Floor Statements

My colleague from Illinois is correct.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today we will be considering and are considering a vital piece of legislation that not only includes all four user fee agreements but also includes policy proposals to improve the Food and Drug Administration review and approval of medical products, particularly in the pharmaceutical supply chain.

In 2008, when Senator Kennedy was still in the Senate, he and I introduced the Drug and Device Accountability Act. This legislation was largely in response to the extensive oversight I conducted on the Food and Drug Administration. During these investigations, I identified serious problems at the FDA that included severe weaknesses in the inspection process, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, and lack of enforcement authority.

Based on these findings, the Kennedy-Grassley legislation included provisions to ensure the safety of drugs, including foreign- manufactured drugs. It would have expanded FDA's authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers on a risk-based schedule. It would have required all manufacturers to register with the agency so they can properly identify the number of manufacturers and where they are located. This would have ensured that when a crisis occurs, we can quickly locate the questionable facility. And it would have increased civil and criminal penalties with respect to violations.

Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy and I never had an opportunity to debate this legislation, let alone cast a vote on it. However, roughly a year ago Senators Harkin and Enzi forged a bipartisan working group to address these challenges. The group has worked tirelessly to produce a bipartisan bill that modernizes FDA's authority to ensure that drug products coming into the United States are safe for American patients.

This bill incorporates many provisions in the Drug and Device Accountability Act Senator Kennedy and I introduced. It increases penalties for knowingly and intentionally counterfeiting drug products. It requires electronic submission of certain key information by a drug importer as a condition to grant entry.

I would like to have seen additional enforcement tools included in the legislation. For example, granting FDA the authority to destroy unsafe products that are refused admission into our country would enhance FDA's ability to protect the public from tainted products.

Likewise, I think FDA should have been granted subpoena authority and have it on a par with other Federal law enforcement authorities because currently FDA lacks subpoena authority and has to go through the Department of Justice, which is time-consuming and burdensome.

Ultimately, this legislation is a needed step in the right direction toward securing our supply chain. This legislation did not address a top priority of mine; that is, ensuring whistleblowers have adequate protections. Four months ago, my office learned of an abusive treatment by the Food and Drug Administration toward whistleblowers due to their protected communications with Congress, more specifically with the office of this Senator. Once the agency learned of the communications, it began actively monitoring and observing employees' personal e-mail accounts for 2 years until the agency was able to have the employee fired.

Regrettably, I was not shocked to learn that the FDA was mistreating whistleblowers within this agency as it has done on more than the one occasion in the past that I have identified. What makes the example different and worse is that the FDA intentionally went after an employee because they knew that employee had no protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

The employee in question happened to be a member of the Public Health Service--the title is the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Because of the decision from the Court of Federal Claims, those employees are, in the Public Health Service, along with other members of the uniformed services, not covered by Federal employee whistleblower protections.

In 2009, the Court of Federal Claims held in Verbeck v. United States that an officer in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is a member of the uniformed services and as such is not covered under the Civilian Whistleblower Protection Act nor the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. This

same logic extends to the commissioned corps of NOAA. So under this precedent, officers of the Public Health Service and NOAA currently have no whistleblower protection under Federal law.

This is particularly problematic when we consider that the Public Health Service and NOAA officers can be detailed to agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Centers for Disease Control. That is the case here where that Public Health Service officer was working with FDA. At FDA they have to work side by side with civilian employees doing critical work to review and approve drugs, oversee medical devices, and even work on infectious diseases. However, unlike their civilian colleagues sitting right beside them, if these employees uncover wrongdoing, waste, fraud, and abuse, they can be retaliated against by the agency and have no recourse for it.

This is wrong and needs to be fixed. Whistleblowers point out waste, fraud, and abuse when no one else will. They do so while risking their professional careers. Whistleblowers have played a critical role in exposing government failures, and retaliation against whistleblowers should never be tolerated whether they are in the Public Health Service or otherwise.

For this reason, I will offer an amendment that expands whistleblower protection for uniformed employees of the Public Health Service. It corrects the anomaly pointed out in the Court of Federal Claims and ensures that officers in the Public Health Service have some baseline whistleblower protection. It expressly includes the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service within the protections of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. This is consistent with the structure of the commissioned corps functioning like a military organization and matches the fact that these officers receive military-like benefits and retirement.

All Federal employees should feel comfortable expressing their opinion both inside the agency and to those of us in Congress. The inclusion of this language will ensure those opinions receive appropriate protections. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi for their commitment and effort over the years to reform and improve the Food and Drug Administration.

We have to do what we can to protect whistleblowers. They know where the skeletons are buried. They and enterprising journalists come to us in Congress so we can investigate. We need those sources of information.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of calling up amendment No. 2129.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleague from Iowa and my colleague from Wyoming for the bipartisanship of this legislation.

The FDA amendments of 2007 mandated basic public results reporting for all clinical trials supporting FDA-approved drugs and devices. Clinical trials results help both patients and doctors understand the benefits and efficacy of a particular medical product.

Moreover, a July 2011 FDA report stated:

Understanding variable characteristics in clinical trial

sites is becoming increasingly important because of the

international nature of current clinical trials. The sources

of differences in efficacy results between the U.S. and

foreign clinical trials sites have yet to be determined, but

differences rooted in the conduct of the clinical trial

should be evaluated.

It has been 5 years since the passage of the FDA Amendments Act, and the National Institutes of Health is still in the process of writing proposed regulations. The clinicaltrials.gov program and title VIII of the FDA Amendments Act were considered major reforms and helped science information advances. If they are not being implemented well or adequately enforced, society will fail to reap the full benefits of the billions of dollars in good medical science research.

This amendment before the Senate will impose a deadline by which the NIH will finalize both the proposed and final regulations. Further, 2 years after the regulation has been in place, the Government Accountability Office will conduct a study on compliance with regulations and will look at, among other things, whether the applicable clinical trial is conducted domestically, in foreign sites, or in a combination of sites. The rapid increase in trials being run overseas makes it imperative that the Government Accountability Office investigate this matter.

Currently, ``80 percent of approved marketing applications for drugs and biologics contained data from foreign clinical trials.'' The ``FDA inspected 1.9 percent of domestic clinical trial sites and 0.7 percent of foreign clinical trial sites.'' We need stronger reporting requirements to ensure we understand what the implications are of this move to having so many trials conducted overseas. I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Before I move on, I wish to talk about another amendment I am a cosponsor of, which is an amendment offered by Senator Portman that will make dangerous synthetic drugs such as K2 and bath salts schedule I narcotics. I have worked for over a year now to get this legislation passed through the Senate after a constituent of mine named David Rozga committed suicide shortly after smoking K2 with some friends nearly 2 years ago.

I introduced the David Mitchell Rozga Act in March of 2011, and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed it out of committee along with two other related bills sponsored by Senator Schumer and Senator Klobuchar last July. Since that time, the use of synthetic drugs has grown very rapidly, with the number of calls into poison control centers going from as few as 19 in the year 2009 to over 6,000 in the year 2011.

The House passed their version of this bill last December on a strong bipartisan vote, but one Senator has blocked consideration of this legislation in this Chamber up to now.

So I am grateful we are finally able to have a vote on this issue, and I urge passage of the Portman amendment as well.

Madam President, I wish to go to another amendment, if that would be appropriate at this time.

I call up amendment No. 2121.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the bill before us, S. 3187, did not address a top priority of mine, and that is ensuring whistleblowers have adequate protections.

Four months ago my office learned of a very abusive treatment by the FDA on certain whistleblowers due to those whistleblowers' protected communications with Congress and, more specifically, with this Senator's office. Once the agency learned of the communication, even though they were on personal e-mail, it began actively monitoring and observing employees' personal e-mail, as one might expect, and they observed those e-mail accounts for 2 years--for a whole 2 years--until the agency was able to have the employee fired.

Whistleblowers shouldn't be fired for doing what is patriotic; that is, reporting wrongdoing to Congress. Regrettably, I was not shocked to learn that the FDA was mistreating whistleblowers within its agency, as it has done on more than one occasion, and as I have pointed out to my colleagues. I have been reporting those things ever since the Vioxx situation of 2004, I believe.

What makes this example different, though--and even worse--is the FDA intentionally went after an employee because it knew this employee was not covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Now, it might surprise some of my colleagues that all employees aren't covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act. This employee in question was a member of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and because of a decision from the Court of Federal Claims these employees--meaning the Public Health Service along with other members of the uniformed services--are not covered by the Federal employee whistleblower protections.

I think the court case was wrong, but anyway, that is the way the Court of Federal Claims ruled. That ruling came as a result of the Verbeck v. United States case, and the Court of Federal Claims held that an officer in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is a member of the uniformed service and as such is not covered by the civilian Whistleblower Protection Act, nor even the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. This same logic extends to the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as well. So under the precedent of this Verbeck case, the officers of both the Public Health Service and NOAA currently have no whistleblower protection under Federal law.

This is particularly problematic when we consider that the Public Health Service and NOAA officers can be detailed to agencies such as the FDC or the Centers for Disease Control. There, these officers, working in another agency, happen to work side-by-side with civilian employees of that agency doing very critical work to review and approve drugs, oversee medical devices, and even work on infectious diseases. However, unlike their civilian colleagues who are employees of that agency and who are sitting right next to them, if these employees uncover wrongdoing, waste, fraud, and abuse, they can be retaliated against by the agency and have no recourse for it. That is exactly what happened to this Public Health Service employee working in the Food and Drug Administration when they reported wrongdoing at that agency to Congress. They did it by personal e-mail, and the FDA got on to it and then fired the one employee who was reporting to Congress but did not fire the employees who were protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. So that is why I say this is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. This amendment will fix it.

Whistleblowers point out fraud, waste, and abuse when no one else will, and they do so while risking their professional careers. Whistleblowers have played a critical role in exposing government failures, and retaliation against whistleblowers should never be tolerated.

For this reason, I offered an amendment that expands whistleblower protection for uniformed employees of the Public Health Service. It corrects the anomaly pointed out by the Court of Federal Claims and ensures that officers in the Public Health Service have some baseline whistleblower protection. It expressly includes the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service within the protections of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. This is consistent with the structure of the commissioned corps functioning like a military organization and matches the fact that these officers receive military-like benefits in retirement.

Unfortunately, this amendment, which I was able to get into this legislation, only covers employees of the Public Health Service. It does not address the commissioned corps of NOAA because of other Senators' concern that is not related to the underlying bill. So I hope to be able to address that remaining gap in whistleblower protections in the near future so that all employees of the Federal Government are covered.

All Federal employees should feel comfortable expressing their opinions both inside the agency they work for as well as to Congress. The inclusion of this language will ensure those opinions receive appropriate protections.

I wish to take this opportunity, as I did in my opening comments on these two amendments, to express my appreciation to Senators Harkin and Enzi and their commitment and efforts over the years to reform and improve the FDA.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am pleased to see that Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai have been confirmed to the Federal Communications Commission. They are both highly qualified, and it is unfortunate that the FCC's stubborn refusal to respond to my very simple request for information forced me to place a hold on their nominations for the past 4 months in order to get the FCC to move on giving me the information to which any Member of Congress ought to be entitled.

The FCC needs to learn a simple lesson from this episode: The public's business ought to be public, and transparency brings accountability. Eventually, the truth will be known, so you

might as well get it out there when the questions first come up.

I initially placed my hold on the FCC Commissioner nominees because the FCC had stonewalled a document request that I submitted on April 27 last year regarding their actions related to a company called LightSquared and the hedge fund, Harbinger Capital, that owns LightSquared.

Before I wrote my letter on LightSquared, many concerns had already been raised regarding the company's plans for a terrestrial network and its potential to interfere with the global positioning system, or sometimes that is referred to as GPS. In my first letter, I raised those concerns as well. Unfortunately, the FCC does not appear to have taken those concerns seriously, but months later, independent testing verified the danger LightSquared posed to industries, from commercial aviation to even our own Armed Forces.

It seems strange that a project that was so obviously flawed was allowed to go so far. But LightSquared had help. In total, LightSquared has paid 53 different lobbyists, some registered, some unregistered. They paid one former Governor, three former Senators, nine former Members of Congress, including a former Speaker and former minority leader, and a former White House Counsel to advocate for them. These lobbyists provided entry into the FCC and the White House. But they could not change the fact that LightSquared's network simply could not coexist with GPS.

LightSquared has now declared bankruptcy, and it appears its plan to build a terrestrial network is over, but many questions still remain. Some of those questions: Why did the FCC give LightSquared this unusual waiver in the first place? Why did LightSquared's lawyers mention campaign contributions when they sought meetings at the White House? Why did a four-star general claim he had been pressured by the Obama administration not to criticize LightSquared?

When I first asked the FCC for documents, I was told they would take about 2 years to respond to my request through the Freedom of Information Act. Then they told me they do not voluntarily turn over documents to the 99.6 percent of the Members of Congress who do not chair a committee with direct jurisdiction over FCC. After a lot of back and forth with the FCC, they told me the reason they do not respond to 99.6 percent of Congress is because of just a one-line statement in the Congressional Research Service report. The line reads, ``Oversight is most effective if it is conducted by Congressional committees of jurisdiction.'' Now, the FCC somehow took this quote and conveniently came up with the idea that they do not have to give this Senator any documents. Of course, to anybody in the Congress, this makes no sense whatsoever, but that is what the FCC hid behind. And, of course--you know me--I did not give up. The FCC's response to me is just another variation on what the Justice Department told me when I started asking questions about Operation Fast and Furious.

Fortunately, we have Members of the House of Representatives who are not afraid to ask this administration some tough questions. In Fast and Furious, it was Chairman Issa who held the Justice Department's feet to the fire to make sure they responded fully and responded completely. With LightSquared, it was another committee in the House of Representatives, the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairmen Walden, Upton, and Stearns and their staff have done an excellent job in making sure the FCC is open, transparent, and provides documents to Congress, even when they do not want to give those documents to a Senator who asked for them, meaning this Senator.

I would also like to thank Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller here in the Senate for pressing the FCC personally to release documents. With all of this help, we are making sure the FCC is open with the American people about the way they operate because transparency brings accountability.

In over 30 years of conducting oversight, I can say that when it comes to providing documents to the Congress, the FCC is one of the worst Federal agencies I have ever had to deal with. Even after receiving a document request from the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives, the FCC still tried to play the tired old games agencies play when they are not acting in good faith.

When they finally turned over their first batch of documents--would you believe it?--those documents were already publicly available on the Internet through the Freedom of Information Act. So they weren't giving us anything we didn't already have access to.

When they didn't convince us they were acting in good faith--because, quite frankly, they weren't--they gave us a second production. But in that production, of the first 1,968 pages they produced, all but 3--in other words, 1,965 pages--were newspaper clippings. Again, the FCC was playing games. And, of course, that is not acceptable.

Fortunately, we have continued to press the FCC, and we now, with the help of the House of Representatives, have approximately 8,000 nonpublic internal documents. Still, we have not received all responsive documents from the FCC yet. We just received another 4,000 pages of documents, and I have been told that approximately 7,000 more documents are on their way to Congress. We now at least have a path forward. That is why I lifted my holds a couple weeks ago, so these nominations could move forward.

I trust the House committee will ensure that the FCC provides those 7,000 or so additional documents. I have always said if you are hiding something, it is best to get it out in the open, because the longer you stonewall--in this case the FCC--the worse you are going to look when those facts finally come out.

The FCC has attempted to stonewall my request for documents for almost a year, and they have failed. But they failed only thanks to the help provided by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and because of that help we are finally able to review internal documents from the FCC--the very same documents we should have gotten when we first asked in our request on April 27 of last year.

As I said when I initially filed my intent to object, I strongly believe it is critical for Congress to have access to documents in order to conduct vigorous and independent oversight. Whether it takes 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, or even 1 year--as it did in this case--I will continue to pursue transparency across the Federal Government because transparency brings accountability. That is essential so that Congress can practice its constitutional role of oversight over the Federal Government.

The role of oversight is this simple: Congress passes laws and appropriates money. That is not the end of it. Our government is a government of checks and balances. We have a responsibility, after passing laws and appropriating money, to make sure the laws are faithfully executed and the money spent according to the intent of Congress. That is oversight.

Even now as we review these documents we have already gotten and begin conducting interviews with key FCC staff, the investigation, obviously, continues. Step one was getting access to the FCC e-mails. We took this step so we could make sure we had the facts before we jumped to conclusions.

Now it is time for step two--asking hard questions of the key FCC personnel who approved the LightSquared waiver. This process may continue to take more time, but however long the process takes, I will continue to press for transparency at the FCC because, again, with transparency comes accountability.

This agency must operate in an open and transparent manner, and we must have answers regarding the LightSquared waiver. The people at the FCC work for the American people, they don't work for themselves.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his very nice remarks about Katie Beckett. I come to the floor for the same reason--to celebrate the life of Katie Beckett.

Never has the word ``inspiration'' been used more appropriately in describing somebody, and today I am grateful to be able to recognize the inspirational life of Katie Beckett.

Mary Katherine Beckett--nicknamed ``Katie''--was born in Cedar Rapids, IA, on March 9, 1978. Five months after she was born, Katie contracted viral encephalitis, followed by grand mal seizures. The encephalitis caused damage to her central nervous system, her respiratory system, and she was attached to a ventilator. She would be almost 2 years old before she could breathe on her own.

As Senator Harkin said, under Medicaid law at the time, Katie could only receive care through Medicaid if she remained in the hospital even though she was able to receive the care at home.

Iowa Congressman Tom Tauke heard of Katie's situation and realized that it made no sense to keep a child in the hospital who could be at home with her family living a better quality of life as well as saving the taxpayers money. Congressman Tauke worked to convince the administration that the system should be changed to allow States to provide Medicaid to children receiving care in their homes.

Ultimately, President Reagan took up Katie's cause, intervening so that Katie could receive treatment at home and still be covered under Medicaid. This change in policy became known as the Katie Beckett Waiver, and to date more than half a million disabled children have been able to receive care in their homes with their families rather than being forced into hospitals and institutions.

But Katie's story doesn't end there. As Katie grew up, as she battled to establish her own place in society as a young American with disabilities, she realized she had an opportunity to serve others who faced similar challenges.

In her own words--and this is from a piece Katie wrote in the year 2002 entitled: ``Whatever Happened to Katie Beckett?''

I started my advocacy career at age ten. It was not my

choice, but rather a path chosen for me. It was not until I

was twelve or thirteen that I realized the important work I

was able to do because I was who I was and how much this work

helped other kids.

Katie graduated with a degree in English from Mount Mercy College in Cedar rapids. She lived in the community. She wanted to be a teacher and write novels for young people. She was fiercely independent, sometimes to the consternation of her mother Julie. She was quick- witted and funny and loved a good cup of coffee. She lived her life as a tireless advocate for the disabled. She testified before Congress several times and was a contributing voice on numerous groups dedicated to disability policy.

When we took up policy proposals such as the Family Opportunity Act and Money Follows the Person, we wanted Katie's perspective and we depended upon her advocacy in the community to get those laws passed. Katie was the living embodiment of a person with disabilities participating and contributing in society.

On Friday, May 18, Katie went home to be with the Lord. She leaves behind thousands of lives touched by her presence. A light may go out, but a light lives on in those of us fortunate enough to have known Katie Beckett.

We remain inspired to work every day to create opportunities for the disabled to participate and contribute and live the life of service and dedication that Katie did. So, obviously, even though not alive today, Katie will remain that inspiration for many people for a long time to come.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we are going to turn to a nomination that the Senator from California has just referred to, Paul Watford, to be circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. I am disappointed that the majority leader has brought this nomination to the floor.

The reason I say that is there are at least 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar that might fall into the category of consensus nominees. Six nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in committee and clearly are not consensus nominees. Mr. Watford falls into this category of not being a consensus nominee.

I will oppose Mr. Watford's nomination and ask my colleagues to oppose the nomination as well. My opposition to this nomination is based upon substantive concerns that I have regarding Mr. Watford's views on both immigration and the death penalty.

Mr. Watford partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center in two cases to oppose Arizona's 2010 immigration bill. In the first case, Friendly House, a class action lawsuit, Mr. Watford served as cocounsel for most of the plaintiffs, including the class action representative Friendly House.

The Friendly House complaint attacks the Arizona law on a variety of grounds. He argued the law violates the Supremacy clause; that it violates the Equal Protection clause by promoting racial profiling; that it violates the first amendment by chilling the speech of non- English speakers; that it violates the fourth amendment; and that it violates due process by inviting racial profiling and employing vague definitions of ``public offense'' and other statutory terms.

In the second case, United States v. Arizona, Mr. Watford served as cocounsel on an amicus brief filed by the Friendly House plaintiffs. This brief covers most of the arguments raised in the Friendly House complaint. But in addition, it asserts that Arizona ``fails to account for the complexities and realities of Federal immigration law'' because individuals lacking immigration registration documents are put at risk of ``constant and repeated criminal prosecution.''

I do not believe an attorney should be held accountable for the legal positions he advocates on behalf of a client. Of course, there are some exceptions to that general rule; for instance, if the legal positions are far outside the mainstream of legal theory, are frivolous or indicate an unacceptable level of professional competence. However, in this case, Mr. Watford has not simply argued on behalf of a client, he adopted those legal theories as his very own. On July 14, 2010, Mr. Watford gave a speech analyzing the constitutionality of the Arizona law. His speech concentrated on ``why S. 1070 is unconstitutional,'' and he recapped many of the arguments he made in the Friendly House case.

Moreover, despite the fact that he discussed his views on immigration publicly, he nonetheless declined to answer many of my questions during his hearing before the Judiciary Committee. For instance, I asked about an argument in his brief that the Arizona statute prohibiting illegal aliens from soliciting work somehow violated the first amendment. The nominee responded that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on questions related to whether illegal immigrants were entitled to constitutional protections other than those contained in the fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments. Again, remember, he had already given a speech on this topic, so I was disappointed that he would not share his views on these important topics.

With regard to the death penalty, Mr. Watford assisted in submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees on behalf of a number of groups that opposed Kentucky's three-drug lethal injection protocol.

In its plurality opinion, the Court rejected the arguments raised in the brief. Ultimately, Kentucky's three-drug protocol was upheld on a 7-to-2 vote in the Supreme Court.

At the hearing we had for Mr. Watford, in following up questions, Mr. Watford gave the standard response that he would follow Supreme Court precedent regarding the death penalty. Yet it is very curious to me that he would go out of his way to provide his services to a case that would undermine the death penalty.

Furthermore, his concession that he would give consideration to foreign or international law in interpreting the meaning of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause makes me wonder how he would approach this issue.

I have other concerns based on positions this nominee has taken in his legal advocacy, as well as some of his presentations.

I am generally willing to give the President's nominees the benefit of the doubt when the nominee on the surface meets the requirements I have previously outlined. But I don't think this nominee meets these requirements.

Finally, Republicans continue to be accused of obstruction and delay when it comes to judicial nominations. This comes even as we have now confirmed 145 of this President's district and circuit court nominees. That, of course, is during a period when we also confirmed two Justices to the Supreme Court. The last President who had two Supreme Court nominees had only 120

confirmations. So this argument of obstruction, of delay, and of unfairness doesn't hold up.

I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the obstructionism, delay, and filibusters, which they perfected. The history of President Bush's nominees to the ninth circuit provides some very important examples.

President Bush nominated nine individuals to the ninth circuit. Three of those nominations were filibustered. Two of those filibusters were successful. The nominations of Carolyn Kuhl and William Gerry Myers languished for years before being returned to the President. A fourth nominee, Randy Smith, waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the President. After being renominated, he was finally confirmed by a unanimous vote.

President Obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the ninth circuit. Only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote. After that vote failed, the nominee withdrew. If confirmed, Mr. Watford will be the fourth nominee of President Obama nominated to serve on the ninth circuit. Those four confirmations took an average of about 8 months from the date of nomination.

For all of President Obama's circuit nominees, the average time for nomination to confirmation is about 242 days. For President Bush's circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days. Given this history that I have spelled out, one might wonder then why President Bush and his nominees were treated differently and so much more unfairly than President Obama's nominees.

Mr. Watford received his B.A. from University of California, Berkeley in 1989 and his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, he clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit and then for Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. In 1996, he began working as an associate in the Litigation Department at the Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olsen. From 1997 2000, Mr. Watford was an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, handling a variety of criminal prosecutions, such as immigration, narcotics, firearms trafficking, bank robbery, computer fraud, mail and wire fraud, and securities fraud.

In 2000, Mr. Watford returned to private practice as an associate in the appellate practice group at Sidley & Austin's Los Angeles office. In 2001, he rejoined Munger, Tolles & Olsen as an associate, becoming a partner there in 2003. His practice focuses primarily on appellate litigation, specifically business and commercial disputes. Mr. Watford has also taught a course on Judicial Opinion Writing at the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law for three semesters (2007, 2008, and 2009).

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him as Well Qualified for this position.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ten minutes or a little less.

I am not prepared to speak for our side.

Mr. President, adopting a budget for the country is one of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of the Congress.

The Budget Act of 1974 requires Congress to adopt a budget by April 15 each year. It is a requirement that this Senate majority has ignored time and again. In fact, the Senate hasn't adopted a budget since April 29, 2009.

More than 3 years have passed since the Senate last adopted a budget. During that time, more than $4 trillion has been added to our Nation's debt. In President Obama's Presidency, we have added $5 trillion to the national debt.

So we are in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion deficits. All the while, the Senate Democratic majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth, and a path to balance. It is no wonder, then, our Nation is driving toward a fiscal cliff of deficits and debt. There is no one in the Democratic leadership willing to take hold of the wheel of this vehicle.

In February, President Obama released his budget. The President's 2013 budget would expand the scope of government by spending more money, increasing taxes on job creators, and continue on the path of enormous deficit and record debt.

While President Obama claims his budget will create an America built to last, the only thing his budget builds, it seems to me, is higher deficits and debt--a bigger and more intrusive government and economic decline for future generations.

During the past 60 years spending has averaged about 21 percent of GDP. Over the 10-year window of President Obama's budget, spending never gets below 22 percent. In dollar terms, spending goes up from the present $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion in the year 2022. So it is very clear President Obama is built to spend.

President Obama's budget is also harmful to our fragile economy because it would impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase. Maybe the President's purpose in imposing this huge tax increase is an effort to reduce the Nation's debt. Unfortunately, that is not what he has planned in his budget. He wants to spend every dollar.

His budget runs deficits totaling $6.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Debt held by the public increases from 74.2 percent of our economy today to 76.33 percent in 2022. Of course, we need to remember that the historical average since World War II has been about 43 percent of the economy.

If people believe President Obama is putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability, I would suggest that they look at the annual deficits over the next 10 years. They never drop below $575 billion, and they actually go up at the end of his budget, rising to $704 billion in 2022. President Obama's budget puts America on the course of deficits and debt as far as the eye can see into the future.

The President also took a pass on proposing any real changes to our entitlement programs, which are a real driver of future deficits and debt. Again, he is absent from the discussion. He has no solution. He has chosen not to lead. But where is the leadership from the Senate majority? Where is their budget? Why have they not proposed a budget in more than 3 years?

The budget chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget in place for this year and even for next year. The chairman and majority leader believe the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution. The Budget Control Act is not a budget. President Obama clearly agreed when he proposed his budget. House Republicans and Democrats alike agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions offered by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic leadership in the Senate stands alone in their belief that the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution. Is it because they have no ideas on how to balance the budget, contain out-of-control spending, grow the economy, or create jobs?

If the Democratic majority can't muster the will to present their own budget, why don't they offer President Obama's budget?

I am sure we will hear the argument that the resolution our side is offering is not a fair depiction of President Obama's budget. That is the rhetoric we will likely hear so that they can vote against it. The fact is they are going to vote against it for one reason, just like a year ago; that is, because it is President Obama's budget. They don't want to be on record voting for any budget. That will be the most remarkable outcome of today's exercise.

We are going to vote on five different budget proposals. Three are being offered by Senate Republicans, one is Budget Chairman Ryan's budget, and the final resolution is President Obama's budget. Not only have Senate Democrats failed to even propose a budget, they will likely vote in lockstep against each of the five budget proposals.

We are likely to see Senate Democrats come to the floor one by one and cast roughly 265 votes against the consideration of any budget. Is that leadership? Is that conviction? They are in the majority. When it comes to proposing and supporting a budget, they are the party of no and the party of obstruction. Democrats are the party filibustering consideration of budget blueprints. My friend, the budget chairman, was quoted recently as saying:

This is the wrong time to vote in committee. This is the

wrong time to vote on the floor. I don't think we will be

prepared to vote before the election.

How many more trillions do we need to add to the national debt before it is time to vote on a budget resolution? If now is not the time to lead, propose bold solutions and take action, when is?

The American people are going to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness and inability of the Senate majority to lead and to offer solutions. Once again, the Senate majority and its leadership and President Obama are content to be absent from the discussion. Three years without this sort of debate is proof of that. There are no solutions; there is no leadership. There is only failure and punting until after the next election.

We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today--most importantly for future generations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as cofounders and cochairs of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, Senator Landrieu and I offer a resolution to recognize May as National Foster Care Month.

The resolution is an opportunity to raise awareness about the challenges faced by children in the foster care system. It is also a time to acknowledge the dedication of foster care parents, advocates, and workers who are changing the lives of children every day.

National Foster Care Month was established more than 20 years ago to bring foster care issues to the forefront. Today we continue to see almost a half million children who are unable to remain at home because of abuse or neglect or because of other family issues.

During this separation, foster youth face loneliness, instability, and grief. Unfortunately, children in foster care experience an average of three different placements which often lead to disruption of routines. Some are required to change schools and move away from siblings, extended families, and familiar surroundings. They face educational instability and, as a result, score lower on all academic measures than peers.

Foster youth have to overcome misperceptions and stigmas and deal with emotional pain and trauma that comes from such separation. It becomes a reality for many children every day. In 2010, about 254,000 children entered into care. While many are reunified with their families or adopted into new ones, more than 107,000 children were awaiting adoption at the end of 2010.

The Senate Caucus on Foster Youth is providing a voice for these foster young people. Senator Landrieu and I founded this caucus in 2009 to raise awareness of issues challenging foster youth, including educational stability, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and the overprescription of psychotropic drugs.

We hear from youth about policies that affect their quality of life. Among other activities, the caucus sponsors a speakers series to bring the best ideas from the field to us policymakers in Washington, DC.

Today I invite my colleagues to join us on this caucus, to get involved and to make a difference. Senator Landrieu and I created the foster care caucus in the Senate to focus on all youth in the system, but we have particular focus on older children who may lack the security or support of a biological or adoptive family. These kids tend to age out of the foster care system, then struggle in creating a stable life that many of us often take for granted. More than 27,900 youth age out of foster care without a legal, permanent connection to an adult or family. We must focus on how to reduce this number from year to year. We have made great strides over the years, and we have done so in a bipartisan manner.

In 2006, the Senate Finance Committee held the first hearings on child welfare in more than a decade. The hearings led to passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act, which improved programs designed to help troubled families, provided grants for States and community organizations to combat methamphetamine addiction and other substance abuse, and increased case worker visits for children in foster care. It also supported grants to strengthen and improve collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies.

In 2008 I introduced the bill that became the Fostering Connection to Success and Increasing Adoption Act. This bipartisan bill made it easier for children to stay in their own communities and be adopted by their own relatives, including grandparents, aunts, and uncles. It provided incentives for States to move children from foster care to permanent adoptive homes, and it made all children with special needs eligible for Federal adoption assistance.

The law also broke new ground by establishing opportunities to help kids who age out of the foster care system at age 18 by giving States the option to extend their care in helping them pursue educational and vocational training.

Last year, to try to prevent children from having to enter the foster care system in the first place, I worked to reauthorize grants that support families who struggle with substance abuse and improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are not in their homes or are likely to be removed from their homes because of substance abuse by parents.

Children in the foster care system yearn for permanency, and these grants help keep families together when possible so the children are not subject to the many difficulties they face in the foster care system.

But Congress, as you know, must be vigilant. We must always keep our eyes on the prize; that is, a safe, loving and permanent home for every child. We must always stress prevention as well as reunification and the reunification services because these two key components are necessary to reduce the number of children who are forced to remain in foster care.

Finally, let me take a moment to pay tribute to many volunteers, guardians, mentors, and workers in the child protective service community. Every person in this field plays a vital role in improving the safety of our most vulnerable youth, and our country is better off for that. They are dedicated and important to thousands of children and can be very positive influences for families across the country.

This month of May is the time to pay tribute to the community. It is time to remember these young people. More important, it is time to encourage others to get involved and, hence, make a difference. It is my hope that this awareness will extend beyond me, and people will recognize the need to step up and to fight for these vulnerable youth on a daily basis. I encourage Members to cosponsor our resolution, and I especially appreciate the cooperation and working relationship I have had with Senator Landrieu on this subject of adoption, foster care, and, in particular, for aging-out young people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be urging the people in my caucus to vote for these nominees, both of them. Today, the Senate is expected to confirm these two nominees: Judge Russell to the District of Maryland and Mr. Tharp to the Northern District of Illinois. As I said, I support the nominees, and I do, in fact, expect that both of them will be confirmed.

We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a brisk pace. In fact, with today's confirmations, we will have confirmed 145 of President Obama's district and circuit court nominees. I would like to put this in perspective.

We confirmed two Supreme Court nominees during President Obama's term so far. Everyone knows it takes a tremendous amount of time and resources to consider Supreme Court nominees.

The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term. During President Bush's entire second term, the Senate confirmed only 120 district and circuit court nominees.

Compare that, if you will, to the 145 district and circuit court nominees we have confirmed so far since President Obama has become President. Let me say that same thing a different way. We have confirmed 25 more nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush in a similar time period. Of course, President Obama's term is not over yet.

With these facts in mind, I hope my colleagues will understand why I get a little frustrated when I hear all of these complaints about how we are not confirming enough nominees. The fact is President Obama is being treated much more fairly than Senate Democrats treated President Bush.

It is especially frustrating to hear the other side complain about the vacancy rate. The fact is the Senate is

doing its job. We are confirming the nominees who are sent to us. Of course, we cannot confirm nominees who are not up here from the White House. If there is a problem, then it rests with the President.

Right now, there are 77 judicial vacancies. But the President has made only 29 nominations. That means 48 vacancies or over 60 percent-- actually, nearly 63 percent--have no nominee. Stating it another way, there are currently 44 million Americans living in districts with vacancies where the President has not submitted a nominee to the Senate.

I suspect the President neglected to share that statistic with all the groups he summoned to the White House 1 week ago today to discuss judicial nominees, probably with the point of getting those organizations to put more pressure on the Congress to approve more nominees, and somehow approve nominees who are not even here yet for us to approve.

I could go on, but I do not intend to. I do not like to get into this back-and-forth with the other side. But it gets a little tiresome to hear the same misleading statements over and over. I want to set the record straight, and I have done that.

I congratulate the nominees who will be confirmed tonight. Both the nominees and their families should be proud.

George Levi Russell III, presently serving as an associate judge to the Circuit Court of Maryland, is nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland. Judge Russell received his BA from Morehouse College in 1988 and his JD from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1991. Upon graduation from law school, he clerked for Hon. Robert M. Bell, chief judge for the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Judge Russell then worked as an associate at the law firms Hazel and Thomas, P.C. and Whiteford, Taylor, and Preston, where he handled cases involving personal injury, product liability, and medical malpractice. In 1994, Judge Russell became an assistant U.S. attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. He worked in the civil division for 5 years, defending government agencies in discrimination, automobile accident, and medical malpractice cases. In 2000, Judge Russell rejoined the private sector for 2 years, working at the law offices of Peter G. Angelos, where he represented plaintiffs in class action and private personal injury cases. In 2002, he returned to the U.S. Attorney's Office and joined the criminal division for 5 years. There Judge Russell prosecuted those accused of violent crimes and narcotics cases.

In 2007, then-Governor Robert Ehrlich appointed Judge Russell to be an associate judge on the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. In November 2008, he was elected to a 15-year term. Judge Russell has sat on each of the four dockets of this court: criminal, civil, family, and juvenile.

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has given Judge Russell a rating of Substantial Majority ``Qualified'' and Minority ``Not Qualified'' for this position.

John J. Tharp, Jr., is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Tharp was first nominated to this position by President Bush in 2008. Mr. Tharp received his BA from Duke University in 1982 and his JD from Northwestern University School of Law in 1990. Mr. Tharp served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1982 to 1988, became a captain in 1987, and has received several military honors. Following graduation from Northwestern University School of Law in 1990, Mr. Tharp began his legal career as a clerk for Judge Flaum on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. After working as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis for a year, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, as a Federal prosecutor where he served in the Criminal Receiving and Appellate Division, General Crimes Division, and Organized Drug Enforcement Task Force. He handled cases involving narcotics and money laundering investigations, financial frauds, political corruption, tax crimes, bank robberies, and firearms offenses.

In 1997, Mr. Tharp left the U.S. Attorney's Office and moved to his current firm, Mayer Brown, where his practice focuses on civil concerns, including tort, contract, intellectual property, environment, tax, and unfair competition claims, securities fraud, professional liability, and governmental investigations.

In 2009, Mr. Tharp's firm selected him to serve as coleader of the securities enforcement practice. In 2010, that group merged with the securities litigation group, and he continues to serve as coleader of the combined Mayer Brown securities litigation and enforcement practice. He has an ABA rating of Unanimous ``Well Qualified.'''

I urge my colleagues to support these nominees. I think they probably will be supported overwhelmingly.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, a strong economy needs affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. In recent years, Americans have experienced higher prices for energy across the spectrum. This has led to an enormous growth in private and public research and development of innovative and advanced energy technologies. These innovative technologies include fuel from algae, solar, and wind generation, battery manufacturing, advanced nuclear, and many others.

I recently had an opportunity to visit with Virgil Vanderloo, of Ackley, IA. It was immediately apparent that Virgil has a passion for new and innovative ideas regarding hydroelectric power generation. Virgil does not have an engineering background he is a retired farmer. For 30 years he farmed land in Hardin, Plymouth, and Woodbury Counties. It is because of this time as a farmer that Virgil came to appreciate the land and its rich natural resources. Now, he is pursing a concept to capture the power from our Nation's rivers to generate electricity.

After speaking with Mr. Vanderloo and reviewing the material he compiled, he believes that his concept may have the potential to increase the production of hydroelectricity and capture a renewable energy source that currently goes uncollected. Mr. Vanderloo's concept includes placing barges below dams fitted with water turbines to produce electricity. He reasons that this type of electricity generation could be viable on the 30 or so dams along the Mississippi River. If viable, this concept could conceivably be implemented on many of the more than 50,000 nonpowered dams in the United States.

After all, the U.S. Department of Energy just last month published a study that indicated the United States could get as much as 12 gigawatts of energy per year by utilizing the hydropower potential of existing dams. The idea proposed by Virgil could be one the innovations in hydropower technologies that could help us use existing dams to generate renewable energy.

I would like to make an appeal to hydroelectric designers and engineers to review the concept presented by Mr. Vanderloo. I have posted his information on the Internet which can be accessed at httP// 1.usa.gov/JlA5Ky. I hope those with scientific and engineering expertise in this area will review his proposal and contact him directly. It may have promise, and I hope this brings attention to his ideas regarding hydroelectric power generation.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of LTC Robert B. Shain, who passed away on Sunday, April 29, 2012. I would like to express my condolences to Lieutenant Colonel Shain's family, in particular his wife of 52 years, Sherry, his two daughters, Cynthia and Stephanie, his son, Michael, and his three grandkids, Bella, Jason, and Mia. He is also survived by his sister-in-law, Nancy, and many nieces and nephews.

Robert Shain had an honorable and extensive career which began upon his graduation from the Military Academy at West Point in 1959. He served in the US Army for 20 years as an infantry officer as well as a fixed-wing and helicopter pilot. He completed two tours of duty in Vietnam and was awarded the Legion of Merit, two Distinguished Flying Crosses, two Bronze Stars, 27 Air Medals with V for valor, Meritorious Service Medal, Vietnamese Medal of Honor, and Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He served as commander of the Executive Flight Detachment and pilot of the presidential helicopter,

Army One, for presidents Nixon and Ford from 1973 to 1976.

Following his retirement, he enjoyed a long professional career in the aeronautics industry. He was an active supporter of the National Rifle Association and a member of the Military Officers Association. However, I understand that his greatest joy in life was spending time with his loving family.

Bob Shain lived every aspect of his life whether service to his country, to his family, or to his business with unrivaled pride and dignity. The career of Lieutenant Colonel Shain serves as a reminder of the sacrifice and commitment that has carried our great nation through the toughest of times. His service to the people of the United States and the State of Iowa is worthy of much admiration and respect. I am grateful for his service and pay tribute to his patriotism.

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

Mr. President, is it appropriate in the Senate schedule to start debate on the judges?

Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm three additional judicial nominees. With the confirmation of Judge Nguyen to the ninth circuit, Ms. Baker to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Mr. Lee to the Northern District of Illinois, we will have confirmed 83 judicial nominees during this Congress.

It is somewhat ironic that today, according to press accounts, the White House is holding a forum and strategy session with administration officials and 150 supporters from across the country concerned about the judicial vacancy rate. I wonder if at this strategy session the White House took a look in the mirror when addressing the vacancy rate. Only the President can make nominations to the Senate. While we have a responsibility to advise and consent on those nominations, Senators cannot fill vacancies unless people are nominated for those positions. I would note the President has failed to do this in 47 of the 76 remaining vacancies, including 21 of 35 seats designated as judicial emergencies. That is more than 60 percent of the current vacancies with no nominee.

The White House and the Senate majority are fond of their claim that millions of Americans are living in districts with vacancies. Of course, what the other side fails to tell you is that 88 million Americans live in judicial districts where vacancies exist because the President has failed to nominate judges. Most of those seats have been vacant for more than a whole year. Once again, if the White House is serious about judicial vacancies, it holds the key to nominating and filling those vacancies. It has failed in too many instances to use that key.

Furthermore, according to the press accounts, in its invitation, the White House accused Republicans of subjecting consensus nominees to ``unprecedented delays and filibusters.'' This is a statement without factual basis, and it ignores the record of judicial nominations.

I would note that after today's confirmation, there are 12 nominees on the Executive Calendar that might fall into the category of consensus nominees. Seven nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in the committee and clearly are not consensus nominees. The substantial majority of those 12 nominees were reported out of committee less than 10 legislative days ago. Not only is there no filibuster against any of the consensus nominees, but I am not sure how there can be accusation of delay and particularly partisan delay.

Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the obstructionism, delay, and filibusters which they perfected. The history of President Bush's nominees to the Ninth Circuit provides some examples. President Bush nominated nine individuals to the Ninth Circuit. Three of those nominations were filibustered. Two of those filibusters were successful. The nominations of Carolyn Kuhl and William Gerry Myers languished for years before being returned to the President. A fourth nominee, Randy Smith, waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the President. After being renominated, he was finally confirmed unanimously.

President Obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the Ninth Circuit. Only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote. After the vote failed, the nominee withdrew. Today we confirm the third nomination of this President to the Ninth Circuit. Those three confirmations took an average of about 8 months from the date of nomination. For all of President Obama's circuit nominees, the average time from nomination to confirmation is about 242 days. For President Bush's circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days. One might ask why President Bush was treated so differently, with so much more delay than this President has been treated or his nominees have been treated.

Another example of past Democratic obstruction and delay is in Arkansas. Today we confirm President Obama's nominee to the Eastern District of Arkansas within about 6 months of her nomination. I would note that President Bush's nominee, Jay Leon Holmes, sat on the Executive Calendar for more than 14 months awaiting confirmation. From nomination, his confirmation took over 17 months. Again, why were President Bush's nominees treated worse than this President's nominees?

I can only conclude that the White House has selective memory or different definitions when it accuses Republicans of unprecedented delay and obstructionism. I am disappointed that the President continues to blame Republicans for vacancies that have no nominee and chooses to follow the political strategy of blaming rather than working with the Senate to nominate consensus nominees. In other words, why isn't the President, instead of having a conference on why there are judicial vacancies, taking the same amount of time to get the names up here so we can work on them?

Mr. President, Jacqueline Nguyen, presently serving as a U.S. district judge, is nominated to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Nguyen received her A.B. from Occidental College in 1987 and her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, in 1991. She began her legal career as an associate in the Litigation Department at the Los Angeles law firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett where she handled litigation matters involving commercial disputes, intellectual property, and construction defects. From 1995 until 2002, Judge Nguyen was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. There, she handled the investigation and prosecution of human trafficking, immigration fraud, mail and tax fraud, and money laundering cases. In 2000, Judge Nguyen became deputy chief of the General Crimes Section. In that position, she handled the training and supervision of all new Assistant U.S. Attorneys and various types of criminal cases involving violent crimes, drug trafficking, firearms violations, and fraud.

In 2002, Governor Gray Davis appointed Judge Nguyen to the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. In 2009, she was nominated by President Obama to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California. The Senate approved her nomination on December 1, 2009 by a vote of 97 0. In her capacity as a judge, she has presided over thousands of cases.

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal judiciary unanimously rated her as ``qualified'' for this position.

Kristine Gerhard Baker is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Ms. Baker received her B.A. from St. Louis University in 1993 and her J.D. from University of Arkansas School of Law in 1996. She served as a law clerk for the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. In 1998 she became an associate in the law firm Williams & Anderson, LLP, where she handled commercial litigation cases involving breach of contract and fraud. In 2000, Ms. Baker joined the law firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, PLLC. Her focus at the firm has been devoted to complex commercial litigation cases, including cases involving employment discrimination, securities violations, unfair competition, sic products liability, Fair Housing Act claims, and Freedom of Information Act claims. She has handled in administrative proceedings and in Federal and State court claims for discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination as well as claims arising under

the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a substantial majority rating of ``well qualified'' and a minority ``qualified.''

John Z. Lee is nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Lee received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1989 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1992. He began his legal career as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division. There he represented the United States in Federal courts on issues primarily involving environmental statutes. He also served as special assistant to the counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno.

In 1994, he left the public sector to take a job as an associate at Mayer Brown. In 1996, he joined a new firm, Grippo & Elden, as an associate. In 1999, he moved to his current firm, Freeborn & Peters. There he made income partner in 2001 and equity partner in 2004. In private practice, Mr. Lee has focused almost entirely on litigation, expanding his expertise to complex commercial disputes, including cases involving antitrust, intellectual property, employment, and business tort issues. Most of these cases were in Federal courts, particularly the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. He also represented clients in criminal investigations of antitrust and financial regulations violations. In private practice, he represents public and private companies, individual businesspersons and low-income clients pro bono. He has an ABA rating of substantial majority ``qualified,'' minority ``not qualified.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering two nominations for U.S. district judge positions in Texas. Gregg Jeffrey Costa is nominated to serve in the Southern District of Texas, while David Campos Guaderrama is nominated to serve in the Western District of Texas. Again, we are moving forward under the regular order and procedures of the Senate. With today's nomination, we will have confirmed 80 judicial nominees during this Congress. With the confirmations today, the Senate will have confirmed more than 75 percent of President Obama's judicial nominations.

While we are making progress in the Senate, we continue to hear complaints about the vacancy rate. I will again remind my colleagues that of the 81 vacancies, more than 58 percent of these vacancies have no nominee.

These nominations came to the committee with the support of home State Senators. They were reported out of committee by voice vote. These nominees have exceptional records and demonstrate the type of consensus nominations that can be confirmed, even in a Presidential election year.

Mr. Costa received his B.A. degree in 1994 from Dartmouth College. He graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1999. After law school, Mr. Costa clerked for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph on the DC Court of Appeals from August 1999 to July of 2000 and then for Chief Justice Rehnquist from July 2001 to July 2002. Between his two clerkships, he worked as a Bristol Fellow in the United States Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General.

In 2002, Mr. Costa joined the law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges as an associate. During his time at the firm, Mr. Costa

handled civil litigation matters including intellectual property, class actions, international arbitration, bankruptcy, and general commercial disputes. Mr. Costa also worked on appellate matters and a few pro bono cases as well.

In 2005, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, Houston office, as an assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Costa has worked in the criminal division of the office in the major offenders and major fraud sections, investigating and prosecuting matters in the areas of mortgage fraud, investment fraud, securities fraud, public corruption, Internet fraud, human trafficking, child pornography, and narcotics and firearms violations. As an AUSA, Mr. Costa also has handled numerous appellate matters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In addition to prosecuting cases for the office, Mr. Costa serves as the deputy international affairs coordinator for the U.S. Attorney's Office. In this capacity, he helps coordinate incoming and outgoing requests on behalf of the Governments of Malaysia, Turkey, Columbia, Greece, France, and the United Kingdom. Mr. Costa also helps and provides guidance to other AUSAs on extradition matters. And in 2005, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Mr. Costa served as the hurricane fraud coordinator for his office that investigated fraud cases relating to the Hurricanes. Mr. Costa's office prosecuted more than 100 individuals for crimes such as government-benefit fraud, identify theft offenses, charitable fraud, and investment fraud.

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a unanimous rating of ``well qualified.''

We are also considering the nomination of David Campos Guaderrama, nominated to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas. After graduation from Notre Dame Law School, Judge Guaderrama worked as a solo practitioner from December 1979 to August 1980. He then formed a partnership practice with his then wife. His practice focused on defending individuals in criminal cases, but he also handled some general civil, probate, and workers' compensation cases during this time. In 1987, he was appointed to serve as El Paso County's first public defender and was charged with starting up and developing an office that would be capable of handling at least 50 percent of all indigent felony cases.

In November 1994, Judge Guaderrama was elected judge of the 243rd Judicial District Court of Texas. He was elected for a 4-year term and subsequently reelected on four occasions. During his term as a Texas District Court judge, he was instrumental in establishing the 243rd Drug Court Program and Access to Recovery Program. Both programs are aimed at helping rehabilitate defendants guilty of minor drug offenses through counseling and supervision, rather than incarceration. Also while on the 243rd Judicial District he served as chairman of a subcommittee that oversaw reform of the jury selection process that implemented mailing jury qualification questionnaires to potential jurors. He also piloted a program to use video conference technology to conduct arraignments.

In 2008, Judge Guaderrama was an unsuccessful candidate for justice, Eighth Court of Appeals of Texas. In 2010, he was appointed by the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas to serve an 8-year term as a U.S. magistrate judge. He has an ABA rating of majority ``well qualified'', minority ``qualified.''

Madam President, I have seen the good the law called the Violence Against Women Act has done in providing victim services in my State of Iowa. We all recognize the harm that flows from domestic violence. It is harmful to the victims as well as the families of victims.

I have supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act each time it has come up. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization on each of these occasions has been highly bipartisan. We have passed consensus bills and we have not played politics with reauthorizing the law; that is, until now. This time it seems to be different. I don't know why it should be. The majority turned this issue into a partisan issue.

In the Judiciary Committee, the majority gave no notice it would inject new matters into the Violence Against Women Act. When the committee held a hearing on this issue, these ideas were not discussed. Their need has not been demonstrated. We do not know exactly how they will work. It was clear committee Republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material. Of course, the majority refused during negotiations when we asked they be removed.

Republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the Leahy bill. Probably 80 to 85 percent of the substitute we are offering is the same as the Leahy bill. This includes whole titles of the bill. We could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, but the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill. They didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

Now the media has reported this was a deliberate strategy of the majority. A recent Politico article quoted a prominent Democratic Senator. The article

said he ``wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a war against women.'' This is the cynical, partisan game-playing Americans are sick of. At every town meeting people say to me: When are you going to get together and stop the partisanship? This is especially the case on this bill.

Republicans aren't even blocking the bill. We have called for the bill to be brought up. Instead, the majority has taken 6 months to reauthorize this program that expired last October. That says something about the priorities of the other party.

For instance, last week, we wasted time on political votes. That seems to be the case in the Senate most of this year. The Senate can pass a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act by an overwhelming margin, but it seems as though the other party doesn't want that to happen. When they say unfavorable things about Republicans and women, they aren't being forthright. A few weeks ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising e- mail. The e-mail stated, in part:

Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress

will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Enough is enough! The Republican War on Women must stop NOW .

. . Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold

Republicans accountable for their War on Women?

The majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill that would actually help these victims. I say to my colleagues, there is no war on women except the political one. It is a figment of the imagination of Democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment or high gas prices. Instead of talking about those issues--particularly high gas prices--they would rather make up a war against women. All evidence points to the other side being more interested in raising money.

The media has also reported the bill is coming out now because the Democrats' desire to gin up a Republican so-called war on women was derailed last week, I suppose by other issues. It should be clear at the outset Republicans are not blocking, have not blocked, and never threatened to block the Senate's consideration of this bill. The Judiciary Committee only reported the bill to the Senate 2 months ago. It was March before the committee filed its usual committee report to the entire Senate. Democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up right now. It was up to the majority leader to decide when the bill should be debated. He finally decided--not right after the bill was reported out of committee or not right after the committee report was filed--to do it now. Why not back then?

As long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process. As the previous speaker said, I hope we can get it done this very day.

There are several other important points I wish to establish. First, I hope a consensus version of the Violence Against Women Act will be reauthorized. If a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if the bill does not pass because, contrary to the statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services.

The Violence Against Women Act--the bill before us--is an authorization bill only, not an appropriations bill. This bill does not allow the expenditure of one dime because that result occurs through the appropriations process. Appropriators can and will fund the Violence Against Women Act programs regardless of whether this bill is reauthorized. This is exactly what happened over the past year. We think new issues have arisen since the last Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. These issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization. That can happen. We should give guidance to the appropriators. That is what authorization committees, such as in this case, the Judiciary Committee, is all about.

I support the appropriators continuing to fund the Violence Against Women Act while we are trying to put together a consensus bill. The Violence Against Women Act is being funded despite the expiration of its previous authorization. No existing rights of anyone are affected if the Violence Against Women Act is not reauthorized. No existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than this partisan bill--I should say the majority's bill, not the partisan bill.

Second, the majority controls how bills move in the Senate. As I said, the current Violence Against Women Act reauthorization expired 6 months ago. If reauthorization was so important, I think the majority party could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago. They didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are at stake. This is true, even though the prior reauthorization has expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed.

Third, nothing like the majority's bill, where it does not reflect consensus, will become law. It is a political exercise. The other body, meaning the House of Representatives, doesn't seem as though it is going to pass it the way the majority party here wants it to pass. If we want to pass a consensus violence against women reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the alternative Senator Hutchison and I are going to present to the Senate.

Fourth, the majority's bill, as reported out of committee, was and is fiscally irresponsible. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new direct spending. That will increase the deficit by that same amount. The reason is the immigration provisions that we said previously were nonstarters. These were some of the provisions the majority refused to take out. Those provisions are bad immigration policy. Nonetheless, I am glad the majority has now found an offset for this spending.

The Republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does, in fact, the majority bill. There are many ways in which this substitute does that. Under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims and less to bureaucrats. It requires that 10 percent of the grantees be audited every year. This is to ensure taxpayer funds are actually being used for the purpose of the legislation--to combat domestic violence.

This is a very important point. The Justice Department inspector general conducted a review of 22 grantees under this law between 1998 and 2010. Of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements. The violations range from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner. When this happens, the money is not getting to the victims and the taxpayers' money is being wasted.

Let me give some examples. In 2010, one grantee was found by the inspector general to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Justice Department. A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.

The fiscal irregularities continue. An inspector general audit from just this year found that this law's grant recipients in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending. Also, a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho found about $250,000 in improperly spent funds. This included--can my colleagues believe it--$171,000 in salary for an unapproved position.

In Michigan this year, a woman, at a VAWA grant recipient facility, used grant funds to purchase goods and services for personal use.

We should make sure then that Violence Against Women Act money goes to victims and not to waste such as this. That hasn't been the case, obviously, under the current situation. So our Republican substitute deals with this spending problem.

The substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. That will ensure that more money is available for victims' services. Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims.

In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of Violence Against Women Act funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5 percent. That means money that now is over the 7.5-percent suggested

limit is going to bureaucrats and not to victims. Of course, the underlying bill, the Leahy bill, contains no such limit. If you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expenses should be capped at this 7.5-percent level.

The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of the STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protective orders are targeted to sexual assault. The Leahy-Crapo bill sets aside only 20 percent instead of that 30 percent to fight sexual assault.

The substitute Senator Hutchison and I offer--hopefully this afternoon--requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization. This ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology. This will result in more effective assistance to victims. The Leahy-Crapo bill contains no such requirement.

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatens. I will give you an instance. The majority bill said that college campuses must provide for ``prompt and equitable investigation and resolution'' of charges of violence or stalking. This would have codified a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that, if proved, rightly should harm reputation. But if established on a barely ``more probable than not'' standard, reputations can be ruined unfairly and very quickly. The substitute eliminates this provision.

The majority has changed their own bill's language. I thank them for that. I take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language.

The substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating double jeopardy.

The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taking place in Indian country.

Noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have ``minimum contacts'' with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions about this provision. The administration and its supporters in this body pursue their policy agendas headlong without bothering to consider the Constitution. The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.

We have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill are. I strongly support funds to reduce the backlog of testing rape kits. But that bill provides that only 40 percent of the rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog. The substitute requires that 70 percent of the funding would go for that purpose and get rid of the backlog sooner.

It requires that 1 percent of the Debbie Smith Act funds be used to create a national database to track the rape kit backlog. It also mandates that 7 percent of the existing Debbie Smith Act funds be used to pay for State and local audits of the backlog.

Debbie Smith herself has endorsed these provisions. The majority bill has no such provisions. Making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is provictim. True reform in the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization should further that goal.

Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes. The Hutchison-Grassley substitute creates a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for Federal convictions for forcible rape. The majority bill establishes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence. That provision is only in there because Republicans offered it and we won that point in our committee.

Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women. Our alternative establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age.

I believe the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher. In light of the lenient sentences many Federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions. But the substitute is at least a start. This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography.

The alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault. This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious. The Leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault. The status quo appears to be fine for the people who are going to vote for the underlying bill if the Hutchison-Grassley amendment is not adopted.

Instead, the Hutchison-Grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim.

It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for a crime where it results in life-threatening bodily injury to, or the permanent disfigurement of, the victim.

It increases from 10 to 15 years the statutory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim results.

The Leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims.

The substitute grants administrative subpoena power to the U.S. Marshals Service to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders. The Leahy bill does nothing to help locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders.

And the substitute cracks down on abuse in the award of U visas for illegal aliens and the fraud in the Violence Against Women Act self- petitioning process. The majority bill does not include any reforms of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in the program.

One of the Senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. But in the past there were no deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions. We always proceeded in the past in a consensus fashion.

Domestic violence is an important issue, serious problem. We all recognize that. In the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it. When the other side says this should not be about politics and partisanship, why, heavens, we obviously agree. It is the majority that has now decided they want to score political points above assisting victims. They want to portray a phony war on women because this is an election year. They are raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue, and I demonstrated that in one of the e-mails that came to our attention.

There could have been a consensus bill before us today, as in the past. There is controversy now because that is what the majority seems to want. We look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer and vote on our substitute amendment. That amendment contains much that is in agreement with the Leahy bill. The substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to protect victims of domestic violence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for offering her substitute amendment to the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill. I am pleased to cosponsor her amendment. This amendment is vitally needed.

The Violence Against Women Act has always been reauthorized in the past on a bipartisan, consensus basis.

It would have been so easy to do so again.

All of us who support the amendment of the Senator from Texas are in agreement with 80 percent of the bill that is before us.

But the majority has decided to place a higher priority on scoring political points than on passing another consensus reauthorization of the law.

Recently, Vice President Biden asked what kind of message it would send to women if VAWA were allowed to expire.

He implied that a crisis would be at hand that must be avoided at all costs.

But the actual answer to his question is clear.

The majority party has already allowed VAWA to expire.

VAWA's reauthorization expired last October.

There has been no crisis of any kind because the appropriations for VAWA programs have kept flowing.

It is the majority, not us, that is responsible for the lapse in VAWA's authorization.

The way that the Judiciary Committee handled reauthorization this time has been very disappointing.

The majority insisted on including--and retaining--provisions that appear designed to provoke partisan opposition.

For instance, the majority insisted on giving Indian tribal courts criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian Americans for the first time in our country's history.

The committee held one hearing on reauthorizing this bill, and it devoted no attention to exploring how this provision would operate.

As a result, the committee described this provision in only four sentences in its report on the legislation.

We all recognize that domestic violence rates in Indian country are too high.

Both the committee-reported bill and the Hutchison-Grassley substitute contain provisions to address the problem.

But the majority cannot explain why expanding the power of tribal courts would be effective or how this would work.

Do the tribes have the resources and expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution?

How would the Federal courts' caseload be affected by all the new habeas petitions that would necessarily be filed if this became law?

What changes would occur in the existing relationships between Federal, State, and tribal law enforcement?

The majority has no idea whether this provision would help matters or not because it simply did not give this issue any careful attention.

Moreover, the Congressional Research Service has raised several constitutional issues that would be posed by this provision as it was reported from the committee.

These include due process, equal protection, fifth amendment grand jury and double jeopardy issues, as well as sixth amendment rights to counsel and a jury trial by one's peers.

At the eleventh hour before floor consideration, the majority has recognized the serious constitutional issues that were raised by the committee language.

It has changed the language in an effort to respond to the constitutional questions it had denied existed.

If we had had a hearing on these questions, matters could have proceeded differently.

These changes do not address the constitutional questions CRS posed about congressional power to recognize the inherent power of tribes to prosecute non-Indians, nor do they affect the inability of a defendant to appeal his conviction.

And, of course, they do not address the practical concerns that I have raised all along.

CRS also raises constitutional due process concerns regarding another section in the bill that would give tribal courts the authority to enforce protective orders. That section remains unchanged.

Ironically, the constitutional concerns about the criminal provisions are made more severe because the majority refused to eliminate language we asked them to omit.

Constitutional problems are made worse because the bill gives tribes criminal jurisdiction as part of their claimed inherent sovereignty.

Our substitute strikes the provisions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the relevant portions of the CRS analysis.

Mr. President, to address the real problems of domestic violence among Native Americans, our substitute would permit tribes to petition for protective orders against non-Indians in Federal court.

The committee-reported bill did not respect due process in the area of accusations against college students.

Of course, allegations of sexual assault on campus should be taken as seriously as anywhere else.

But reputations can be ruined by false charges, so it is important that fairness in adjudications occur.

As a practical matter, the committee-reported bill imposed on these campus proceedings the standards of proof issued in a controversial proposed regulation by the Department of Education.

They were very weak and unfair.

Additionally, under the committee-reported bill, if the campus disciplinary authority exonerated the innocent even under the weak standard of proof, the accuser could appeal for another round of proceedings.

That just is not fair.

At the last minute, the majority has changed the first but not the second of these provisions.

Now, the investigation must be fair and impartial.

That is progress.

This change should have been made much earlier.

But the bill still allows a person who has been found innocent after a fair investigation to be pursued again at the victim's request.

Our substitute eliminates that unfairness.

The committee bill also mishandles immigration issues.

The one hearing the Judiciary Committee held presented testimony that fraud exists in the VAWA-self petitioning process.

We heard from victims who fell in love with foreign nationals, sponsored them for residency in the United States, only to be accused of abuse so that the foreign national could get a green card.

The chairman promised at the hearing to include language in the bill that would address this immigration fraud, but his bill fails to include anything of the sort.

Our substitute contains language that will reduce fraud and abuse by requiring an in person interview whenever possible with the applicant who alleges abuse.

We cannot allow people to misuse the VAWA self-petitioning process to obtain a green card.

The committee-reported bill also expands the number of U visas by tens of thousands without changing the rules by which they are issued.

Under current law, an individual may be eligible for a U visa if he or she has been or is likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of a crime.

However, the requirements for a U visa are generous.

There is no requirement that an investigation be commenced as a result of the alien reporting the crime; there is no time period within which an alien has to report the crime; the crime could have occurred years before it is reported and there could be no way to identify the perpetrator; the alien seeking the ``U'' visa could even have a criminal record of their own.

Our substitute includes commonsense, best practices to ensure that U visas are truly used as a tool to fight crime.

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute amendment will better protect victims of domestic violence than does the underlying bill.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money for domestic violence programs are distributed every year.

For that money to be effective, it must actually reach victims.

But too much of the money does not reach victims.

Excess amounts are spent on administrative expenses, conferences, and lobbying, and some is lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.

For example, since 1998, the inspector general has audited 22 individual VAWA grantees.

In those random audits, 21 were found to have unallowable costs, unsupported expenditures, or other serious deficiencies in how they expended taxpayer dollars.

That is millions of dollars that could have helped an untold number of victims but instead were lost.

Although some good accountability measures were included in the committee-reported bill, more are necessary.

The substitute amendment requires audits and includes mandatory exclusions for those who are found to have violated program rules.

It limits conference expenditures at the Justice Department and Health and Human Services Department unless there is proper oversight.

It prohibits lobbying by grantees, and it limits administrative expenses in the government's management of the grants.

Our substitute directs more money to victims of the most serious crimes than the committee bill by requiring 30 percent--not 20 percent--of the funds go toward sexual assault.

It directs that 70 percent of the funds for reducing rape kit backlogs actually be used for that purpose, not the mere 40 percent in the committee-reported bill.

The substitute protects victims in other ways that are not contained in the underlying bill.

It contains a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated sexual abuse.

It imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year for possession of child pornography where the child depicted is under 12.

That does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

It is a consensus item that has passed the Judiciary Committee in the past with a strong bipartisan vote.

The alternative also creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for interstate domestic violence that results in death.

There are opponents of mandatory minimum sentences.

The leniency-industrial complex is active in this area as in others.

But we should not take too seriously the claims of opponents of the mandatory minimums that they take away judicial discretion.

They think that judges should be able to give any sentence they want on these crimes, even potentially no jail time at all.

Contrary to victims' groups, they fear that any requirement of jail time for these crimes will be counterproductive and lead to lower sentences.

But those same opponents support the grants for arrest in the committee-reported bill.

Unlike sentences, mandatory arrest policies tie the hands of law enforcement to take action against people who have not been convicted of anything.

They may reduce the likelihood that the police may be called in actual cases of domestic violence.

They may result in calls to the police by one person for leverage against another.

They may cause other negative unintended consequences as well.

Our substitute also gives the Marshals Service administrative subpoena authority to pursue unregistered sex offenders.

These are individuals who are required by law to register as sex offenders but fail to comply.

This is another provision that has enjoyed wide bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee.

Victims will also be helped by the substitute's requirement of an audit of the Justice Department's use of the Crime Victims Fund.

When criminals are convicted and made to pay fines, these fines are placed in a fund for the sole purpose of assisting victims.

However, there are questions whether the Justice Department is spending these funds only for their one permitted use.

An audit is in order.

And the bill also includes a bipartisan provision to enable victims to receive restitution that is owed to them but has not been paid.

The IRS would be permitted to deduct the money from payments it would otherwise make to the perpetrator.

Mr. President, there is broad bipartisan support for reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute would of the underlying bill reauthorize the 80 percent that enjoys that consensus.

It eliminates provisions that are not consensus and would not pass the other body and become law.

And it adds other provisions that are widely supported and would provide real benefits to victims of domestic violence.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I will vote for S. 1789, the 21st Century Postal Service Act, because it is undeniable that the Postal Service is facing a crisis and something must be done very soon. There are those who say that this bill goes too far in reforming the Postal Service and implementing uncomfortable changes, and then there are those who say that this bill does not go far enough in transforming the Postal Service to be viable in the long term. I agree that this bill is not perfect. It is a compromise so just about everyone can find something in it to dislike. However, unless we do something to help the Postal Service cut costs, the borrowing authority of the Postal Service will run out in the fall and it will be unable to make payroll. I will support this bill, imperfect though it is, because we need to make progress in addressing this looming crisis now. Otherwise, if we wait much longer, we will be faced with a choice between a shut-down of mail service across our country or a massive taxpayer bailout, both of which would hurt the economy and take money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.