Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

What is the pending business?

Mr. President, I rise in support of voting for cloture on the bill and wish to speak for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, we have just exchanged some parliamentary lingo to essentially say we are going to vote shortly to see if we can pass the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, and do it without a filibuster. I hope we can vote for cloture--not to muzzle, not to have a gag rule, but so we can move expeditiously on this bill.

Every single Member here should be proud of what we have accomplished in this FDA Safety and Innovation Act. We have accomplished three major objectives: No. 1, if the legislation is passed--and it is a conference agreement between the House and the Senate--we will be able to move pharmaceuticals, biotech products, and medical devices into clinical practice faster while maintaining our ethical standards around public safety.

No. 2, we can demonstrate we can work together and we can govern. This is the result of the Senate working on both sides of the aisle. Now, with the House, through the conference report, we show we can work between the Senate and the House.

In this time of prickly politics and political posturing when more gets said than done, we can show we cannot only pass legislation but legislation that makes a difference in people's lives. We will also show we can do it in a way that we will not only have a regulatory framework but something in which the businesses cooperated so we will have regulation without strangulation. We will have regulation that acts in the interest of public safety but does not stifle, shackle, or impede good business practices. Wow. Isn't this what we have been talking about?

I am very proud of having been a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that worked on this bill. I am also very proud of the fact that FDA is in my State. In a nutshell, we are passing something called PDUFA and other UFAs. PDUFA stands for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. There will be others that we will talk about which relate to bio user fees and medical device user fees and generics.

This bill was originally enacted in 1992, and the reason for that was at that time there was an unduly long wait for patients to have access to new medicines and new medical devices. It often took close to 3 years to even review a drug application. So Congress went to work with then-President Bill Clinton to say where the pharmacy could agree that, first of all, they would pay user fees to support FDA's drug review program. It is a true public-private partnership. When we look at the funding for FDA, the people who make pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices pay 60 percent of the FDA budget. That is $712 million. The remainder comes from Federal appropriations--40 percent, which is $473 million. So there is a partnership between those businesses that profit--and we want them to do so, without profiteering--and, at the same time, government pays its share.

Since 1992, this legislation has been an enormous success. More than 1,500 new medicines have been approved, including treatments for cancer, infectious disease, and cardiovascular disease. It has decreased review times from more than 3 years to 1 year and a few months now.

In order to make sure we had the right perspective, we not only held excellent hearings in the Senate, but I went out around my own State. I am so proud of my State. We are the home of life sciences. We have NIH there, which does incredible basic research. We actually have FDA, which reviews food safety and drug safety. At the same time, we are the home to a robust group of biotech companies. I wanted to listen to those biotech companies. When I went out, I said to them: Tell me how your government is helping you and tell me how your government is impeding you. Tell me where you want your government to get out of the way and where do you need a more muscular government. Well, we heard quite a bit from them. The first thing they told me is they need a Food and Drug Administration because when they are approved for public safety and efficacy in the United States of America, they can sell their products anywhere in the world. It often means countries--small countries, countries of modest means with limited GDP that could never afford an FDA--know that if the United States of America says it is OK for their citizens, any other country in the world knows it is OK for theirs. So it is very good to be able to export these products with confidence and reliability. This is fantastic, in their minds.

Second, they said they needed more help from FDA not only to expedite but they wanted better communication.

They also needed to be able to incentivize development for those rare diseases we often hear about, where there are small markets but big investments to achieve in it. They outlined the fact that they needed to be viewed not in an adversarial way but a collaborative way. Well, thanks to business sitting down with FDA, and business sitting down with Members of Congress, we have been able to do exactly that. We have improved efficiency, predictability, the regulatory environment, and, at the same time, insisting on safety and efficacy.

This is going to be great for patients. Millions of Americans rely on drugs and biologics and on medical devices. If we are going to improve health care and rein in the cost of health care, we have to use drugs, biotech products, and medical devices that improve lives and extend lives.

If we fail to authorize this legislation, we are going to be in big trouble. How are we going to be in big trouble? Well, first of all, we will have to give notice to FDA that there are going to be layoffs. That means we would have to send out notices in July telling 4,000 people: Look, we know you are the best and the brightest and we want you to have integrity as well as regulatory sensibility and a great deal of scientific competence, but we couldn't get our act together so you are going to be laid off.

Hello. We want these people out there, helping America be able to provide health care in a way that is safe and efficacious.

Again, as I said, if we don't act, thousands of FDA people will be laid off. It is not about government. If those people are laid off, it means the review process for every single drug that is now in the pipeline will come to a halt. So we are hurting patients, thousands of people who need new drugs; new ways of helping them, whether it is for that dread C word--cancer--or diabetes, which takes so much of our national budget to manage chronic illness.

What about the breakthroughs on this epidemic of Alzheimer's we have or autism? We need all the help we can develop. If America is going to continue to be America the exceptional, we have to do an exceptionally good job of making sure we produce some of the newest and most reliable drugs, biotech, and medical devices.

This is why I think we have good legislation. Is it perfect? No. But is it pretty close to it for what business and government and providers--the doctors themselves--say we need? Absolutely.

I urge my colleagues today, when we vote on this motion to proceed on cloture to have in mind--whether a colleague is a Democrat or a Republican--that we don't make the perfect the enemy of the good; rather, we think of all those people to whom we talk every day. We talk to them at townhall meetings and out there with diners, and they say: You know, my little boy has leukemia; my mother has breast cancer; my dear father who stood up for me is facing the ravages of Alzheimer's. We need breakthroughs. We need help, then, for our private sector, so it can go global and create jobs in this country and well-being in other countries around the world. We have to be able to do it.

I am also pleased this bill combats drug shortages, improves the safety of the drug supply chain, and makes permanent those special considerations that require that children's needs are being met with both medical devices and prescriptions, either in terms of dosage or that a device actually fits them.

I wanted to come to the floor to lay this out. I am very proud of FDA, and I am very proud of the Congress, including Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi, who pulled us together. We have the right legislative framework. Now let's act and do it in a way we can all be proud of.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to affirmatively and unabashedly vote for cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act that we wish to bring before the Senate. This is part of a very long march the women of the United States of America have been walking for a very long time.

In 1963 President Lyndon Johnson wanted to create a great society, and he envisioned three civil rights acts to right the wrongs of the past. One was equal pay--the Equal Pay Act--which would ensure that women would get equal pay for equal work. The second was the benchmark Civil Rights Act, and the third was the Voting Rights Act.

Lyndon Johnson picked the Equal Pay Act as his first action because he felt it would be one of the easier ones to pass and to implement. Little did he know that the corporate wrath that was against women in the past would come to that legislation. However, a Democratically controlled Senate moved that bill and began the long march for civil rights. But guess what happened in the ensuing 49 years. On

June 10, 1963, President Johnson signed that bill. Forty-nine years later, women still make less than men. Women in the United States of America make only 77 cents for every dollar men make doing the same job. This is unfair, and it is un-American.

Remember from where we have come. Everybody likes to say to us: Oh, you have come a long way. Well, we don't think we have come a long way. We have only gained 18 cents in 49 years. In 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar men made, and now it is 77 cents. So what does that mean? It means every 5 years we make an advancement of one penny.

Oh, no. No more. We are just not going to take it anymore.

When I talk to my constituents, they say to me that they are mad as hell and they don't want to take it anymore. They go to school, they get the job, they do the job, they want to be paid for the job, and we agree with them. We want to do it not only with words, but we want to do it with deeds, and we want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that would ensure equal pay.

Women fight every day for equal pay, and when they do, they are side- lined, red-lined, and pink-slipped. Right now in the marketplace, it is legal to fire a woman if she asks about pay, whether she goes to the personnel director or whether she asks the person next to her at the water cooler. Women are often harassed and intimidated for just asking: What do you make for the work you do? So we are ready to fight for women to get equal pay, and the best way to do it is to do it right here on the Senate floor.

People say to me: Senator Barb, you led the fight on Lilly Ledbetter. Didn't that solve all the problems?

It solved a big problem. We made a downpayment to keep the courthouse door open for women who are discriminated against, but it did not close the loopholes that were in the original Civil Rights Act. What Lilly Ledbetter did was change the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit from the date of each discriminatory paycheck. Now we need to pass paycheck fairness to close the loopholes that allow discrimination to happen in the very first place.

What does this bill do? It is actually very simple. If we listened to the rightwing pundits, we would think this is complicated and it is going to rend asunder the American economy and so on. This is fundamental fairness.

What does it do? First of all, no longer will employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Remember what I said earlier: If you ask someone how much they get paid, you can get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter and those she represents were humiliated and harassed for just asking questions. No longer will women be able to seek only back pay when they are discriminated against; they will also be able to seek punitive damages. No longer will employers be able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less: Oh, the guys do harder jobs; oh, the guys do dangerous jobs; oh, they have a better education. We are talking about equal pay for equal work that requires the same education. No longer will women be on their own because we are going to include various education and training programs.

As I said, in 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar men made. Women now make 77 cents compared to every dollar a man makes. That is not progress. The consequences of this are severe.

What does this mean? Well, let's take the college graduate, the woman who has had the benefit and privilege of an education. It starts the minute she tosses her hat in the air. When she goes for that job, say, in information technology or even in some of the innovative economic fields, she will be making less. At the rate we are going, by the time she retires there will be a $434,000 income pay gap. This is serious because it not only affects one's income as one goes through life, but it affects one's Social Security and it affects one's pension. It affects absolutely everything. The negative impact multiplies. It is like compound interest in reverse. It is compound disinterest. It is compounded unfairness. So these are real grievances. That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act will be able to do this.

When we look at the life of being a woman, we women know that being a woman often means we pay more. We certainly pay more for health insurance than men with the same coverage for the exact same age or health status. What does that mean? It means women pay estimates of thousands of dollars more in medical insurance over their lifetime. We are often on the hook for childcare, and there are a variety of things on which we could elaborate.

I believe people should be judged in the workplace for skills and competence and that once you get the job and you show you can do the job, you should be paid to do that job.

For my colleagues who argue that 20 cents per hour doesn't matter, let me share some numbers. That means $4,000 less per year for a working family, $434,000 over a lifetime. It means we get paid 23 percent less than a man doing the same work who has the same education.

The Presiding Officer is a smart guy. He knows that when women go to get a mortgage, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to buy food, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to pay our utility bills, they don't say: Oh, you are paid less, so we are going to give you a discount. No. We get charged the same, and often more, but we are paid less.

We are not going to accept being paid less. We are paying attention to this problem. We have listened to the voices of the people. This isn't just Senator Barb sounding off on her women's rights agenda. My women's rights agenda is about the economic empowerment of women, so they have a chance in this great country to be able to move ahead.

I listened to a constituent in Silver Spring with years of teaching experience, and even in public employment, she was paid less.

Then we listened to a trauma surgeon who e-mailed me from Florida-- highly educated. She filed suit because she found out that a male surgeon doing the exact same surgery was paid $25,000 more than she was.

Another woman e-mailed me from Virginia. She claimed she was told by her supervisor that hiring a woman would simply be a liability. You are going to get pregnant. You are going to miss work. We don't know if we want you here. That is a whole other issue. Then she said: We don't need to pay you that. You don't head up a household, so why should you get the same money as some guy who does head up a household?

We have faced old prejudices, but we are in a new economy and in a new world. More and more women are in the workplace, we want to be treated with respect, and we want to have equal pay for equal work.

Mr. President, I note that my colleague Senator Murray is here. I yield her 5 minutes.

Mr. President, there will be other Democratic Senators speaking during this time. I thank Senator Murray because she has been a real champion on this issue. She has been a champion on making sure women are treated with respect in the workplace and in the U.S. military. She has been a particular champion for ensuring that women in the military and women in the VA system get treated with fairness. We have a long way to go. This is 2012, and you would think at times it was 1812. But in 1812 we in Baltimore fought another revolution, and we will fight in 2012. So we thank her for her advocacy and look forward to having her vote this afternoon.

This is not only a women's issue where the women's rights groups are pounding the table. We have the support and endorsement of the American Bar Association. I have a letter which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record in which the ABA absolutely endorses this legislation.

The ABA, which we know is a prestigious, distinguished representation of the American bar, says that when we passed the ``equal

pay for equal work'' act, it was landmark. Quoting again from their letter:

But, in the 50 years since its passage, this historic

legislation has become outdated and ineffective, and wage

discrimination remains a persistent, wide-spread, and

pernicious problem.

In commenting on this bill, the ABA says:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would update key provisions of

the Equal Pay Act of 1963 without altering the basic scheme

of this historic statute or imposing excessive, novel burdens

on employers.

Remember, again, this is not Senator Mikulski, this is the ABA saying it will not impose excessive or novel burdens on employers. Indeed, most of the proposed changes are borrowed from other civil rights statutes that prove more effective in eradicating workplace discrimination. This goes to what the ABA says.

But now, Mr. President, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from New Hampshire--a Governor, a Senator, a real advocate who has had to not only be a leader in passing legislation but in implementing it. We welcome her insights and advocacy.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

Now I would like to yield the floor for 7 minutes to our colleague from California, Senator Boxer. She and I served in the House. We serve in the Senate. We have been fighting this for a long time. Mr. President, I think you will find her words welcome and insightful. Her passion and her devotion to women is legendary. I yield 7 minutes to Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, might I ask the parliamentary situation?

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on the minority side?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Has all time expired on the minority side?

Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons. The women of the Senate welcome those men who stand with us on this very important battle, and Senator Coons has been an outstanding advocate on this and other economic empowerment issues related to women, such as safety in the workplace and sexual harassment.

I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to yield time to the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Hagan.

Senator Hagan is a freshman Senator, but she is certainly not new to this issue. Both in North Carolina's legislative body and in the Senate her work has always been for the economic empowerment of women, especially those women who stand every day and do those jobs requiring standing on their feet and at the end of the day have earned less pay and will get less in their pensions. As they stand for work, she stands for them on the Senate floor.

I yield Senator Hagan 5 minutes.

I yield the Senator an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, this is time for both Republicans and Democrats to speak. We invite our Republican colleagues to come and speak. Even within the Republican Party, we know there are those who agree with us and those who do not. For those who agree, we would love to hear their voices. For those who do not, let's have a debate. Let's take a look at what are some of the issues being raised as a criticism of the bill. We are ready to talk about it.

I have heard some of the most outrageous things on cable TV about why we should not pass this bill. One was accusing us that this will undermine small business. Small business has protections under the Equal Pay Act. Under the existing law--which this would not change--the Equal Pay Act

already exempted small businesses that make less than $500,000 in annual revenue per year. It keeps the Equal Pay Act exemption intact.

We also have the support of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. This is a chamber of commerce of small business owners. They support this bill. So we do not believe that is a valid argument.

There is another argument going around that for some reason if we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, somehow or another, we are going to lower the wages men make. That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous, rhetorical, twist-and-turn arguments. It is not factual and it is not legal. It is illegal now to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees. I will quote--it is illegal under the other labor protection laws--and I don't mean labor such as in union, I mean labor such as in workers--it is illegal to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees.

The Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't alter any other affirmative defense available to employers. Employers may still pay different wages to male or female employees if it is based on seniority or quality of production. If someone is a guy on an assembly line and he makes more hubcaps than women, fine. But we find that is no longer true in the information age economy.

Equal pay, I wish to say again, is not only a women's issue, it is a family issue. Sometimes we find we are discriminated against by great guys at the water cooler who tell us where it is. What people need to know is that right now it is legal to fire someone if they make an inquiry about how much they are making and how much their male counterpart is making. It is illegal or they can be subject to all kinds of harassment and humiliation.

You ought to hear some of the horror stories we hear from women just because they wanted to know: George, how much are you making?

We thank the good men who supported us. They have often been business whistleblowers, where they told us what they are making. They know we are working just as hard. We worked as hard to get the education to do the job, we worked that hard on the job, but we continue to have to work hard to get equal pay for equal work.

I wish to make it clear once again, this legislation will not result in a lower paycheck for men.

There is also a bona fide question, which is: Why are we doing paycheck fairness? Didn't we solve these issues in Lilly Ledbetter? Paycheck fairness was a downpayment on this because it kept the courthouse door open. Paycheck fairness makes it harder to discriminate in the first place. Right now, as I said, employers have the ability to retaliate against workers who share salary information. Ledbetter did not address this issue. Paycheck fairness does. Women can now, under Paycheck Fairness, sue for punitive damages. Lilly Ledbetter did not address this. This would deal with that.

There are a variety of things I can elaborate on, but I see one of the real champions for justice, civil rights, and the empowerment-- especially the economic empowerment--of women, my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. I yield Senator Stabenow 7 minutes and thank her for her longstanding advocacy and work. She has raised her voice for those who often do not have a voice in high places of power.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois and thank him for his persistent advocacy on this issue. Senator Durbin was one of the people in public leadership who said we have to really address this as we approach the 49th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. We thank the Senator for his work, and we thank him for his voice today.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, who chairs the Small Business Committee and really knows the impact of the economic issues related to the empowerment of women. She has worked on a bipartisan basis on this issue. Hopefully, she will comment on how this bill will have no negative impact on small businesses.

I yield to Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, first of all, we thank her for her statement. I wonder if she would yield for a question.

The Senator chairs the Committee on Small Business and has been steadfast and has worked with the ranking member, Senator Olympia Snowe. Much has been said on cable TV about how this is going to smash and decimate small businesses. Is that true? I come from a small business family. My father owned a small grocery store. But cashiers are cashiers, male or female.

I thank the Senator for her comments and clarification.

I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, a newcomer, but certainly he is one whose experience in Connecticut as an attorney general, who has actually had to litigate some of these cases, brings excellent insight to this issue, and we welcome his remarks.

Mr. President, I now yield the floor to Senator Harkin, the chairman of the HELP Committee, which is where this bill originated. We thank him again for all his hard work on this issue and others related to any wage discrimination and standing up for women. I yield the chairman of the committee such time as he requires.

Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. Leader, I noted that on the last vote, you voted no. Was that so the bill could be reconsidered?

I would like to respond to the majority leader. We want to fight too. We thank him for his vote and his voice. I want him to know that although we lost the vote today, we are not going to give up on this vote. It is a very sad day here in the Senate, but it is a sadder day every day when paycheck day comes and women continue to make less than men.

We are sorry that this vote occurred strictly on party lines. Under the leader's effort to reconsider, we hope to bring up this bill again. We hope to forge a bipartisan vote. We are coming up on the 49th anniversary of equal pay for equal work. We are not going to let this bill die in parliamentary entanglements. The majority should rule in the Senate.

I want to say this, in the words of Abigail Adams. While John Adams and all the guys were sitting around Philadelphia writing the Constitution, she wrote him a letter and said, ``Don't forget the ladies.'' And they did it for 150 years, and then they forget, too, to get rid of the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act now. Well, Abigail said: If you forget us, we will foment our revolution, and we are going to foment our revolution.

So I say to the women here, to the good men who support us, to the women out there in America, let's keep this fight going. Put on your lipstick, square your shoulders, suit up, and let's fight for this new American revolution where women are paid equal pay for equal work. Let's end wage discrimination in this century once and for all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Veterans Employment and Government Contractors.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating Poverty: Understanding New Challenges for Families.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment No. 2107. I appreciate the intent of Senator McCain to make lower cost drugs available to the American people, but I have many flashing lights about this amendment. I bring this from knowledge of being both on the Intelligence Committee and also in working with the FBI as the chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.

This amendment allows individuals to import FDA approved drugs from Canada. It sounds great, but we don't know if the drug was made in Canada. No HHS Secretary has been able to demonstrate that importation will be safe. It is ironic that some faux populists who oppose a public option, who oppose allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, support importing price controls from Canada. This amendment doesn't guarantee cost savings for consumers, Medicare, Medicaid, or insurers.

I oppose this amendment for four reasons. First, it is a budget buster. Enforcing this will take enormous amounts of resources, and the amendment doesn't give the FDA the human resources, the financial resources, or the technological resources to ensure the safety of these drugs for U.S. consumers. It doesn't give FDA the resources to inspect and certify the brick-and-mortar and Internet-based Canadian pharmacies, nor does it give FDA the resources to verify that these pharmacies comply with Canada's laws. We all know that FDA needs more money to carry out its existing responsibilities overseas and domestically. The agency doesn't need another unfunded mandate.

The second reason I oppose this amendment is because I am concerned about organized crime and counterfeiting. We have a history of phony drugs coming from rogue Web sites. We cannot be sure that the drugs coming from Canada are not a counterfeit, lethal drug. There is no guarantee that these drugs originate from the legitimate supply chain. Where there is compelling, compassionate human need, there is greed. Where there is greed, there are scams and schemes. In this case, the scams and schemes can be lethal.

The third reason I oppose this amendment is that it doesn't exempt biologics. Biologics are different from chemical drugs. There is no way to ensure that the supply chain remains intact and that the product that reaches your doorstep will be effective. Because biologics tend to be more expensive than chemical drugs, criminals will make more money by counterfeiting them.

The final reason I oppose this amendment is because it doesn't guarantee that the drug you buy will be bioequivalent to the FDA- approved drug. How will consumers be assured that the drug they buy online is metabolized the same way? Also, what guarantee is there that the packaging and labeling will be identical?

We have examples of awful things that have happened. Interpol and the United States have seized millions of counterfeit pills. These drugs were made in unsanitary conditions and were deadly and ineffective. Remember the contaminated Heparin from China that killed over 150 people. Then there was cough syrup made from antifreeze instead of glycerin. Seventy-eight people died. There are also the ineffective drugs that may not kill you but certainly won't improve your health. I could list more, but I urge my colleagues to go talk to the FDA, FBI, and Customs and Border Protection and hear firsthand what they have experienced.

Counterfeiting is a real threat. It is a matter of life and death. We have to make affordable drugs in our own country, and we did so by closing the doughnut hole in health reform. Today we are doing so again. The FDA user fee reauthorization before us creates the first ever generic drug user fee program. It will speed generic drug entry into the U.S. market so that consumers get safe FDA approved drugs more quickly and cheaply.

If you want safety, then defeat the McCain amendment.

Madam President, I applaud the effort underway between the FDA and industry to develop a transitional pathway for the regulation of emerging diagnostic tests. In addition, I am pleased that the FDA expressed its commitment to work with industry on this important initiative in the MDUFA III commitment letter.

Many new diagnostic tests serve as the missing link to improved health care through better detection, treatment, and monitoring of disease. Thus, it is critical for public health that FDA's premarket review system for diagnostics be modernized in a manner that supports advances in the sciences and promotes patient access.

I look forward to developments with respect to the agency's plans to develop a transitional in vitro diagnostics pathway and steps taken related to its implementation.

I also wish to talk about two massively important laws that work to ensure that medications used in children are tested and labeled correctly--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, known as BPCA, and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, known as PREA.

Taken together, these two laws encourage and require drug companies to study their products in children. They have been hugely successful in ensuring that physicians and parents have information needed to best treat our Nation's children.

Most drugs on the market have never been tested in children, largely because manufacturers face economic, mechanical, ethical, and legal obstacles that work to discourage pediatric testing.

With respect to economic obstacles, the pediatric drug marketplace is generally small, with little economic incentive for manufacturers to commit resources to testing in children when they could just test in the much larger adult population.

With respect to mechanical obstacles, young children often cannot swallow pills. This presents a challenge for drug manufacturers, who often then have to develop alternate formulations, such as liquids or chewable tablets. Finally, even for adults, ethical and legal requirements for participation in a clinical trial are incredibly complex and challenging. Trying to recruit children for trials is even more difficult. Parents don't want their kids used in experiments, and drug companies face added liability concerns.

We understand these challenges, but doctors still must treat children--many with serious and life-threatening conditions. And, too often, doctors are forced to prescribe drugs that have never been studied in kids. So in 2002 and 2003 Congress passed laws that serve as a carrot and stick to generate more pediatric drug information. We passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which requires safety and efficacy studies in children for all new drugs. For drugs that were on the market before PREA was enacted, the law allows FDA to go back and mandate child studies where appropriate.

We also passed the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which rewards drug companies with 6 months additional exclusivity if they complete additional pediatric testing requested by FDA.

As a result of BPCA and PREA, over 425 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information. Before BPCA and PREA, more than 80 percent of drugs used in kids were used off-label without data on safety and efficacy. Today, that number has been reduced to approximately 50 percent. New pediatric studies conducted as result of BPCA and PREA have resulted in new dosing information, new indications of use, new safety information, and new data on effectiveness in children.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act removes the 5-year sunsets for BPCA and PREA, giving biopharmaceutical companies a more predictable regulatory path and providing certainty that these programs will still be up and running when companies complete their pediatric trials.

This bill also makes important pediatric information publicly available. The last reauthorization of BPCA and PREA ensured that certain pediatric studies were made publicly available but did not ensure the availability of pre-2007 studies. This bill ensures that pediatric studies conducted between 2002 and 2007, which resulted in a labeling change, are made publicly available for physicians, researchers, and parents.

Finally, this bill gives FDA new tools to ensure that studies required by PREA are completed on time, unless there is an appropriate reason for delay.

Children are not small adults. They have different medical needs. The only way to improve the health of current and future generations of children is to

better understand how drugs work in pediatric populations. We need to help doctors by getting them more information so that treatment of pediatric diseases is less of a guessing game and more of an informed practice. I believe these two pediatric programs have been incredibly successful, and I am very encouraged by the improvements we make in the bill before us today.

Finally Madam President, I wish to talk about the safety of our Nation's prescription drug supply. Today, there are many challenges and obstacles facing our families--from trying to find or keep a job, to figuring out how to pay off crushing student loans, to obtaining affordable health insurance. One thing that our families shouldn't have to worry about is whether the drug they are taking or whether the drug their loved one is taking to cure or treat an illness is going to harm them instead of help them.

When the modern FDA was first established in 1938, most of our medical products were developed and manufactured within our own borders. That is no longer the case. Nearly 40 percent of drugs Americans rely upon are made outside our borders. About 80 percent of the active ingredients used in drugs made in the United States come from 150 other countries. The increased globalization of our drug industry, coupled with the fact that we have not given our Federal agencies additional authorities to keep pace, has created great challenges for FDA and industry and great danger to patients in need.

Where there is need, there is greed. Where there is greed, there is scam and schemes. In this case, we know that increased globalization and insufficient authorities to regulate at a Federal level has created a dangerous opportunity for bad actors to take advantage. And they have taken advantage--from adulteration, to counterfeiting, to cargo theft, to manufacturing drugs in unsanitary conditions, to mislabeled products. We have seen it all in recent years and the consequences have been deadly.

In recent years, a highly toxic solvent, known as DEG, added to fever medicine, cough syrup, and teething products resulted in the deaths of children and adults in Panama, Haiti, and Nigeria.

In 2007, pet food adulterated with melamine and acid sickened several thousand pets in the United States. Melamine and acid was added to infant formula in China, poisoning and killing six babies and sickening 300,000 others.

In 2008, contaminated Heparin from China killed and sickened hundreds across the United States.

In 2003, more than $20 million in illegally imported and counterfeit Lipitor was sold throughout the United States.

In 2009, an estimated 46 drug cargo thefts occurred, valued at $184 million.

Many stolen drugs are then improperly stored or handled before being sold back to consumers, putting patients at risk. For instance, stolen insulin was reintroduced into the drug supply and caused adverse events in patients because it had not been refrigerated. I could go on and on with examples of how counterfeit, adulterated, and stolen drugs have sickened and killed people and animals worldwide.

But, I am encouraged by the bill before us today. The FDA Safety and Innovation Act takes a number of important steps to improve the safety of our Nation's drug supply. For instance, this legislation requires every foreign establishment engaged in the manufacture of a drug or device imported into the United States, to electronically register with the FDA.

Under current law, there are no requirements governing how often FDA must inspect foreign facilities. The bill before us requires FDA to set up a risk-based inspection frequency to ensure that we are getting in there and inspecting facilities that pose the greatest risks.

This legislation gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to refuse admission into the United States any drug or ingredient if it was manufactured, processed, packed, or held at an establishment that has refused or delayed inspection by FDA.

This bill requires drug manufacturers and wholesalers to notify the FDA if they become aware that their drug has been counterfeited or has been stolen or lost in substantial quantities.

Finally, this bill increases penalties for bad actors who knowingly adulterate or counterfeit drugs.

In developing this legislation, the question we had to ask was this: Does the Federal agency tasked with ensuring the safety of our Nation's drugs have the resources and authorities necessary to do their job and protect the public health? The answer was no. But I believe the new authorities contained in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act--which we developed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate HELP committee--will help us ensure that the next time we ask this question, the answer will be yes.

Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I just want to take a few minutes, if I could, to talk about an important issue.

Yes.

Or less.

I will be very brief.

Mr. President, I say to our colleague from Oklahoma, himself a physician, that he will be very keenly interested in this issue of prescription drug shortages. This is a problem that has been brought to my attention by Marylanders, leaders of great institutions such as the University of Maryland and Hopkins, as well as family members who care for someone and find that, although there has been the right diagnosis and there is even the right drug to care for that problem--like the dread ``cancer'' word--the drug is not available. So you can imagine the last thing you want to hear is that your child has cancer, and then the worst thing you want to hear is that there is a shortage of that drug to take care of that child. That is not because it has not been developed, not because there has not been a scientific breakthrough, but because there has been a manufacturing problem or because the company stopped making the drug when it was no longer profitable. That is inexcusable. The bill before us does something about it.

In 2011 we had more than 250 drug shortages. That is not incidents, that is 250 drugs that were in shortage. Half of the drugs that experience a shortage go into shortage multiple times.

This drug shortage threatens public health by preventing patients and physicians from accessing needed medications. It forces doctors to often delay medical procedures, use alternative products that may carry unwanted side effects or to rely on foreign versions of drugs that might not have been reviewed by FDA or it sends their very able pharmacists in their institutions to spend endless hours on the phone to be able to come up with the needed drug.

As I said, this was brought to my attention by letters from some famous constituents--meaning well-known in our community--with great health insurance who had a child who had leukemia and then found the drug was in short supply. We heard from doctors who were forced to delay or turn to alternative treatments, hospitals scrambling to manage these shortages, and pharmacists trying to track down needed treatments. Even then, we heard about gouging and we heard about a gray market. The gouging was pumping up the price when there was a shortage, and then there is a gray market where you can go to buy these drugs, but they might not be the drug you wanted or they might have been on somebody's shelf a long time and were flawed and even dangerous or they had not been refrigerated.

I could go through one horror story after another. I wanted to bring this to the attention of the full Senate because as we work on this excellent, bipartisan bill on user fees, what we also have is a very commonsense way of dealing with the drug shortage issue.

It has the support of the private sector and certainly those who care for patients, as well as patients themselves. I hope we pass this underlying bill, and I hope we do not tie up this legislation with amendments that could either derail or deter it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to lend my voice to asking my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed to the FDA Safety and Innovation Act. Like the Presiding Officer, who is from Delaware, where its excellent private sector and public sector have been the hallmark of innovation, I represent a State that is absolutely critical to the innovation economy.

Those of us from Maryland know life science innovation is one of the important economic engines in our economy both today and in the future. We are the home to flagship government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, and iconic internationally branded universities that do research and move it into clinical practice at Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland. There are also lots of thriving biotech companies and some medical devices. So for us life science is part of the lifeblood of the Maryland economy, and it is also part of the lifeblood of the American economy.

Think of what we do. We come up with new biological products, new pharmaceuticals, new medical devices that not only save and improve lives but also enable them to help people in our own country. Because they are FDA approved--the gold standard for safety and efficacy--they can sell these products around the world, often to countries that will never be able to afford an FDA.

We have worked very closely on a bipartisan basis to be able to create the legislative framework called PDUFA, the Pharmaceutical Drug User Fee Act, and there will be a lot of other UFAs, user fees, in this. As I said, we have worked together on a bipartisan basis to bring this legislation to the floor.

I note on the Senate floor at this moment is the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, who has been a leader in fashioning legislation where we can continue the mission of what we want at FDA: safety and efficacy, moving drugs into clinical practice, regulations that are sensible, regulate but not strangulate the innovation economy or the potential for saving and improving lives. The bill before us is integral to achieving this shared goal.

This is not new legislation. PDUFA was enacted in 1992. At that time we were almost facing a crisis in our country. There was an unduly long wait for patients to have access to new medicines and technologies. For FDA, it often took 2 or 3 years to review a drug application. Materials were submitted manually in a very costly fashion. It cost manufacturers to the tune of almost $10 million a month.

So we decided to come together in the era when Bill Clinton said big government was over--not to make government to be bigger but for government to be smaller--and we came up with a public-private partnership called the PDUFA, the pharmaceutical user fee legislation. PDUFA supports drug review, so that those who make the products pay a fee to be able to have their drugs reviewed. They also expect their government to reduce the time it takes to move reviews expeditiously yet safely.

Let's be clear: This is a public-private partnership. For FDA, as it looks at its--remember, FDA has two jobs, which are food safety and then the safety of drugs and medical devices. More than 60 percent of funding for drugs and medical devices comes from industry fees--$712 million. The remainder comes from Federal appropriations--$473 million. So the private sector carries a big part of this responsibility. The kind of staffing, expertise, and modernization we have at FDA could not have happened without this public-private partnership. It has been a success.

More than 1,500 new medicines or technologies have been approved since 1992 for everything from the dread ``C'' words such as cancer or cardiovascular disease, to infectious disease, to the dread ``A'' words such as Alzheimer's, which we are working on, and others. It has allowed the FDA to have more scientists and staff, and for that it is giving value to the private sector to be able to decrease review times. We reduced review times from 2 years in 1992 to 1.1 years today.

We had excellent hearings. They were very civil, very content rich. But I also launched a listening tour in Maryland where I went out to the major biotech companies and heard from over 25 different companies about what they thought we needed to do. I asked them where their government helped them and where their government hurt them, where should their government get out of the way, and where did they need a more muscular government, meaning moving things ahead. They had great ideas. It was fantastic.

What I heard was we have to reauthorize PDUFA quickly, and we must make the improvements to the programs. We need to improve the drug review process; we need to increase communication in order to speed the drug review process. We have made sure we have increased a number of mandatory performance requirements between FDA and the life science product sponsors. I say life science because it is bio, it is pharma, it is medical devices, and some things that are both. PDUFA V,

which this is--it is the fifth time--allows us to use biomarkers to decrease development time by helping to demonstrate therapeutic benefit more quickly. It requires FDA to develop a dedicated program for drug development and training of staff.

We face a turnover, and there are a lot of reasons for that which I will come back to. But we want to make sure those young people who are so smart in science know how to work to have the science evaluated in a timely way. This is absolutely critical.

We have also incentivized the development of drugs for rare diseases. Particularly for parents of children with very unique and poignant, heart-breaking diseases, we would require FDA to develop guidance related to advancing and facilitating increased outreach to patient representatives, not only to the industry but to those who represent the patient advocacy groups. Again, we seek to develop training and certificate programs within FDA on how to review drugs for rare diseases.

I could go through the many benefits of PDUFA. We have done also in here MDUFA, the medical device act, and we do generic PDUFA. So there are several bills in this bill. But we have to act. There has to be a sense of urgency. This is a different bill than many others. If we don't reauthorize many other bills, they keep on going, but with the PDUFAs and the other user fee legislation, they actually will be sunsetted if we do not pass them by October. One might say, Well, we will wait until October. We will deal with it on the cliff.

We can't do that, because of the impact on both the people in the private sector and those in the public sector. Failure to reauthorize in a timely manner would have catastrophic effects on FDA's ability to carry out its important role. If the user fee agreement expires, patients, public health, and industry will suffer. This isn't Senator Barb speaking, this is what our leading business and public health advocates are telling us. If we don't reauthorize, the user fees sunset, so that means U.S. pharmaceutical industries, which support 4 million jobs, would be adversely affected. There would be no FDA to work with.

In 2010, Maryland private life science companies supported over 25,000 jobs. These companies are true innovators. On average, it takes a new medicine 10 to 15 years to develop. If we fail to reauthorize PDUFA, which ensures an efficient, consistent, and predictable regulatory environment, our private sector will lose out. We are going to lose out to Europe and we are going to lose out to China. China is stealing our patents as we speak. It will have a terrible consequence on patients as tens of millions of them rely on drugs and biologics and medical devices.

We know we have legislation that works, we have a legislative framework that works and now we need to get to work. If we do not pass this bill, and reauthorize these major programs, what will happen is we will need to send out RIF notices. We won't do it, but Dr. Mary Hamburg, the FDA CEO, the Commissioner, will have to, starting in July and August, send out RIF notices to 4,000 Federal employees at FDA, from the Ph.D. and the M.D. to the important lab techs and others who keep FDA going. This is no fooling around, I say to my colleagues. This isn't: Let's wait for the cliff. We will come to the brink if we do not reauthorize. Think about the role of FDA. If one thinks one is going to lose their job, that is what they are going to be preoccupied with. They are not going to be occupied with looking at these clinical trials and moving their advances forward.

We have worked so hard on this legislation. The private sector has worked hard to find a sensible center, and so has Dr. Mary Hamburg and her team. Our committee has worked so well. We can do this. We have to have the will. If we want to stay ahead in the global economy, it has to include passing this legislation.

Everybody talks about stopping China. I don't know what China is going to do, but I know we can stop ourselves if we don't pass legislation that promotes innovation in our country and private sector jobs in a partnership with government.

I conclude by urging my colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am so proud to be here on the floor of the Senate to support the nomination of Judge George Russell III. He is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and he has the enthusiastic support of Senator Cardin and myself. Senator Cardin will speak right after me.

I thank Senators Leahy and Grassley for moving this nomination, and I thank Senators Reid and McConnell for their cooperation.

I take my advice-and-consent responsibilities very seriously. When I consider someone for the Federal bench, I have four criteria: absolute personal integrity, judicial competence and temperament, a commitment to core constitutional principles, and a history of civic engagement in Maryland.

I cite these standards because I mean it. I must say Judge Russell-- he is currently on the Circuit Court of Baltimore City--brings the right values to the bench. He has the necessary experience. He has seen the legal system from all perspectives and brings forth a top-notch background.

He is nominated to fill the seat of Judge Peter Messitte, who took senior status 3 years ago. I think it is a matter of urgency to confirm Judge Russell because of the backlog we have in our Maryland Federal court.

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Russell spent his legal career as a litigator. He spent 10 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland. He handled both criminal and civil cases. While there he was also a community outreach coordinator. What does that mean? For an assistant U.S. attorney, it meant he worked with the community creating vital programs to reduce violent crimes.

As a young attorney, Mr. Russell also served as a law clerk for Judge Robert Bell. Judge Bell is the chief judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. I might add, Judge Bell enthusiastically endorses this Nominee.

Judge Russell is a man born and raised in Baltimore. He graduated from the University of Maryland School of Law and has spent his entire career in Maryland. His father, also a judge, was a legal pioneer in Maryland, serving as the city's first African-American circuit judge.

This judge, Judge Russell, has public service in his DNA, both working as a U.S. attorney and on the Federal bench and also in his connection to the everyday life of people. He has been on the board of directors of the Enoch Pratt Library, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Community Law Center. He has often been recruited to be a motivational speaker, an inspirational speaker, particularly to high school and middle school students to encourage them to stay in school and off the street. He has particularly been enthusiastic about mentoring young attorneys and law students.

The reason I talk about his civic engagement is that we want judges who do not live in a bubble. It is great to be a legal scholar, it is great to know the law inside and out, but a great judge knows people. This man, Judge George Russell III, by being out there--whether it is making sure the library is there for young people who want to move up; Big Brothers and Sisters, to keep young people out of trouble; or working at the Community Law Center--he

has involved himself in the gritty aspects of Baltimore City. He is a devoted public servant. He comes with a great background.

He brings together recommendations from both the public and private sector. I urge my colleagues to endorse the nomination of Judge Russell. I ask their support in voting for him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise today to support the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike of 2012. I cosponsored this bill because it extends the current interest rate of 3.4% for subsidized Stafford Loans for the next school year. This interest rate reflects a record low for interest rates on Federal student loans, and these loans can only go to students and families that demonstrate a need for them; nearly 50% of the students that take advantage of subsidized Stafford loans come from families with an annual income of less than $50,000. Subsidized Stafford loans help more than 7 million students attend an institution of higher education without worrying that the interest on their loans will begin accruing while they are in school. It helps more than 103,000 students in Maryland. Middle class families are feeling stretched and stressed and if we fail to act, students could be facing an additional $1,000 in debt over the life of their loans.

It is important to note that we will not expand our Federal deficit, and we will help families not expand the family deficit, by keeping the interest rate at 3.4 percent. Senator Reid's legislation offsets the cost of this legislation by closing a tax loophole enjoyed by individuals seeking to avoid paying payroll taxes on their income. This would only affect those who make more than $250,000 a year and simply requires people who make any income from a professional service business such as lobbying to pay taxes if more than 75 percent of the income from that business comes from three or fewer shareholders.

I adamantly oppose the alternative proposal from House and Senate Republicans that would repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund authorized by the Affordable Care Act. In the last year alone, that prevention fund has funded activities in my home state of Maryland to promote tobacco prevention, substance abuse prevention, mental health services, and community programs to promote healthy living. The fund is also used to invest in childhood immunizations to decrease the risk of disease among children. In the future, the President plans to use this fund to support breast cancer screenings for more than 300,000 women and cervical cancer screenings for more than 280,000 women. Repealing the prevention fund would not only

strike an unnecessary blow to prevention activities aimed to improve the lives of women and children, it would also promote increased health care costs by eliminating strategic investments meant to prevent or mitigate chronic illnesses that can be expensive to treat.

Students will bless us if we are successful in keeping their student loan interest rates as low as possible. Getting a college education is the core of the American dream and I am going to be sure that every student has access to that dream and make sure that when they graduate their first mortgage isn't their student debt. This legislation pending before us today should be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered way. This bill is absolutely a great bill for students and it is a great bill for America. It gives our students access to the American dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country.

I urge the swift passage of Senator Reid's legislation to maintain the current interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans.

Mr. President, I thank the gentlelady from Minnesota for her well-known advocacy on this issue. Her advocacy was well known in Minnesota. Her work as a prosecutor brought her in contact with many of these women and making sure they got a fair shake in the system was well known and well appreciated.

I am here to be a strong supporter for the Violence Against Women Act, and I hope this bill passes and that this bill passes today. It is because Senator Leahy has worked on a bipartisan basis in his committee that we were able to bring out this bill.

This bill was first passed in 1994 under the leadership of our Vice President, then-Senator Joe Biden, who is well known for his strong, muscular, robust approach to law enforcement. What he saw was that so many of the victims of crime were women and that they were victims both in streets and neighborhoods. They were also terrible victims in their own home where they were battered and abused. They found that when they came to the judicial system, they were battered again because they were ignored and had no one to stick up for them and were always told: Oh, it is your fault. What are you doing? Joe Biden changed the law, and we worked on a bipartisan basis.

Ever since 1994 we have continually reauthorized this legislation, looking at new needs and new technology and new creative ways of responding to these needs for prevention, intervention, and even prosecution. What we want to do today is pass this legislation that has been refreshed, reformed, and also brings some new approaches.

The chairman of the committee has done an outstanding job and is to be commended. The Violence Against Women Act authorizes two Federal programs for domestic and sexual violence in our communities, the Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources. The STOP grant is the largest national grant program in the Justice Department. Roughly half of all violence-against-women funds goes to these STOP grants, and they go to every community.

What is it they do? They coordinate community approaches to end violence and sexual assault. They fund victim services such as shelters and the toll-free crisis hotline and fund legal assistance to victims to get court orders to be able to protect themselves from the abuser or from the stalker. They also have training for police officers, prosecutors, and judges so they know how to do a good job. It also helps with grants for victims of child abuse, something I am very familiar with, having been a child abuse social worker, and also important services in terms of rape prevention programs. This is a great bill and it meets a compelling human need.

Since the original Biden legislation, over 1 million women who have called that hotline were desperate, who were fearful for their lives. And when they called that number, they didn't get a busy signal, nobody hung up on them; they got help, and I know that it saved lives. One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence during her lifetime. Sixteen million children are exposed to domestic violence, and also one in six women has experienced attempted or completed rape, and now even men are the subject of rape.

Twenty-five percent of rape crisis centers have waiting lists for advocacy groups. I want to talk about that in more detail. There are 2 million victims of physical and sexual violence each year; 20,000 in Maryland. On average, 1,000 female victims are killed by their abusers and one-third of all female homicides are domestic violence. These are numbers and statistics, but they also represent real people.

We help over 70,000 victims every day through hotlines and services and shelters, but regrettably there is a waiting list. So we need to pass this legislation because it gives us the authorization to be able to help those in need. It meets

these compelling human needs to protect people, and in my own State it has had enormous, positive consequences.

There is something that was developed through the Department of Justice called the lethal index. It means when a police officer goes into a home, he or she has to assess how dangerous it is. Should they yank the kids out? Should they take the abuser and put them in jail or do they call in a social worker to try and intervene? Should they give the family more time, give them family counseling so they can get people off the ledge and out of a violent situation so they are able to work on the long path toward family stability?

Well, my local law enforcement police officers tell me this lethal checklist has been a tremendous tool to being able to assess the level of violence when they are in that home and to know when people are in danger and they have to get them out right that minute. Again, they also know when there is the opportunity for other interventions to be able to help the family. This helps families, it helps police officers, and it helps our community. We need to empower victims to be able to help themselves by providing help in these abusive relationships.

Studies show that victims who use community-based domestic violence services--when they are available--are almost never victims of murder or attempted murder. That is a powerful line that if we had this intervention and prevention we can not only reduce violence but we can reduce homicides as well.

We need to pass this bill because it is crucial to our families, to our communities, and it also shows the country that we are serious about governing and keeping this legislation going.

I want to also comment on some of the other important programs. As I said, I want to talk a little bit about my role. I am an appropriator-- and in fact, I will leave shortly to go to a markup. But I have moved the Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill. I worked so closely with the gentlelady from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, also a very strong advocate in the interest of women and protecting women here and around the world. We worked on a bipartisan basis in this year's bill and put money in the Federal checkbook for those STOP grants, for those sexual assault services, for transitional housing grants, and also for other help in our communities. We also took a serious look at the whole issue of forensics.

Forensics is a subject of much debate and unfortunately much backlog. In my bill, in the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, we funded overall in the Department of Justice money to deal with forensic backlogs, but we also paid particular attention to something called the Debbie Smith Act. Let me say this: There are two different bills. There is the Violence Against Women Act and there is the Debbie Smith Act. The Debbie Smith Act was passed because of a woman named Debbie Smith who was subjected to the most violent, repugnant, despicable acts of violence against her. Working together, what we have done is actually put money in the Federal checkbook to reduce the backlog of DNA evidence. We have ensured that a high percentage of funds also go to labs to be able to deal with samples from crime scenes, databases, and other areas.

Assuming we will debate this rape kit issue at a later time, I wish to thank Senator Leahy for his advocacy and Senator Cornyn for his sensitivity in wanting to solve the problem. I believe if we can take a minute and keep in our minds as our legislative goal to work together-- not who gets credit but who gets help--it is not about who gets credit, it is about who gets help. We want to be able to help those rape victims have the solace and the consolation that their government is on their side, using the best of scientific evidence to make sure we have the right person to ensure the right prosecution to get the right conviction.

Right now, there is a backlog. When Justice gives out their money for forensics, it doesn't always go toward these issues. We can direct it. We can do a good job. Let's come together. Let's iron out our parliamentary differences so we can pass this very important Violence Against Women Act.

I can take what I have done to put money in the Federal checkbook. Let's refresh the Federal law book and, most of all, let's keep our eyes on what we want to do. We want to be able to prevent domestic violence and violence against women, whether it is the stranger who perpetrates danger and commits despicable acts or against women in their own homes. We aim for prevention, intervention, the training of police officers, judges, and courts, and the right prosecutions.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to salute Senator Durbin on his thoughtful amendment and thank him for his collegiality in negotiations. We think it helps us. But we have been misled, manipulated, and disregarded in our attempts to get information from the Postal Service. I don't know if the Easton AMP study has been concluded or suspended. I can't get an answer from the Postal Service. And if I can't get an answer, then the little guy on the Eastern Shore can't get an answer. I believe there are other Senators in the same boat who have been disregarded by the Postal Service.

Does my colleague believe his amendment provides protections for mail processing centers where the Postal Service has postponed or suspended their study for a significant period of time--like at the facility in Easton, MD?

Madam President, I rise to speak on the postal reform bill and to offer constructive suggestions. I know Senator Collins was scheduled to speak. I am going to take this time. She is in a meeting, and it is agreeable to her we follow this sequencing.

There is no doubt that the Postal Service is in need of reform, and I support the concept of reform. I salute the architects of the bill, Senators Lieberman and Collins, on the framework they have proposed. I think it was thoughtful and robust and even ambitious. I wish to compliment them on the process that is the hallmark of this committee.

If I could have the attention of the Senator from Connecticut for a moment, I say to Senator Lieberman, I want to comment that we know you are about to retire, and we are going to miss you because here we are having a civilized, rational, thoughtful, data-driven type of conversation, and I think it is a hallmark of the way you and Senator Collins have functioned to bring this bill to our attention. The Senate ought to do more of it.

I thank the Senator for his leadership, though I disagree with some of the parts in this bill. But that is the way the Senate should be.

Let me talk about postal reform, and first about the post office. The post office is not a business. It is a public utility, and we need to think of it as a public utility; that which provides universal service to keep the juice and electricity of our economy going. If we think of it as a public utility mandated by a national interest to provide universal service, then that is the way we should think about it. Will it require subsidy? Yes. Does it require an open checkbook? No. Does it require reform? Yes.

But the Postal Service has reformed itself from the days of the Pony Express to the present. They had to face the challenge when they invented Western Union. They faced the challenge when we got telephones. Why do we need the Postal Service? Time and time again, the Postal Service has needed to reform. It is time to reform again. But if we are going to reform, we need to make sure we provide safeguards to protect rural communities,

to protect small businesses, and to protect vulnerable populations that do not have access to the Internet.

We have a digital divide in the United States of America. We do not have a universal superinformation highway in the United States of America. We do have a digital divide, and the divide is because of both geography and income. Not everybody walks around with these cool 500 devices. So people rely on the post office for correspondence, for paychecks, for the delivery of products that have been ordered over the Internet--those e-Bay entrepreneurs we know about. Small business relies on it for time-sensitive business documents and the time- sensitive delivery of products.

This is even more important for rural areas. Rural areas have a unique geography, and that can complicate mail delivery or create delays. I represent the mountain counties of western Maryland. At times that weather is so rugged up there you need a snowmobile to get through. Then there is the Eastern Shore--the beautiful, dynamic, charming Eastern Shore. But it is nine counties stretching over 150 to close to 200 miles. Sometimes in places they do not even have cell phone coverage. Reductions to delivery standards, closing a post office, and, most of all, closing a processing center would have a Draconian impact. So in my State we are very concerned about this.

We are willing to do reform. We were willing to close a processing center in western Maryland and work with Pennsylvania and West Virginia--bordering States--to do this. But now they want to close the Easton Mail Processing Center. It is the only processing center on the Eastern Shore. It is the only mail processing center serving nine counties. To use the processing center in Baltimore, it is miles away and across the Bay Bridge.

Then there is this whole issue of merging it with Delaware. Delaware is nine counties away from Somerset County--over 150, close to 200 miles. The operation of this Eastern Shore postal processing facility is absolutely crucial.

Everybody says: Oh, we love the Eastern Shore. Well, I love it too. But I want it to have business. I want my senior citizens to be able to get their prescription drugs by mail, and get them on a timely basis. It is a community of small business. That is what the Eastern Shore is. Even our big business of poultry and seafood is made up of small entrepreneurs involved in this. They need the Postal Service, and they need to have it accessed on the Eastern Shore.

So last February, the Postal Service, in its unique way, announced the closing. Senator Cardin and myself asked for hearings. The Postal Service responded in a very dismissive way. They dismissed not only Cardin and Mikulski, but they dismissed a half a million residents who live on the Eastern Shore and who rely on this.

When I asked them if they would even hold a hearing so farmers and small businesses and seniors could voice their opinions, they said they heard all they needed. They had no intention of holding a hearing. My constituents have a right to be heard. They have a right to standards of delivery service and they have a right for me to fight for them and I am going to fight for them. But I am also going to fight for postal reform. The way Senator Merkley wants to improve the bill, so do I.

I have four amendments pending to get the post office to make sure they not only look at what they are doing--right now they look at what is the impact of what they are doing on the post office. Senator Barb looks at the impact they are having on the customer and on the community. Remember, think of it as a public utility, and we are turning the lights off on the Eastern Shore.

My first amendment says: No processing center can be closed unless a Governor from the State certifies that a closure will not harm the community or disrupt commerce.

My second amendment says: No processing center can be closed unless an independent third party, such as the Commission, talks about the impact on jobs, the unemployment rate and small business and to make the study public.

My third maintains the standard of delivery for overnight. On the Eastern Shore, my veterans need their medical care, my seniors need to be able to get their Social Security checks, and also business--even live birds come through this processing center. Are they going to sit around and go back and forth to Baltimore? Man does that ruffle my feathers. I can tell you that right now.

Fourth, it is strictly ZIP Code politics. I will offer an amendment to prevent the closing of the Easton Post Office. If my other three amendments prevail, I think we have it. It is not just my criteria; it is what Senator Merkley and all of us are talking about. The post office is a public utility. We look at the impact of closing, not only the impact of what the post office saves but what the community loses and if is it worth the cost. I do not want to turn the lights out on the Eastern Shore, but I do want to keep the lights of the post office going.

In the spirit of compromise and conversation and civility that marks the leadership of this committee, I want to work with the leadership and see if I can be accommodated. I wish to again congratulate Senators Collins and Lieberman on their leadership and on their whole civilized way and also to Senator Sanders for doing this.

I think I have made my point. Next time, the post office should listen more to the people or they will hear more from Senator Barb.

If I may respond to the Senator, first of all, I do thank the Senator for the substitute. I think it does make substantial improvements in the bill. It demonstrates that the Senator is listening to colleagues and also to people who are affected.

I am familiar, when we worked on home health care, and the Senator and I teamed up, that in parts of Maine and parts of western Maryland, we had visiting nurses on snowmobiles and they were not going to be reimbursed. So we have an understanding of these rural, rugged communities. I do want to work with Senator Collins. In the spirit and tone represented by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, perhaps we could have an additional conversation.

They left.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Buffett rule. How much time is allocated to me?

Mr. President, I will take no more than 5 minutes.

I support the Buffett Rule because I do believe in fundamental fairness that if people live in the United States of America, if they benefit from the United States of America, both its national security and its public institutions, and the public progress because of that-- such as public education, land-grant colleges--they need to pay their fair share. This is what America is all about, fairness. And we are all in it together.

I have heard all afternoon about, oh, this hard-working entrepreneur, and, oh, this hard-working small business person. Nobody gets to be that hard-working entrepreneur without the United States of America. They have gone to public schools. They have enjoyed public transportation. I could go through a variety of public institutions-- safety in our dams, now cybersecurity, wars that are fought by our military for which they will not go or will never go. So we need to have a way of paying our bills.

When we hear the great President John F. Kennedy quoted saying: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' it is called pay your share.

Let's talk about what the Buffett rule actually is and what the Senator from Rhode Island is advocating--and I salute him for offering it. This would ensure that high-earning Americans who make more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent income tax on their effective rate on their second $1 million.

Let me repeat what this is. People's first $1 million they keep at the same tax rate it is right this afternoon. What we are talking about is changing the tax rate not on their first $1 million but on their second $1 million. I do not think that stifles entrepreneurship. I do not think it breaks the neck of small business.

I know so many small businesses. They like to make that million bucks and then pay that. What the small business needs is not more tax breaks; they need more customers, which is about more jobs.

I think this bill talks about this fairness. It would phase in additional tax liability for taxpayers earning between $1 million and $2 million to avoid a tax cliff, and they are saying: Oh, well, let's keep our money so we can give it to charity. This preserves the incentive for charitable giving.

Quite frankly, from what we are told, the highest earning 400 Americans make about $270 million each. They are the ones who paid an effective tax rate of 18 percent. Just think, they make $270 million. That is not exactly the entrepreneur in a garage. That is not exactly that small businessperson, a florist, or like my grandmother running that Polish bakery or like my father with his little grocery store.

Mr. President, $270 million each--they pay 18 percent. So here it is April 16, they paid 18 percent. That, by the way, is the rule. All we are saying is they can pay that 18 percent on their first $1 million, but on that second $1 million they have to get into the game and start to pay 30 percent.

I think this is a great idea. I want my colleagues, when we vote for cloture, to be able to do this. The Buffett rule supports fairness in the Tax Code so executives do not pay a lower rate than the people who work in the mail room or on the FedEx trucks delivering their products. It does support prosperity and entrepreneurship. As I said, it does not kick in until their second $1 million, and then it is phased in slowly.

A lot of people are saying: We do not want these handouts from the Federal

Government. It wrecks our entrepreneurship, our get-up-and-go.

I do not believe that. I do not believe that at all. If that were true, then why is it who gets the biggest handouts in our country but those who get tax earmarks. We eliminated them in the Appropriations Committee, but we are yet to eliminate the tax earmarks in the Tax Code.

Look how hard it was to get rid of the ethanol subsidy. Oh, my God. When we wanted to get rid of the oil and gas subsidy, one would think we were Darth Vader on the Senate floor.

So every time we want to take away a lavish tax break that only helps a few get more, we are stymied or stifled. Actually if they employed as many people in their businesses as they employ lobbyists in Washington, we would be able to lower the unemployment rate.

So the other party was willing to bring us to the brink of default-- remember when we were dealing with the debt ceiling--rather than tax billionaires. We continue now to have that same fight. This legislation we would pass is a modest downpayment on reforming the Tax Code. We do have to make it fairer, but this is a firm way to be able to do it.

Sure, we have to look at the corporate tax code. We have to look at how to bring expatriated money overseas back home. Yes, we have to look at rates. Yes, by the way, we have to reward entrepreneurship and acknowledge the special challenges of being a small- and medium-size business. But that is long range, and under the arcane rules of our Senate we are now so stymied in bringing up that legislation.

We could at least take one giant step forward to make our Tax Code fairer by passing the legislation called the Buffett rule, named after Warren Buffett, one of our great American people, a guy who gives capitalism real meaning in our country. He says: Let me pay, and people like me pay, the same rate of taxes as my administrative assistant in the front office.

I think Buffett had a good idea. Let's codify it. Let's pass it in the Senate today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I intend to object to proceeding to the 21st Century Postal Service Act, a bill to improve, sustain, and transform the United States Postal Service, dated March 22, 2012.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of March 20, 2012, sent by myself to Majority Leader Reid, be printed in the Record.

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.)