Sarbanes was my senior colleague, and he is here today as well. Governor O'Malley and Senator Sarbanes are on the bench, but these men are certainly not back- benchers. I must say about the Governor and Senator Sarbanes and Senator Cardin, they prove the old adage that men of quality will always support good women who seek equality. I have enjoyed their support, their wise counsel, and their collegial efforts on behalf of the people of Maryland during my years in Maryland politics.

It is a great honor to be here today passing this significant benchmark of becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress, both in the House where I served for 10 years, and in the Senate. It is a great honor for me to be able to pass into the history books along with such an esteemed person as Senator Margaret Chase Smith. We spoke about that in January 2011 when I was sworn in. There were tributes that day and wonderful words from our two women Senators from Maine. Today--actually over the weekend--I surpassed the record of Edith Norse Rogers who was the longest serving woman in the House. Both of those women came from New England. They were both hardy, resilient, and fiercely independent. I, as I have read their histories, so admired them. They were known for devotion to constituent service, an unabashed sense of patriotism, and kind of telling it like it is. I hope that as I join them in the history books, I can only continue with the same spirit of devotion to duty and that fierce independence and patriotism.

I didn't start out wanting to be a historic figure. To, ``What do you want to be when you grow up?'' you don't say, ``I want to be a historic figure.'' When I was growing up, it was about service. For me, it is not how long I serve, it is not about history. For me, history books were Jane Adams and Abigail Adams and powdered wigs. I just welcome a day when I have time to even powder my nose, let alone powder my wig. But the fact is, when I grew up, I wanted to be of service. I learned that in my home, in my family, in my community, and with the wonderful nuns who taught me.

Today my colleagues have spoken about my wonderful mother and father. I had a terrific mother and father. I am so happy my two sisters and my fantastic brothers-in-law are joining me today. I only wish my mother and father could be here with me because they worked so hard to see that my sisters and I had an education at significant sacrifice to them. But they were really wonderful people where others saw them in a life of business. Every day my father would open his grocery store and say, ``Good morning, can I help you?'' When he did, he wanted to assure that his customers got a fair deal.

My father opened his grocery store during the New Deal because he believed in Roosevelt and because, as my father said, ``Barb, I know Roosevelt believed in me.''

I also had the benefit of the wonderful Catholic nuns who educated me. I had the benefit of going to a school called the Institute of Notre Dame and then Mount St. Agnes College, the Sisters of Notre Dame and the Sisters of Mercy. These women, who concentrated their lives on the message of Christianity and the message of Jesus Christ, wanted to make sure that women in America could learn and be a part of our society. They didn't only teach us our three Rs, they taught us about leadership and service. But they also taught us about other values--the values of love your neighbor, care for the sick, worry about the poor, and be hungry and thirsty for justice.

When I was at the Institute of Notre Dame, a school that Nancy Pelosi went to as well, there was something called the Christopher movement after St. Christopher. The motto was, ``It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.'' That is what I wanted to do. I wanted to be a social worker. I even thought about being a doctor. One time I even thought about being a Catholic nun, but that vow of obedience kind of slowed me down a little bit.

In this country wonderful things happen. When my great-grandmother came to this country, she had little money in her pocket but a big dream in her heart: that she could be part of the

American dream, that she could own a home in her own name, in her own right; that she could have a job and so could the people in her own family; and that based on merit and hard work you could be something. Well, in three generations, I have become a Senator. Only in America the story of my family could have occurred--modest beginnings, hard work, effort, neighbor helping neighbor.

Much has been said about my fight for the highway. I was thinking about getting a doctorate, a doctorate in public health at Johns Hopkins. But they were going to run that highway through the neighborhoods, the older ethnic neighborhoods, the African-American neighborhoods. We were viewed in some of those neighborhoods as the other side of the tracks. I wanted to fight to keep those neighborhoods on track. So I took on city hall, and I did fight them.

In this country, what happened? In another country, they would have taken a protester like me and put me in jail. Instead, in the United States of America, they sent me to the city council. I worked hard there, and 5 years later, when Senator Paul Sarbanes, who was a Congressman, ran for the Senate, I ran for his House seat, and I got the job.

When I arrived in the House in 1976, only 19 women were serving: 14 Democrats and 5 Republicans; only 5 women of color. In 2012, there are 74 women in the House: 50 Democrats, 24 Republicans; 26 women of color. In the Senate, there are now 17 women serving: 12 Democrats, 5 Republicans. Today, we saw visiting us Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a woman of color who served well while she was here.

Those are the numbers and those are the statistics. And though I join this long number of firsts, for me it is not how long I have served but how well I have served. When I came to Congress, I became a Member for the fabulous Third Congressional District of Maryland. My job was to represent a blue-collar community that was in economic transition. What did we do? We were a community that built things here so we could ship them over there. We built cars. We built ships. We made steel. We knew if a country did not make something and build something, it could not make something of itself.

I fought for those blue-collar people. I fought to keep those jobs in manufacturing. We fought for the Port of Baltimore, its dredging, so we could bring in the big ships so we could have exports. We worked again for those people in those manufacturing areas while we saw jobs go overseas. Then we worked very hard for cities to make sure our cities were safe, that we had great schools, and that they had a chance of making it.

I fought hard for health care. One of my greatest pieces of legislation was the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act, so that if one spouse went into a nursing home, the other spouse would not have to spend down their life's savings and lose their home. AARP tells me my legislation of so many years ago, that stands today, has kept 1 million people--1 million people--from losing their home or their family farm.

Those were the battles then. Those were the battles when I changed my address and I came to the Senate. Although I changed my address, the battles are still the same: jobs, social justice, opportunity, based on hard work, peace in the world, and I continue to fight for this.

But for me, it is not only about issues. Issues are so abstract. Issues can be so bloodless when we talk about it. For me, issues are about people--the people I represent in my own hometown, the people I represent in my State, and the people who live in the United States of America.

My favorite thing is being out there talking to the people, going into diners, going table to table, listening to their stories, holding roundtables with parents whose children have special needs, meeting with scientists who have discoveries they think will lead to new ideas and new products that will bring new jobs, meeting with universities that train our workforce. For me, it is about the people.

So as I pass this important benchmark, which I am so honored to do, I want people to know I am still that young girl who watched her father open that grocery store every day and say: ``Good morning. Can I help you?'' I am still that young girl who went to the Institute of Notre Dame and Mount St. Agnes College who said: I am going to light one little candle. I do not want to curse the darkness. I want to continue to fight for a stronger economy, a safer America, the people of Maryland.

In conclusion, I want to say thanks. I am going to thank the Dear Lord for giving me the chance to be born in the greatest country in the world, to be able to work hard and serve in one of the greatest institutions in the United States of America. But nobody gets to be a ``me'' without a whole lot of ``thee.''

I thank my family. I thank the religious women who educated me. I thank all of my staff who have worked so hard to help me do a good job. And I thank the countless volunteers who believed in me and worked for my election when nobody else did. Most of all, I thank the people of the Third Congressional District and the State of Maryland for saying: Barb, we are going to give you your shot. Don't ever forget this. Don't ever forget us. I want them to know, though I have now served in the Senate 12,892 days, I will never forget them. Every morning I am saying in my heart: Good morning. Can I help you?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. President, I enjoyed the preceding presentation by the Senators dealing with issues surrounding health care. I think it is a very relevant discussion we need to all pay attention to.

Amendment No. 1884

I want to talk on two issues today. I will start first with the crowdfunding amendment that has been offered by Senators Bennet, Merkley, and me--something we have been working on in a truly bipartisan manner, as it should be done here, and as I do many of my actions.

For those of you who may be listening either up in the gallery or on television, crowdfunding is an opportunity for individuals to invest money upwards of $1,000, upwards of $1 million total--so $1,000 per person, totaling $1 million--not dealing with a lot of the traditional SEC filings that are in place and a lot of the other problems in which only very wealthy people in years past have been able to participate in these types of offerings.

For example, right now, if I had a good idea, and I wanted some of my friends to invest in it, and then we go and start marketing, we could not do that. That is illegal. One of the President's objectives in his jobs speech was to talk about these new opportunities, and crowdfunding is one of them. He

supports it. The House has done a similar crowdfunding bill. We are actually taking this crowdfunding opportunity and putting a little bit more safeguard in it.

I think our bill is different--well, I know our bill is different than the House bill in that the House bill does not require that you actually are a legal business or even some kind of incorporated legal forum before you try to issue stock. That bothers me somewhat in that you could have somebody in their living room taking people's money and issuing stock with no check and balance, and I think that is important.

It also does not require that you offer securities through an intermediary. You could put up your own Twitter site: Buy shares is my great idea. Come on and buy shares.

All the experts agree that we would need to require an intermediary, say, like an eBay, where the crowd can help identify the good and bad players, the way that eBay uses identified bad sellers on their site.

But also, as I said, it allows investments to take place that cannot be done right now, and allows those entities, those groups, to take that money and either use it as the investment seed money to create those new ideas and new jobs--as we know, startup businesses are the entities that are actually looking to create jobs at this point--and/or use that money as seed money to go to a more traditional lender and say: Hey, we have a great idea and we also have some money to back it up, and we would ask you to sign on with us.

I am hopeful the amendment comes up. I understand it is. I am looking forward to having that very important vote. I would appreciate, obviously, the Presiding Officer and everyone else giving strong consideration to that.

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act

Mr. President, I wish to shift gears for a minute and talk about the Violence Against Women Act. As we know--you may not know--Jessica Pripstein of Easthampton, Lisa Stilkey of Douglas, Belinda Torres of Worcester, Kristin Broderick of Haverill, Patricia Frois of Marshfield, Edinalva Viera of Brighton, Milka Rivera of Lawrence, Nazish Noorani of East Boston, Casey Taylor of Winthrop, Alessa Castellon of Roslindale, Lauren Astley of Wayland, Michael Trusty of Edgartown, Janice Santos of Worcester, Beth Spartichino of Easton, Son Tran of Lowell, Jettie Lincoln of Plymouth, David Walton of Tauton, Elaine McCall of Wakefield, Jennifer Freudenthal of Webster, Brian Bergeron of Malden, Lancelot Reid of Dorchester, Joel Echols of Springfield, Maria Avelina Palaguachi-Cela of Brockton, Troy Burston of Medford, Joseph Scott of Worcester, and Aderito Cardoso of Brockton--are constituents of mine who have been killed by their husbands, wives, partners, girlfriends, or boyfriends in domestic violence incidents in 2011 and 2012 alone, and it is only March of this year.

It is unacceptable. The loss of those lives is tragic. But in addition to the people who have lost their lives, the lives of the victims' children, families, and friends have been destroyed. I know because I was a victim of domestic violence. As a child, I watched as my mother was beaten by abusive stepfathers. I did what I could to protect my mom and my sister, but as a young boy there was only so much I could do.

I remember vividly being a 6-year-old boy going to protect my mom and getting beaten on until the police came. It is something that still lives with me, and I try to use that experience and knowledge to help in many different ways.

When I was growing up, quite frankly, there were not the resources that are available to victims today. I wish my mother had known back then that she was not alone. I wish she could have used one of the fantastic support providers that now exist in Massachusetts today. Since being elected to the Senate, I have been moved by the organizations in my State that are stepping to the plate--and continuously step to the plate each and every day--to provide support to victims of domestic violence.

Quite frankly, as a government, we have made tremendous progress in helping victims get their lives back in order--not only the victims themselves but the family members of those victims.

The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law in 1994, as you know, and made a bold statement that we would redouble our efforts to support law enforcement efforts to crack down on offenders and assist those working in our communities to provide assistance to victims seeking a new life away from the violence they had been subjected to.

In each reauthorization we have improved upon the previous bill and made it stronger and made stronger commitments to those who have been abused. Now is not the time--let me repeat: now is not the time--to take our foot off the gas and avoid dealing with this problem.

The landmark Violence Against Women Act must be reauthorized this year. I am incredibly proud to have cosponsored this reauthorization when it first came to my attention. I believe it makes critical commitments against this horrific problem.

Historically, VAWA has been a bipartisan effort, where both parties locked arms in support of our enforcement and victims against perpetrators of domestic violence. It was a glimmer of hope for an otherwise contentious and overly partisan atmosphere. I have to tell you--this is not the first time I have said this--but there is no Democratic bill that is going to pass, there is no Republican bill that is going to pass, for those listening. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the President will sign.

I have been deeply troubled to see that this year's reauthorization has become, once again, partisan. There is no reason for it. There is no excuse for it. We just did the Hire a Hero veterans bill, we did the 3-percent withholding, we are doing the insider trading, we did the highway bill. There is no reason we cannot do the VAWA bill on a completely nonpartisan basis.

I am on the floor today to call on my colleagues to band together and pass this reauthorization and send a very strong signal to Americans that the Senate--yes, the Senate--stands united in recognizing victims from across the country, to give them the help they need and, obviously, deserve.

In Massachusetts, VAWA is supported by law enforcement and many service providers that are on the front lines in assisting domestic violence victims. I know. Previously, as an attorney, I dealt with family law matters. I know of the yeoman's work these entities do.

On Friday, I will be visiting Voices Against Violence in Framingham, MA. They receive VAWA funding to support direct services to victims and survivors of sexual assault and ensure that a trained rape crisis counselor is available after hours and on weekends.

The YMCA in central Massachusetts in Worcester uses those funds for a proactive program that has service providers working very closely with law enforcement to provide information to domestic violence victims and advocate on their behalf--at a time when, quite frankly, these folks need advocates.

Because of VAWA, REACH Beyond Abuse in Waltham has supported many cutting-edge prevention efforts with teens and the placement of advocates in police departments as a symbiotic, a give-and-take relationship in those departments.

The Jeanne Geiger Crisis Center in Newburyport, where my dad lives, used VAWA funds to establish a high-risk homicide prevention project and was recently recognized by the White House for their work.

I could go on and on and on about the tremendous involvement and great organizations not only in my State but throughout this country that are making a difference in the lives of victims. We need to stand as a body and not get into party rhetoric, and declare to women across America that they are not alone in this fight. We need to do everything in our power to help the millions of women like my mom who were once in this situation and are now survivors. And we need to help them become survivors, not victims. So I call upon my colleagues to join me in sending a very strong bipartisan vote and get this done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes. I am sorry. I did not see the Senator.

Mr. President, I couldn't be more pleased as well as privileged to join all of my colleagues today in congratulating a very good friend and colleague, the dean of the women of the Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski, on overtaking Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers as longest serving woman in the history of the Congress.

As someone who has had the privilege of knowing Senator Mikulski since 1978 when I was first elected to the House of Representatives, for me, this milestone represents a watershed moment in the life of American politics.

For nearly 35 years, I have witnessed Barbara Mikulski summon and harness a seemingly limitless reservoir of energy as a fierce advocate and a champion on behalf of the people of Maryland as well as the country. With equal parts vigor and vigilance, she has demonstrated a devotion to her constituents that has been unerring in its promise and ironclad in its purpose.

It is precisely that caliber of service that the people of Maryland have rewarded time and time again.

As I stated on this very floor at the outset of this Congress when she surpassed the length of service of Maine's legendary Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Senator Mikulski is synonymous with ``the special bond of trust which should exist between the governing and the governed.'' She has ``recognized injustice and acted boldly to quell it . . . giving a voice to the voiceless . . . power to the powerless.''

What Senator Margaret Chase Smith and Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers exemplified as standard bearers in the last century for length of service, Senator Mikulski embodies in this century--that the commitment to advancing the common good is bound neither by geographic region nor political affiliation but, rather, by an undaunted desire to serve others.

A consummate role model and admired mentor, Senator Mikulski always stands as a shining example that the robust pursuit of policy and the willingness to hear and consider dissenting views are not mutually exclusive. As I have often said, Senator Mikulski knows only one speed, and that is full speed ahead. But by the same token, she only knows one way to govern--through what she aptly referred to as the zone of civility. That approach, so integral to making this institution work, is indisputably one of the hallmark measures of Senator Mikulski's longstanding success in public life. Indeed, it is the blueprint for interaction that she has imbued in all of us who are women serving in the Senate. She has worked to establish a tone of respect that infuses our conversations, our collegiality, our collaboration. It is a personal cause to Senator Mikulski that is exemplified by the monthly dinners for women Senators that she initiated along with the Senator from Texas Mrs. Hutchison, a tradition that has become a catalyst for camaraderie and central to what Senator Mikulski calls our ``unbreakable bond.''

There has been no greater friend for women who have come to serve in the Senate, and I am sure it is a result of Senator Mikulski having arrived here as the second woman to serve in the Senate, along with the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, as she said at the time--and that is why she was so willing to serve as a mentor for other women who arrived in the Senate, because she was only one of two women who were serving in this institution. As she said, the Senate had a long tradition of every man for himself. She was determined, she said, that it would not be every woman for herself while she was in the Senate.

As my colleagues also well know, when it comes to having an ally in the legislative foxhole, there is none more feisty, none more formidable, and certainly none better than Senator Barbara Mikulski. I have witnessed her tenacity firsthand, having worked with her side by side over the decades, whether on matters of equity for women in the workplace, ensuring gender-integrated training in the military, working on cybersecurity, working on every other issue where we are bringing justice to those who have borne the brunt of injustice.

Nowhere has her leadership been more unmistakable, of course, or more monumental than in the area of women's health. I well recall, when I arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979, I joined what was then known as the Congresswomen's Caucus on Women's Issues, which is where I ultimately became the cochair for a better part of the decade. Senator Barbara Mikulski, at that time being in the House of Representatives, served in that caucus as well.

When I arrived in the House of Representatives in 1979, there were only 16 women serving in that institution. That is why the congresswomen's caucus was formed, to focus on those issues that mattered to women and to family and to children. We recognized that it was our obligation and responsibility to work, to focus on those issues because otherwise they would languish on the back burner rather than being on the front burner. We also understood that if we did not focus on these issues, if we did not advance these issues, no one else would. So we began to tackle systematically many of the discriminatory laws or inequities that were embedded in Federal law that failed to recognize the dual role women were playing, both at home as well as in the workplace.

We began to work on these issues one by one because there were so many issues across-the-board that were affecting women, where they were ultimately bearing the burden and the consequences of these inequitable laws. We did that with respect to pensions, for example, where women discovered that after their husbands died, their pensions had been canceled.

We discovered it when it came to family and medical leave, which took us the better part of 7 years to enact that legislation. But, again, women were bearing the burden of taking care of their ailing parents or their children at home and paying the consequences in the workplace.

Then, of course, there was the issue we discovered of discriminatory treatment in our clinical study trials. Regrettably, at the time our National Institutes of Health were actually discriminating against women and minorities, excluding them from clinical study trials because it was too complicated to include women in these study trials because we were biologically different. As a result, any of those treatments that were developed as a result of those trials could not be applied to women. Ultimately, this could make the difference between life and death because the kinds of procedures and treatments that were derived from these clinical study trials could not be applied to women.

When we discovered that these inequities and this discriminatory treatment existed, we set to work on how to redress this wrong. It is hard to believe there was a time in America where women and minorities were systematically excluded from these trials that, as I said, had lifesaving implications. Who would have thought that women's health would have been the missing page in America's medical textbooks or merely an afterthought.

So I, as a cochair along with Congresswoman Pat Schroeder in the House, on behalf of the caucus, and, of course, then-Senator Barbara Mikulski in the Senate teamed up in a close bipartisan, bicameral collaboration to establish the groundbreaking Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health so that never again would women be overlooked when it came to key clinical study trials that were underwritten by the Federal taxpayers and Federal funds. In fact, Senator Mikulski, as I well recall, launched the key panel of stakeholders at Bethesda to give this initiative critical national attention and momentum--as only she could--as well as fundamental policy changes that ultimately resulted from that panel that reverberate to this day, resulting as well in lifesaving medical discoveries for America's women.

That is the passion and power of Senator Mikulski that has led her to this historic day. Barbara is not about legacy, she is about problem- solving. As somebody described it, her ideology is grounded in the practical, and that is so true. It is not only the practical but giving power to the people and developing practical solutions in their everyday lives.

She is a guardian of the common good, a woman who redefines the word ``trailblazer,'' a pioneer of public policy. Senator Mikulski continues to shape the landscape of our Nation for the better, with a force and a might and a stature, one of the giants of public service, not just in our time but for all time.

On the occasion of Senator Mikulski's recordbreaking service, we congratulate her, we salute her, and we are honored to be able to express a profound appreciation for her extraordinary and legendary tenure in the Senate.

I yield the floor.