Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Tracy of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the rest of today.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the Senate be in a period of debate

only on the bill for the remainder of today's session; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, April 26, it be for debate only until 11:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I am pleased that we are able to move directly to the legislation without a cloture vote.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is a bipartisan bill. It has 61 cosponsors. I was encouraged yesterday morning to hear the majority leader and the Republican leader discussing moving forward quickly to pass this legislation.

I agree with the majority leader. I don't want to see the bill weakened. I agree with the Republican leader that there is strong bipartisan support for the Leahy-Crapo bill. I look forward to working out an agreement. I have spoken to both of them and told them I will support an agreement that will allow us to consider, and expeditiously approve, the bill in short order. Of course, I will be happy to help in any way I can to facilitate that.

The bipartisan Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of the landmark law has been remarkable. It is one law I can point to and say that it has provided life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women, children, and men.

At a time when we can sometimes be polarized around here, I appreciate the bipartisan support of this bill.

Senator Crapo and I introduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act last year. We come from different parts of the country. We come from different parties. We, I think it is safe to say, come from different political philosophies. But we agreed that we all have to work to stop violence against women. In fact, we didn't move forward to do so at all until it had a lot of discussion both with the staff of the ranking member and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. We did our best to try to accommodate all points of view.

We continued our outreach after the introduction of the bill, in the hearings and in the committee process. The amendment the Judiciary Committee adopted on February 2 included several additional changes requested by Republican Senators. I made sure they were in there. They are outlined in the committee report.

We eliminated several provisions that would have offered significant assistance to immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was difficult to remove these provisions, but we earnestly sought compromise, and I was encouraged when in our committee meetings Senator Grassley acknowledged our efforts to reach agreement where we could.

I said then and I now say that we were willing to go as far as we could to accommodate Senators on either side of the aisle. But as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I cannot abandon core principles of fairness, and I will not. I continue to urge all Senators to join to protect the most vulnerable victims of violence, including battered immigrant women, assisting law enforcement, Native American women who suffer in record numbers, and those who have had trouble accessing services.

I have said so many times on this floor that a victim is a victim is a victim. They all need to be helped. They deserve our attention. They deserve the protection and access to the services our bill provides.

We now have 61 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans; 16 of the 17 women in the Senate, from both parties, have joined as cosponsors. They have been strong supporters from the start, and the bill is better because of their efforts.

There is one purpose, and one purpose alone, for the bill that Senator Crapo and I have introduced: to help protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. That purpose is reinforced as we turn to this bill during Crime Victims' Rights Week and Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Our bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country--and I must say from all political persuasions, from the right to the left. the bipartisan bill was developed in an open and democratic process, and it is responsive to the unmet needs of victims.

The New York Times had a column by Dorothy Samuels last Sunday that got it right. She wrote:

[T]he provisions respond to real humanitarian and law

enforcement needs.

When Senator Crapo and I worked to put this legislation together, we purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or divisive on either the right or the left. We selected only those proposals that law enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day told us were essential. We did not go for somebody who didn't have firsthand experience. We asked the people who actually have to make the law work. That is actually why every one of these provisions has such widespread support.

In fact, our reauthorization bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations, and they include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many more.

We have done a good job on the domestic violence front, so sexual assault is where we need to increase our focus. That is what the bill does. The administration is fully onboard, and I welcome their statement of support.

We have to pass this legislation. We have to pass this provision to focus on sexual assault. I think of the advocates in my State of Vermont who work not only in the cities but especially in the rural areas. Mr. President, it is not just those of us from small States; every single State has rural areas. The distinguished Presiding Officer does, the distinguished majority leader does, the distinguished Republican leader does. We all have rural areas.

I think of Karen Tronsgard-Scott of the Vermont Network to End Domestic and Sexual Violence and Jane Van Buren with Women Helping Battered Women. They have helped us put this together. I appreciate the guidance from all across the Nation from such organizations as the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. The coalition has been maintained and has been valuable in these efforts. It is working with them that we were able to adjust the allocation of funds to increase needed funding for sexual assault efforts, and do it without harming the other coordinated efforts.

We reached our understanding in working with them, not by picking a number out of a hat or trying to outbid some proposal. It wasn't there. Everybody worked together. We only have so many dollars. We tried to do it and use the money where it works the best.

The provision ensuring that services will be available to all victims regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity is supported by the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights and numerous civil rights and crime victim advocates. I was pleased to see a letter from Cindy Dyer, President Bush's Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, in which she writes:

As criminal justice professionals, our job is to protect

the community, but we are not able to do that unless all the

tools necessary . . . are available to all victims of crime.

Of course, she is right. A victim is a victim is a victim.

Mr. President, when I was the State's attorney, I went to crime scenes at 3 o'clock in the morning and there was a battered and bloody victim--we hoped alive, but sometimes not. The police never said: Is this victim a Democrat or a Republican? Is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim an immigrant? Is this victim native born?

They said: This is a victim. How do we find the person who did this and stop them from doing it again? A victim is a victim is a victim. Everybody in law enforcement will tell you that.

Because of that, we added a limited number of new visas for immigrant victims of serious crimes who help law enforcement, which is backed only by the immigrants' rights organizations, as one might expect, but it is backed by the Fraternal Order of Police which writes that ``the expansion of the U visa program will provide incalculable benefits to our citizens and our communities at a negligible cost.'' My friends in law enforcement are right, as they so often are.

On Tuesday, in an editorial in our local paper, the Washington Post urged passage of our bipartisan bill, noting:

A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps

in current programs as identified by law enforcement

officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care

professions. No one--gay or straight, man or woman, legal or

undocumented--should be denied protections against domestic

abuse or sexual violence.

Mr. President, I agree with that editorial because what it says is what we have said over and over on this floor--a victim is a victim is a victim. If you are a victim, you should have somebody ready to help.

They are improvements that are not only reasonable but necessary if we are to fulfill our commitment to victims of domestic and sexual violence. If we say you are a victim of domestic or sexual violence, we can't pick and choose to say this victim will be helped but this one is going to be left on their own. We say we are going to help all of them. A victim is a victim is a victim.

I believe that if Senators of both parties take an honest look at all the provisions in our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, they will find it to be a commonsense measure we can all support. This isn't a Democratic or a Republican measure, this is a good-government measure. This protects the people in our society who sadly need protection. Sixty-one Senators have already reached this conclusion from both parties, so I hope more will join us. I hope the Senate will promptly pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Mr. President, I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I see the distinguished Senator from Texas in the Chamber, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to draw the Senate's attention to the ongoing, intensifying and intolerable oppression occurring in Tibet.

Over the past year, at least 32 Tibetans, most of them young men and women, have set themselves on fire to protest Chinese policies that are infringing on Tibetan self-governance, cultural traditions and religious beliefs and practices. Of them, it is believed that at least 23 have died. Eleven have self-immolated in the past 2 months alone. These incidents do not represent a temporary deviation from a peaceful norm but are instead the latest response to a tragic, and unfortunately

lengthy, history of religious and cultural controls, human rights violations and oppression of the Tibetan people.

Reports from Tibet indicate that the Chinese government is further restricting access to foreign journalists and tightening security throughout the region. Chinese police and other officials in Tibet are forcing some nuns and monks to publicly denounce the Dalai Lama. Schools in some provinces have been forced by the government to switch their official language of instruction from Tibetan to Mandarin Chinese. These policies, among others, have incited Tibetans to protest and fight for the survival of their cultural identity and basic freedoms.

In recent weeks, a state-run Chinese website and news agency accused the Dalai Lama of encouraging Tibetans to set themselves on fire and of advocating ``Nazi'' racial policies. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama and I am proud to consider him a friend. It is baseless, offensive, and deplorable to slander the Dalai Lama in this way or to suggest that he is inciting violence. He is a man whose entire life has been devoted to peace.

For decades, the Dalai Lama has sought to work with the Chinese government to reach a peaceful resolution over Tibet's political status. The Dalai Lama has, time and time again, extended a hand of friendship to Beijing, which has consistently responded by drastically misrepresenting his views and accusing him of inciting violence, perhaps to draw attention away from their own brutal actions. The Chinese government must know that violent crackdowns and cultural genocide will never be condoned.

We share many interests with China and the future can bring our two countries closer. China's tremendous economic transformation in the past few decades has brought great benefits to the Chinese people and has spurred economic development in other countries. That said, the economic emergence of China and its increased presence on the world stage must be accompanied by respect for human rights. China cannot be a global leader while crushing peaceful dissent in its own backyard, destroying the culture of the Tibetan people, and imprisoning Tibetan leaders.

I want to mention one of these imprisoned leaders, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche. Tenzin Delek was recognized by the Dalai Lama as a reincarnate lama in the 1980s. He was detained in April 2002 on charges of exploding bombs and spreading politically charged leaflets and, following a closed trial, sentenced to death on December 2, 2002. After appeal, Tenzin Delek's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. No evidence of his involvement in any illegal activity has ever been made public. In fact, before being detained, Tenzin Delek was well-known for educating children in rural areas and helping to build monasteries. Tenzin Delek's imprisonment is just one of the many examples of persecution of Tibetan leaders that appear to be motivated by a desire to curb Tibetan religious and cultural expression.

Many Tibetan protestors, both imprisoned and free, are not seeking independence from China. Tibetan leaders, including the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Prime Minister, Lobsang Sangay, who I was pleased to meet earlier this year, have explicitly stated that they support the Middle- Way' policy, which seeks autonomy for Tibet within the People's Republic of China. Tibetans are not fighting for separation from China; they are fighting for the freedom of religious belief guaranteed to them by the Chinese Constitution. They are fighting for the security of their monks and monasteries. They are fighting for freedom of expression, association, and assembly, for personal liberty, for unrestricted media access, and for the fundamental principles of democracy that we in the United States take for granted.

We cannot and will not abandon the Tibetan people, who have long been our unwavering friends. We will stand by them to protect the principles of democracy in the face of China's repressive policies. Together, the Tibetans and the Chinese can peacefully reach a solution that meets the needs and aspirations of both peoples. It is imperative that we support peaceful dialogue and discourage violent confrontation whenever it occurs, whether supported by the Chinese authorities or Tibetan protestors.

I am a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's resolution, S. Res. 356, A Resolution Expressing Support for the People of Tibet, and I urge other Senators to do so. We can foster closer, cooperative relations with China, but until China works with Tibetan leaders to pursue a new way forward, their reputation in the community of nations, and their ability to act as a global power, will remain tarnished. I hope that, in the years to come, the young Tibetans who sacrificed their lives in the past year will be remembered as the catalysts for a political dialogue that cemented a peaceful future for both Tibet and China.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Missouri on the floor, Mr. Blunt. I know he has a Republican leadership meeting he needs to get to. I yield such time as he needs on the Republican reserved time, with the understanding that when he finishes, it will go back to me.

Mr. President, regaining my time on this side, I appreciate the Senator from Missouri speaking about Brian Wimes. Today, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Brian Wimes to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western and Eastern Districts of Missouri. This nomination has had the support of both his home state Senators, Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt. The Judiciary Committee voted to report the nomination favorably over four months ago. There is no justification for this unnecessary delay.

The Senate is still so far this year only considering judicial nominations that could and should have been confirmed last year. We will conclude the first four months of this year having only considered judicial nominees who should have been confirmed before recessing last December. We have yet to get to any of the nominees we should be considering this year because of Republican objections to proceeding more promptly.

With nearly one in 10 judgeships across the Nation vacant, the judicial vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President George W. Bush when we lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly. The Senate is 33 confirmations of circuit and district court judges behind the number at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are also 66 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year.

As I noted earlier this month, the Federal judiciary has been forced to operate with the heavy burden of 80 or more judicial vacancies for nearly three years now. There are 22 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar ready for final consideration and a vote, not just this one. Action on those 22 nominees would go a long way toward easing the burden on the Federal courts and ensuring that all Americans have Federal judges available so that they can have the quality of justice that they deserve.

Some Senate Republicans seek to divert attention by suggesting that these longstanding vacancies are the President's fault for not sending us nominees. The fact is that there are 22 outstanding judicial nominees that can be confirmed right now, but who are being stalled. Let us act on them. Let us vote them up or down. When my grandchildren say they want more food before they finish what is on their plate, my answer is to urge them to finish the food already on their plate before asking for seconds or dessert. To those Republicans that contend it is the White House's fault that they are not agreeing to proceed to consider the judicial nominees we do have more quickly, I say let us complete Senate action on these 22 judicial nominees ready for final action. There are more working their way through Committee, and the Senate can act responsibly to help fill some of the most pressing vacancies plaguing some of our busiest courts if we proceed to these nominations now.

For instance, the Ninth Circuit is by far the busiest circuit in the country. The Senate has yet to vote on the long-delayed nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to fill one of the judicial emergency vacancies plaguing the Ninth Circuit. Hers was one of the nominations ready to be confirmed last year that will be delayed five months before her confirmation to fill that judicial emergency vacancy. Republicans have insisted that her vote be delayed until next month. There are two additional Ninth Circuit nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies who are ready for final votes but for which Senate Republicans have not agreed to schedule votes. Paul Watford of California and Justice Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona were both voted favorably from the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year.

There is no good reason for delay. The 61 million people served by the Ninth Circuit are not served by this delay. The Circuit is being forced to handle double the caseload of any other without its full complement of judges. The Senate should be expediting consideration of the nominations of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, Paul Watford, and Justice Andrew Hurwitz, not delaying them.

The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, along with the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, have written to the Senate emphasizing the Ninth Circuit's ``desperate need for judges,'' urging the Senate to ``act on judicial nominees without delay,'' and concluding ``we fear that the public will suffer unless our vacancies are filled very promptly.'' The judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit are harming litigants by creating unnecessary and costly delays. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that it takes nearly five months longer for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion after an appeal is filed, compared to all other circuits. The Ninth Circuit's backlog of pending cases far exceeds other Federal courts. As of September 2011, the Ninth Circuit had 14,041 cases pending before it, more than three times that of the next busiest circuit.

If caseloads were really a concern of Republican Senators, as they contended last year when they filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit, they would not be delaying the nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Ninth Circuit. If caseloads were really a concern, Senate Republicans would consent to move forward with all three of these Ninth Circuit nominees to allow for up or down votes by the Senate without these months of unnecessary delays.

Delay is harmful for everyone, but mostly to the American public. Right now, 150 million Americans live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled if Senate Republicans would simply vote on the 22 judicial nominations ready for final Senate action.

I also note that of the current vacancies without a nomination, 28 involve Republican home state Senators. This is a President who has tried to work with home state Senators from both parties on his nominations. There are also an additional seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot proceed because Republican Senators are withholding support.

I congratulate Senator McCaskill for her success in getting this vote on the nomination of Judge Wimes. He is currently a judge on the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri. He previously served as the Jackson County Drug Court Commissioner and as an assistant prosecuting attorney in the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office. Judge Wimes has the strong support of Senator Claire McCaskill and is also supported by Senator Blunt. He and his family have been waiting for this day since the Judiciary Committee in an overwhelming, bipartisan manner voted to send his name to the Senate on December 15th of last year.

Today's vote is pursuant to the agreement reached by the Majority Leader and the Republican leader last month. To make real progress, however, the Senate needs go beyond the nominations included in that limited agreement to include the other 16 judicial nominations currently before the Senate for a final vote and the three judicial nominees who should be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these qualified judicial nominees so that we can help alleviate the judicial vacancy crisis and so they can serve the American people.

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

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. President, today marks the beginning of the 31st annual National Crime Victims' Rights Week. It is a time to recognize the losses faced by victims of crimes and their families and to acknowledge the efforts being made to help them recover and rebuild their lives in the wake of tragedy. It is a time to reflect on all we have accomplished and focus on what we have to yet do to help victims.

Of course, one of the best tools for delivering that help is the Crime Victims Fund. Unfortunately, in recent months, some have sought to violate the Victims of Crime Act. They want to take money out of the trust fund for purposes and programs not authorized by the Victims of Crime Act. I have worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle. We have been able to stop this raid on crime victims' funding. I wish to commend Senators Mikulski and Hutchison, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science of the Committee on Appropriations for their important efforts in this regard in the appropriations bill we reported to the Senate last week.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, has reported a bill that preserves the Crime Victims Fund, and we succeeded in increasing the funding next year for victims' compensation and assistance to $775 million. To be able to increase Federal assistance by $70 million from last year's cap is extraordinary in these economic times, and it is an indication here in the Senate of our commitment to crime victims. This is a matter on which I have worked with Senator Crapo as well as Senator Mikulski over the years. I appreciate their leadership in this effort.

The Crime Victims Fund is not taxpayers' money. It comes from penalties and fines. It comes from wrongdoers. We designed it to help victims of crime. We created it as a trust fund for crime victims' needs and services. I have tried to respect the trust fund and to protect it, to ensure that it is used and available for crime victims and their families who depend on its support in times of need. We all know the States are being forced to tighten their belts, and when they do, victims' services are being cut all over the country. Without the Federal assistance from this trust fund, victims' compensation programs and victims' assistance programs and services will be unavailable to many.

Another important law that strengthens crime victims' rights and improves crime victims' services is currently pending before the Judiciary Committee. The Justice For All Reauthorization Act strengthens the rights guaranteed to crime victims in the criminal justice process and ensures that basic services, like the rapid testing of rape kits, help victims receive the justice, safety, and closure they deserve. I look forward to working with Senators from both sides of the aisle to move that legislation forward as well.

Currently pending before the Senate is the majority leader's motion to proceed against the Violence Against Women's Act, S. 1925. I introduced this legislation with Senator Crapo last year. We have 61 bipartisan cosponsors from both parties. When we enacted the Violence Against Women Act nearly 18 years ago, it sent a powerful message that we will not tolerate crime against women and forever altered the way our Nation combats domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation offers support to the victims of these terrible crimes and helps them find safety and rebuild their lives. The bill we will debate this week is based on the recommendations of victims and the tireless professionals who work with them every day.

April is also Sexual Assault Awareness Month and our bill takes the important step of focusing increased attention on sexual assaults, including those against the most vulnerable among us.

As I listened to Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Gillibrand--and, as a matter of fact, I spoke with Senator Hagan last week about the pending motion to proceed to the VAWA reauthorization legislation--I thought how fortunate we all are to serve with them and with Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Snowe, Landrieu, Collins, Stabenow, Cantwell, Murkowski, McCaskill, Klobuchar, and Ayotte. In fact, 16 women senators are cosponsors of our Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and their input has strengthened this critical legislation. I appreciate their strong bipartisan support for this measure and their willingness to speak out time and again on the need to pass this bill without delay.

We recently honored the senior Senator from Maryland for her services as the longest-serving woman Senator and as the woman who has also served the longest in Congress. I can remember back before 1993, when Senator Carol Mosely Braun became the first woman to serve as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are fortunate now to have both Senator Feinstein and Senator Klobuchar as active members of our Committee.

I remember when nine women Senators joined together to contribute to the book ``Nine and Counting'' about their paths to the U.S. Senate. These women have served as role models for many other young women and young girls. Even as Senator Clinton has gone on to become our Secretary of State, there have been other changes. Six of the nine Senators who were subjects of the book in 2001 still serve in this institution today. They have been joined by nine additional women Senators from around the country. This book, ``Nine and Counting,'' was a title for looking to the future. Today, 17 women serve in the U.S. Senate. That is a great step forward. They have farther to go, of course, but it is a lot better than when I came to the Senate when we had no women serving. Sixteen of them have joined from both sides of the aisle to bring their leadership and their strong support, but also their experience, to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Our bill includes a number of provisions they have championed and suggested. To will give one example, our bill includes the provisions that Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hutchison suggested and introduced as the Stalkers Act of 2011. That provision is new to VAWA. It would not have been included if we had simply introduced a one-sentence reauthorization of VAWA rather than a comprehensive bill. I thought it was a good provision, intended to update the Federal antistalking statute to capture the

more modern forms of communication that perpetrators use to stalk their victims.

In the spirit of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, our reauthorization bill takes steps to recognize victims' needs that are not being served and find ways to help them. That approach is not radical or extreme. The fact that the bill reaches more victims should not be a basis for partisan division; it is something we ought to celebrate. I have said on the floor before, a victim is a victim is a victim.

In my earlier career I would go to a crime scene at 3 o'clock in the morning with the police, as the chief law enforcement officer of our county. We might have a badly battered woman--if she survived; sometimes the victim did not survive--but I never heard the police say, ``Well, if we are going to do something on this, we have to figure out whether this victim is a Democrat or a Republican, or we have to figure out whether this victim is gay or straight, or we have to figure out''-- no. They said, ``For this victim, let us find out who did this and let's get them and let's see what we can do,'' or if the victim is still alive, what we could do to protect the victim. That is what the Violence Against Women Act has always done and what I have tried to do for crime victims for many years.

As we have done on every VAWA reauthorization bill, we have learned from past experience how to make it better and now we make it better by taking responsible and moderate steps, in this case to protect immigrant and native women, and ensuring services to victims regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, again under the mantra ``a victim is a victim is a victim.''

At the same time, we recognize the difficult economic times and the need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly. That is why the bill consolidates 13 programs into 4 in an effort to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. It cuts the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of nearly 20 percent from the last reauthorization. We will still provide sufficient authority to fund VAWA programs at over $400 million a year, which is consistent with the funding level provided in the appropriations bill for the coming year. Our legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs.

Since its introduction last November, more than 700 State and national organizations have written to endorse the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. They are 200 national organizations, including 500 State and local organizations--the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and 25 national religious organizations. Last week, the mayors of three of the Nation's largest cities--New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles--wrote to the Senate urging us to pass the VAWA reauthorization. We have heard from 47 State attorneys general, Republican and Democratic alike, urging Senate passage of this legislation. That is because they recognize this Federal law is meaningful and that this reauthorization addresses the ongoing, unmet needs of victims in their States.

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks these letters be printed in the Record.

In fact, today I was advised by Bruce Cohen in my office that we have received the statement of administrative position. It is a very strong statement from the White House, and it is a strong statement in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I am glad we are finally moving to this.

The last two reauthorizations, each one an improvement on the one before, passed this body unanimously. We should do the same. It is not a partisan issue. I ask other Senators, if they haven't spoken with victims of abuse, to speak to those who are; talk to the police chiefs; talk to the people who have to deal with this; talk to the people who have survived some of these horrendous attacks. Ask them if they think this is needed. Ask those who have been protected from further abuse because of the steps we have taken in the Violence Against Women Act-- ask them if we need it.

The Presiding Officer and the other 98 Senators come in this building and we are protected by one of the finest police forces that exists, the Capitol Hill Police force. We don't have to worry; nobody is going to attack us. In the Presiding Officer's State and my State and all of the other States, unfortunately, thousands of people cannot rest easily that way. They know their attacker and often they know their attacker is waiting to do it again. We can easily stand up and say here in the Senate: No, we won't stand for this violence against women. Let's take the steps that we can take, the men and women in this body. Let's take the steps we can take to stop the violence.

Exhibit 1

April 19, 2012.

Hon. Harry Reid

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: As

mayors who collectively represent over seven and a half

million women, we believe it is imperative that the Senate

pass S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act

of 2011. Despite considerable progress over the past two

decades in addressing the epidemic of violence against women,

we recognize that much more needs to be done and that this

legislation will strengthen our national commitment to

tackling the challenges that remain.

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has

provided a comprehensive, coordinated, and community-based

approach toward reducing domestic violence, sexual assault,

stalking, and other forms of violence. Over the past two

decades, its programs and services have provided lifesaving

assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims. Through

victim support programs, local and state funding assistance,

and the U Visa program, VAWA has strengthened the ability of

the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute

crimes and hold violent perpetrators accountable. These

efforts have contributed to dramatic reductions in the

incidence and impact of violence against women, including an

over 50 percent decline in the annual rate of domestic

violence. As we seek to make further progress, we believe it

is essential that we provide services to victims regardless

of their gender, race, language, Immigration status, or

sexual orientation.

As mayors, we have seen the tremendous positive impact of

the Violence Against Women Act in our communities. In New

York, VAWA funding has helped open three Family Justice

Centers, which are one-stop domestic violence centers with

staff from government agencies and nonprofit organizations to

assist victims of domestic violence. In Los Angeles, VAWA

funding has also helped expand its Domestic Abuse Response

Team--a collaborative effort between law enforcement officers

and victim advocates to respond to domestic violence calls at

the scene of the crime and provide crisis intervention. The

Chicago Police Department uses its funding to train staff to

assist victims of domestic abuse in an effort to provide the

best resources to these victims. These are just a few

examples of the vital services and assistance that this

landmark law has enabled communities all over the country to

provide to combat this terrible problem.

Despite the progress that has been made, much more needs to

be done. Still today, nearly one in five women have been

sexually assaulted or raped in their lifetime, and 45 percent

of the women killed in the United States die at the hands of

an intimate partner. This level of violence is simply

unacceptable. We believe that S. 1925--like the 2000 and 2005

reauthorizations that preceded it--will help us better

address continuing problems and remaining unmet needs. This

legislation will expand services to immigrant and lesbian,

gay, and transgendered communities, who not only experience

the highest rates of violence but often have the most

difficulty in accessing services. in recognition of the

persistent problem of sexual violence, S. 1925 also will

strengthen the capacity of local, state, and federal law

enforcement to investigate and prosecute these crimes. While

these tools will be essential in

achieving justice, they are also a reminder of the wide

impact that domestic violence has on the community at large

including law enforcement. In each of our cities, police

officers have been injured or murdered while responding to

domestic violence incidents.

For these reasons, we believe that it is critical that the

Senate move quickly to take up and pass S. 1925 in order to

strengthen our national commitment to all victims of domestic

violence.

Sincerely,

Rahm Emanuel,

Mayor, City of Chicago.

Antonio R. Villaraigosa,

Mayor, City of Los Angeles.

Michael R. Bloomberg,

Mayor, City of New York.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Carolyn Meub, Executive Director of Pure Water for the World, a Vermont-based nonprofit organization that brings clean water to thousands of families in Honduras and Haiti.

Last week, the White House honored Carolyn as one of 10 Rotary Club members from across the country who are improving the lives of others through volunteer work. Carolyn has transformed Pure Water for the World from a small Rotary club project into an effective international NGO. Under her leadership, the organization is implementing a sustainable model for clean water programs by building clean water filtration systems, providing hygiene education, and installing latrines to improve sanitation. Twenty-thousand Honduran families now have access to clean drinking water, and 1,200 schools in Haiti have clean water systems and hygiene education curriculums, because of Pure Water for the World. That is no small feat.

As Carolyn points out, clean water is a tap away for most Americans, but for more than three-quarters of a billion of the world's people accessing safe water is a daily struggle. The United Nations reports that 3.5 million people die each year from diseases related to drinking contaminated water.

In February, my wife Marcelle visited Port-au-Prince as part of a delegation I led with five other Members of Congress, where she saw firsthand the simple, inexpensive household water filtration systems being built and donated by Pure Water for the World. Each unit, the size of an office water cooler and made of concrete or plastic, is filled with layers of sand and gravel that trap microorganisms as the water passes through. This process of slow sand filtration is inexpensive and produced from local materials, making it ideally suited for developing countries.

Pure Water for the World is doing important and inspiring work, providing sustainable sources of safe drinking water and promoting habits to improve health and sanitation in poor communities in Honduras and Haiti. I am very proud that Carolyn received this well-deserved recognition at the White House on behalf of her organization. We all appreciate the work they are doing.

I ask unanimous consent that the Rutland Herald article entitled ``Hope flows: Vt. nonprofit pours `Pure Water for the World' '' be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I am glad we are doing that. I want to thank the majority leader for moving to proceed to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as the next legislative measure for the Senate to consider. He made the motion Tuesday afternoon.

My hope is that it is not going to be necessary to have extended debate or a filibuster or the filing of a cloture motion and a delay of several days and then a delay of 2 more days even after more than 60 Senators vote to bring the debate to a close and proceed to the bill and then another vote on the motion to proceed before the Senate is permitted to consider this important measure.

I expect anybody listening got lost through that whole process. That is something we Senators should think about. The American public expects us to vote yes or no, not maybe. The longer the delay and the motions go on, the more we are voting maybe. Let's vote yes or no.

For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and children and men. I appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has had from the beginning.

Senator Crapo and I introduced a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act last year after months of discussion. We wanted it to be a bipartisan bill, and it is. Too often in recent times, the Senate goes through all kinds of delaying moves before they proceed to legislation. Again, as I said, the American people elect us. They expect us to vote yes or no not maybe. The delays are a big fat maybe.

The Violence Against Women Act is a measure that is cosponsored by 61 Senators. It is a bipartisan measure cosponsored by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. So I hope Democrats and Republicans and Independents will come together to proceed to consider the bill without delay. I would hope they step forward and do the right thing and send the message to America that we are united in the effort to see the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized.

It is an opportunity for the Senate to come together and renew what I believe is a shared commitment among Senators to end violence against women. For generations, violence against women in this country was condoned. Too often these insidious crimes were dismissed with a joke or a shrug or that ``they involve somebody else.'' Rape was too often excused and domestic violence was tolerated as a family matter.

Victims were blamed, humiliated, and ignored. They had nowhere to turn. There were no crisis centers, there were no shelters. Far too many women and families were left to fend for themselves with no help. The Violence Against Women Act was passed nearly 18 years ago and has helped to change that. It sent a powerful message that violence against women is a crime and it is not going to be tolerated, no matter where it happens.

It transformed the law enforcement response and provided services to victims all across the country. Now is the time to renew our commitment to these victims by passing this legislation. We need to move forward. We need to reaffirm that ending violence against women is a priority for all Americans. We need to be a beacon to others around the world in this regard.

With this effort we set the standard. We show that America understands

equality and recognizes human dignity. We are going to fight injustice against the most vulnerable among us.

The legislation that I introduced with Senator Crapo last November is drawn from the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. It is based on the recommendations of the tireless professionals who serve those survivors every day.

It includes improvements suggested by law enforcement officers across the country. As we build on the progress we have made in reducing domestic and sexual violence, we made vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs to better serve the victims of violence.

We incorporate the important work that Chairman Akaka, Senator Murkowski, and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have been doing to try to respond to the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities. We increase the focus on effective responses to sexual assault.

While the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen since VAWA was introduced by more than 50 percent, the progress has not yet translated to reducing sexual assault. Incidents of sexual assault remains high, while reporting rates, prosecution rates, and conviction rates remain appallingly low.

So we faced that problem head on. We ensure that funds are allocated to law enforcement and victims service responses to sexual assault and authorize support for law enforcement sexual assault training and the reduction of the backlogs of untested rape kits.

In a lot of places, they say: We cannot test this rape kit for several months. So often the perpetrator comes back. So during the several months it takes to test the rape kit, they say to the victim: Be sure and keep your door locked. This is not how victims should be treated; they should not have to live in fear. We should be able to say we can test this immediately, and then go get the person involved.

My early experience with the question of sexual assault was not as a Senator but as a local prosecutor. Senator Crapo has been visiting women's shelters and working on these issues for decades as well. His principled bipartisanship should be respected and celebrated as being in the best traditions of the Senate, the Senate I came to 37 years ago. From the outset, we have consulted to make this bill the best it can be.

More than a month ago, Senators from both parties came forward to urge the Senate to take up and pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The Senate heard that day from Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murkowski, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Hagan, Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer, who was the author of the House bill in 1990. Eight Senators came to the floor to remind us all why this bill is important and why the Senate should pass it.

There is nothing radical or new about saying that all victims--all victims--are entitled to services. I have been at some of the most horrendous crime scenes you can imagine in my earlier career. I never asked, and certainly none of the police officers ever asked, whether the victim was a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, or from a minority. A victim is a victim, and we should be helping all victims not discriminating among them.

We know that even though the economy is improving, these remain difficult economic times and we have to spend our taxpayer money responsibly. That is why in this bill, we consolidated 13 programs into 4 to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. We cut the authorization level by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of 20 percent from the last reauthorization.

We have significant accountability provisions including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. I sought to consult with Senator Grassley and others in making these changes to authorization levels and for increased accountability, knowing how important these aspects are to them. In the Senate Judiciary Committee those who opposed the bill were given an opportunity to offer a substitute and other amendments. Senator Grassley offered a substitute which was voted on and rejected. In the minority views of the Committee report, Senator Kyl noted disagreement with the provisions of the bill responding to the crisis of violence against Native women that incorporated a provision for the SAVE Native Women Act to provide domestic violence jurisdiction over those perpetrators with significant ties to the prosecuting tribes.

Opponents have noted their disagreement with the U visa provisions requested by law enforcement. Some opposed the provisions intended to ensure against discrimination in services based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Again, I will say what I have said over and over again: a victim is a victim is a victim. We should not ask what category they fall in.

Since the bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee I have continued to reach out to Senator Grassley and ask what amendments opponents wish to offer during Senate consideration. While amendments to strike the tribal, U visa and sexual orientation provisions were not offered before the Judiciary Committee, I would understand if opponents wished to do so before the Senate. I have reached out to try to construct a pathway for consideration of the bill pursuant to an agreement that is fair to opponents of these various provisions. If they have other amendments, let's bring them up. Let's vote on them. Let's vote this up or down. Do not vote maybe.

I hope we can reach out to the leadership on both sides, get a time to get this done, do not keep holding up legislation that has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous religious and faith-based organizations, and our partners in law enforcement. Let's show the country we will not duck this issue. We will vote for it or we will vote against it.

The Violence Against Women Act should not be a partisan matter. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate.

Although it seems that partisan gridlock is too often the default in the Senate over the last couple of years, it remains my hope that those who have voted for VAWA in the past will come forward and join our eight Republican cosponsors to support it. If so, we can pass our VAWA reauthorization with a strong bipartisan majority as we always have.

Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, gay and straight. Let's pass this without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what can be done when we work together.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Thursday, April 19, is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Observances and remembrance activities are taking place across the Nation in civic centers, schools, churches and synagogues, on military bases and in workplaces.

As always, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum--created as a permanent living memorial to its victims--is taking a leading role in this annual observance.

We must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, we must never let the world forget, and we must never forget or neglect the Holocaust's lessons.

Never forgetting means keeping alive the memory of those who suffered and died in the Holocaust.

Never forgetting also means declaiming against crimes against humanity that erupt in our midst, and on our watch.

As searing as the Holocaust's lessons are, the world is too easily tempted to avert its eyes from heinous crimes committed by governments and others against our fellow human beings. The community of nations will always bear the shame of doing so little during the massacres on the killing fields of Cambodia, and in the villages of Rwanda.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum itself has taken the lead in shining a light on atrocities in our time in Darfur, and I commend its Committee on Conscience for lending its unmatched moral authority to the crusade to bring an end to the violence there.

In that spirit, our voices are also needed to expose the crimes against humanity that are occurring behind the walls of the prison camps of North Korea. More and more information now is coming to light about the systematic, state-sponsored brutality that is being waged upon some 200,000 people, according to the State Department, in those camps. The fact of these prison camps is not new. But horrifying new glimpses are now coming to light from those who have successfully broken free and crossed the frontier to eventual freedom. Publicly available satellite photos are helping to expose a system whose very existence the North Korean government continues to deny.

A new report on these prison camps, authored by David Hawk, has been released by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, a U.S.- based, private organization. It documents the imprisonment of entire families, including children and grandparents for the ``political crimes'' of other family members.

At the report's Washington release this month, a young man born to prisoners--and thereby condemned to spend his entire life in one of these camps--spoke about visiting the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, every time he comes to Washington. Shin Dong-hyuk's harrowing escape is detailed in a new book by Blaine Harden, a former Washington Post reporter.

We have vital national security interests at stake in our dealings with the North Korean regime, which has acquired nuclear weapons. I am one

who believes that we can fully and effectively pursue these interests through diplomacy and other means, without having to mute our outrage about human rights atrocities like these.

I welcome the strong comments about this report made by Robert King, the United States human rights envoy for North Korea, who said that conditions in North Korea's prison camps are worse than in the former Soviet Union's gulag. I would hope that today's leaders of Russia and China would voice similar outrage about these atrocities.

Social media and a powerful video recently brought the story of the crimes of Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army to an audience of millions of people around the world. Let us individually and together similarly raise our voices against the crimes against humanity that are taking place behind the walls and barbed wire of North Korea's labor camps, where some one in four people die each year--starved to death, or worked to death, or executed.

Let it not be said by future generations that though we knew enough, we did not care enough to condemn and to lend our efforts to end this brutal system.

Several news organizations have reported or commented on this new information about North Korea's prison camps. I commend to the Senate's attention two recent such writings. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial, and a commentary by Fred Hiatt, both from the Washington Post, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, one year ago, the Senate unanimously passed the Food Safety Accountability Act. This week, the Food and Drug Administration announced that raw tuna from a California supplier has sickened more than 100 people in 20 States with salmonella poisoning. We do not yet know the cause of the current outbreak, but if enacted, the Food Safety Accountability Act would help stop outbreaks of illness related to food safety. It is time for the House to pass this noncontroversial legislation.

The Food Safety Accountability Act promotes more accountability for food suppliers by increasing the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws.

Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is in most cases merely a misdemeanor, and the Sentencing Commission has found that perpetrators generally do not serve jail time. The alternative, fines and recalls, fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our American citizens in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business.

Salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable, knowing conduct such as that carefully targeted by the Food Safety Accountability Act. The company responsible for a salmonella outbreak last summer had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This bill will significantly increase the chances that those who commit serious food safety crimes will face jail time rather than merely a slap on the wrist.

Food safety received considerable attention in the last Congress, and I was pleased that we finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms, but our work is not done. A provision almost identical to the Food Safety Accountability Act has previously passed the House with strong, bipartisan support. Now that the Senate has unanimously passed this bill, it is long overdue for the House to act.

The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. The uncertainty and fear caused by the current salmonella outbreak only reinforces the need to pass the common sense Food Safety Accountability Act. I urge the House to quickly pass the Senate bill and join us in taking this important step toward protecting our food supply.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coons on the passage of legislation that will reauthorize 30 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in districts around the country. I was pleased to support Senator Coons' very strong and persistent efforts on this important legislation. The Judiciary Committee reported this legislation favorably on December 15, 2011. I am glad to see the Senate finally being allowed to act.

The bill we pass today, when enacted, will reauthorize 30 temporary judgeships in 14 States and Puerto Rico. All of these positions have already expired, and without this legislation, upon retirement or departure of the judges in these positions, they could not be filled again. Needlessly reducing the resources of our bankruptcy courts does nothing but put more pressure on Americans who are already navigating a difficult economic environment. This legislation should help avoid that and provide some small degree of relief to overburdened bankruptcy courts around the country. Quite frankly, I think we should be doing more.

As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will note one concern with the legislation the Senate passes today. In order to secure passage of this legislation, Senator Coburn insisted upon adding a section to the bill that purports to tell future Senate and House Judiciary Committees how to conduct their business. Senator Coburn's amendment would dictate that before any of these 30 judgeships could be reauthorized again, the Senate and House Judiciary Committee's would be required to take certain steps and require a report from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO). As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Coburn knows this is precisely what committees do in the ordinary course of the consideration of legislation, and what was done during the development of this legislation. Senator Coons worked with the AO, which made recommendations, and with bankruptcy judges in a variety of districts to determine where need was greatest. To codify an unenforceable mandate nominally imposed on future Congresses is unnecessary and unwise.

I thank and congratulate Senator Coons for his hard work and attention to this issue. This would not be passing without his diligence, focus, and legislative skill. He has done what has seemed impossible.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will protect American consumers by improving the labeling on prescription drugs to promote consumer safety. This important bill will ensure that all drug manufacturers can update the warning labels for their products so that the information provided to doctors and consumers is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. It is a straightforward measure that has the support of patient groups and consumer advocates. I am pleased that Senators Franken, Coons, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Brown of Ohio, and Blumenthal

have joined me as original cosponsors of the bill.

The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will promote consumer safety by ensuring that generic drug companies can improve the warning information for their products in the same way that brand manufacturers can under existing law. This ability is especially important given the large role that generics play in the market for prescription drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that generic drugs now make up 75 percent of the market for pharmaceuticals. Studies show that when a generic version of a drug is available, 90 percent of prescriptions are filled with the generic version of the drug. The large role that generics play in the market gives them important insight into side effects experienced by their customers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will allow generic manufacturers to act on this information, by authorizing them to improve their labels to provide accurate and up-to-date warnings to consumers.

A recent Supreme Court decision, Pliva v. Mensing, created the need for this important legislation. In the Mensing case, a narrow 5 4 majority on the Court held that a Minnesota woman, Gladys Mensing, could not recover for debilitating injuries she received from a mislabeled drug that was intended to treat her diabetes symptoms. Despite evidence that long-term use of the drug could cause a severe neurological condition known as tardive dyskinesia, the manufacturer's label did not expressly warn against long-term use until years after Ms. Mensing began taking the drug. She developed the condition, losing control of muscles in her face, arms and legs.

Ms. Mensing's injuries are life-changing and irreversible. The Supreme Court held that she cannot be compensated for the drug company's failures because of a technicality in the law. That technicality arose because Ms. Mensing's pharmacy had filled her prescription with the generic version of the drug. The Supreme Court held that, unlike brand name companies, generic manufacturers cannot be held liable for inadequate labeling, because they cannot change the labels on their products independently. Generic manufacturers should have the ability to participate fully in the labeling process, but they are unable to do so. More important to injured consumers, there is no remedy for them. The generic manufacturers can use this Supreme Court decision and the quirk in the labeling laws to avoid any accountability, even if they fail to inform the FDA that a label is inadequate.

The Mensing decision creates a troubling inconsistency in the law governing prescription drugs. If a consumer takes the brand-name version of drug, she can sue the manufacturer for inadequate warnings. If the pharmacy happens to give her the generic version, as happened to Ms. Mensing, she is unable to seek compensation for her injuries. The result is a two-track system that penalizes consumers of generic drugs even though many consumers have no control over which drug they take, because their health insurance plan or state laws require them to take generics if they are available.

In an editorial published last month, The New York Times criticized the inconsistency of this outcome, writing: ``Same drug. Same devastating health consequences. Opposite results. This injustice will affect more people as generics, which already dominate the market, expand even more under the pressure to control health care costs.'' Even Justice Thomas, writing for the majority in Mensing, acknowledged the inconsistent outcome, writing: ``[I]t is not the Court's task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre.'' Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor accurately warned of ``absurd consequences'' that will flow from the ``happenstance'' of whether a prescription was filled with a brand-name or generic drug.

I agree that having different rules for patients who take generic and brand-name drugs makes little sense, and raises significant policy concerns. It is also troubling that generic manufacturers cannot update their safety labels in the same way that brand manufacturers can. In today's world, where generic drugs make up 75 percent of the prescription drug market, all manufacturers should be able to improve the warning information they provide to doctors and consumers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will achieve this goal.

This legislation is not intended to overburden the makers of generic drugs. Instead, it authorizes generic drug manufacturers to act upon drug safety information that they already gather pursuant to existing regulation. The FDA requires generic manufacturers to monitor, investigate and report adverse side effects experienced by users of their drug. Generics already must submit an annual report to the FDA summarizing new information that ``might affect the safety, effectiveness or labeling of a drug product'', including a ``description of actions they have taken or intend to take as a result of this new information''. When brand-name manufacturers exit the market--as is often the case after generics are introduced--generics may be the only manufacturers who gather this information.

The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act authorizes generics to act on the information they gather to improve the labeling on their product in the same way that brand-owners may do under existing law. It creates an exception to the general requirement that the labeling of a generic drug must be the same as the labeling of its brand-name or listed equivalent, and instead allows generic manufacturers to initiate a labeling change where that process is available to brand-name manufacturers. Under the law, a generic manufacturer would be able to use the ``Changes Being Effected'' process that permits manufacturers to implement a labeling change while the change is simultaneously reviewed by the FDA. When a labeling change is made under this provision, the FDA would be authorized to order conforming changes across equivalent drugs to ensure consistent labeling among products.

This legislation has the support of public interest groups and advocates, including the AARP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, and numerous consumer groups.

I have long worked to ensure that safe, affordable generic drugs are available to American consumers. Earlier this Congress, I introduced legislation to facilitate the importation of low-cost generic drugs from Canada, a measure that will increase competition and help drive down the prices of prescription drugs. We all benefit from the availability of safe, affordable medication to help reduce the overwhelming costs of healthcare.

The legislation I am introducing today will promote accountability and ensure that all drug makers can take appropriate steps to enhance warnings given to doctors and consumers. I hope that other Senators will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will protect American consumers by improving the labeling on prescription drugs to promote consumer safety. This important bill will ensure that all drug manufacturers can update the warning labels for their products so that the information provided to doctors and consumers is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. It is a straightforward measure that has the support of patient groups and consumer advocates. I am pleased that Senators Franken, Coons, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Brown of Ohio, and Blumenthal

have joined me as original cosponsors of the bill.

The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will promote consumer safety by ensuring that generic drug companies can improve the warning information for their products in the same way that brand manufacturers can under existing law. This ability is especially important given the large role that generics play in the market for prescription drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that generic drugs now make up 75 percent of the market for pharmaceuticals. Studies show that when a generic version of a drug is available, 90 percent of prescriptions are filled with the generic version of the drug. The large role that generics play in the market gives them important insight into side effects experienced by their customers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will allow generic manufacturers to act on this information, by authorizing them to improve their labels to provide accurate and up-to-date warnings to consumers.

A recent Supreme Court decision, Pliva v. Mensing, created the need for this important legislation. In the Mensing case, a narrow 5 4 majority on the Court held that a Minnesota woman, Gladys Mensing, could not recover for debilitating injuries she received from a mislabeled drug that was intended to treat her diabetes symptoms. Despite evidence that long-term use of the drug could cause a severe neurological condition known as tardive dyskinesia, the manufacturer's label did not expressly warn against long-term use until years after Ms. Mensing began taking the drug. She developed the condition, losing control of muscles in her face, arms and legs.

Ms. Mensing's injuries are life-changing and irreversible. The Supreme Court held that she cannot be compensated for the drug company's failures because of a technicality in the law. That technicality arose because Ms. Mensing's pharmacy had filled her prescription with the generic version of the drug. The Supreme Court held that, unlike brand name companies, generic manufacturers cannot be held liable for inadequate labeling, because they cannot change the labels on their products independently. Generic manufacturers should have the ability to participate fully in the labeling process, but they are unable to do so. More important to injured consumers, there is no remedy for them. The generic manufacturers can use this Supreme Court decision and the quirk in the labeling laws to avoid any accountability, even if they fail to inform the FDA that a label is inadequate.

The Mensing decision creates a troubling inconsistency in the law governing prescription drugs. If a consumer takes the brand-name version of drug, she can sue the manufacturer for inadequate warnings. If the pharmacy happens to give her the generic version, as happened to Ms. Mensing, she is unable to seek compensation for her injuries. The result is a two-track system that penalizes consumers of generic drugs even though many consumers have no control over which drug they take, because their health insurance plan or state laws require them to take generics if they are available.

In an editorial published last month, The New York Times criticized the inconsistency of this outcome, writing: ``Same drug. Same devastating health consequences. Opposite results. This injustice will affect more people as generics, which already dominate the market, expand even more under the pressure to control health care costs.'' Even Justice Thomas, writing for the majority in Mensing, acknowledged the inconsistent outcome, writing: ``[I]t is not the Court's task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre.'' Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor accurately warned of ``absurd consequences'' that will flow from the ``happenstance'' of whether a prescription was filled with a brand-name or generic drug.

I agree that having different rules for patients who take generic and brand-name drugs makes little sense, and raises significant policy concerns. It is also troubling that generic manufacturers cannot update their safety labels in the same way that brand manufacturers can. In today's world, where generic drugs make up 75 percent of the prescription drug market, all manufacturers should be able to improve the warning information they provide to doctors and consumers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will achieve this goal.

This legislation is not intended to overburden the makers of generic drugs. Instead, it authorizes generic drug manufacturers to act upon drug safety information that they already gather pursuant to existing regulation. The FDA requires generic manufacturers to monitor, investigate and report adverse side effects experienced by users of their drug. Generics already must submit an annual report to the FDA summarizing new information that ``might affect the safety, effectiveness or labeling of a drug product'', including a ``description of actions they have taken or intend to take as a result of this new information''. When brand-name manufacturers exit the market--as is often the case after generics are introduced--generics may be the only manufacturers who gather this information.

The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act authorizes generics to act on the information they gather to improve the labeling on their product in the same way that brand-owners may do under existing law. It creates an exception to the general requirement that the labeling of a generic drug must be the same as the labeling of its brand-name or listed equivalent, and instead allows generic manufacturers to initiate a labeling change where that process is available to brand-name manufacturers. Under the law, a generic manufacturer would be able to use the ``Changes Being Effected'' process that permits manufacturers to implement a labeling change while the change is simultaneously reviewed by the FDA. When a labeling change is made under this provision, the FDA would be authorized to order conforming changes across equivalent drugs to ensure consistent labeling among products.

This legislation has the support of public interest groups and advocates, including the AARP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, and numerous consumer groups.

I have long worked to ensure that safe, affordable generic drugs are available to American consumers. Earlier this Congress, I introduced legislation to facilitate the importation of low-cost generic drugs from Canada, a measure that will increase competition and help drive down the prices of prescription drugs. We all benefit from the availability of safe, affordable medication to help reduce the overwhelming costs of healthcare.

The legislation I am introducing today will promote accountability and ensure that all drug makers can take appropriate steps to enhance warnings given to doctors and consumers. I hope that other Senators will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, speaking of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as we begin to work now after the Easter/Passover recess, I wish to thank all Senators who have come to the floor in recent weeks to express their bipartisan support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and who have emphasized, and I agree, the need for the Senate to take up and reauthorize this landmark legislation.

For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act--called VAWA--has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combating domestic violence, dating violence, domestic assault, and stalking. The impact of this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped by 50 percent since the act was passed.

Support for the Violence Against Women Act has always been bipartisan, and I appreciate the bipartisan support this reauthorization bill has already received. Senator Crapo and I introduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in November. With Senators Heller and Ayotte joining as cosponsors in March, we now have 61 cosponsors in the Senate from both sides of the aisle. I hope the Senate will take up and pass this bill soon.

The Violence Against Women Act is about responding to domestic and sexual violence. Its programs are vitally important. Our legislation has looked at and learned from the experiences and needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence from all around the country. We have also heard the recommendations of those tireless professionals who work every single day--I might say virtually every single night--to serve. It builds on the progress that has been made in reducing domestic and sexual violence and makes vital improvements to respond to unmet needs, as we have each time we have reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act.

The provisions that a minority on the Judiciary Committee labeled controversial are, in fact, modest changes to meet the genuine, unmet needs that service providers have told us they see every day as they work with victims all over the country. This is what we have done on every single VAWA reauthorization. We have looked at what we have learned since the last one and then taken steps to recognize those needs of victims that are not being met and find ways to meet them. That is nothing new or different. It is what we have always done. Because we have improved it each time, it is one of the reasons domestic violence has dropped. This should not be a basis for a partisan division or delay.

The legislation also improves important changes to respond to current economic realities. We all know while the economy is now improving, these remain difficult economic times, and we have to be responsible in how we spend the taxpayers' money. That is why in our bill we consolidate 13 programs into 4. We remove duplication and bureaucratic errors. It is another thing we do each time we reauthorize to make it better. It would cut the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year. That is a decrease of nearly 20 percent from the last reauthorization.

The legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. Again, we are saying we want to do the right thing in the Violence Against Women Act, but we also want to protect the taxpayers' dollars. That is why it is a bipartisan bill. It is a product of careful consideration, and that is why it has widespread support.

There is no reason not to take it up and debate it and pass it. The Judiciary Committee passed this bill after considering a number of amendments, including a substitute offered by the minority. I have reached out to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Grassley, and asked about possible amendments and time agreements for consideration. We should do what we have always done ever since the first VAWA years ago and pass it with strong bipartisan support. These problems are too serious for us to delay.

Any one of us who has served in law enforcement has gone to a scene where somebody has been severely battered, sometimes killed. I know when I have gone to the scenes I never heard a police officer say: Is this a Republican or a Democrat? They say, is this a victim? What do we do to help them? That is what this is. It is not a Republican or Democratic bill; it is a sensible bill to help the victims of violence.

This is crucial, commonsense legislation. It has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous religious and faith-based organizations, as well as our law enforcement partners. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. It seems sometimes that partisan gridlock has become the default in the Senate in recent years. We are better than that. We should rise above gridlock. There is no reason we should delay considering this bill. It has the support of 61 cosponsors across the aisle. Let us pass it.

As I have said before, domestic and sexual violence know no political party. Violence happens to too many people in this country. Its victims are Republicans and Democrats. They are rich and poor, young and old. They are male and female. They are straight and gay. Nobody falls into a category where they are immune to this kind of violence. So let us work together and

pass this strong VAWA reauthorization legislation and let us do it without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives. For my fellow Senators, I would say this is an example of what we in the Senate can accomplish if we work together.