Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 and to be joined by Senator Crapo in doing so. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. We should reauthorize and strengthen these programs.

Since VAWA'S passage in 1994, no other law has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The resources and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes, improved the response of law enforcement and the justice system, and provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.

As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We have come a long way since then, but there is much more we must do.

Over the last few years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on VAWA in anticipation of this reauthorization. We have heard from people from all around the country, and they have told us the same thing I hear from service providers, experts, and law enforcement officers in Vermont: While we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain, and there is more work to be done.

The victim services funded by VAWA play a particularly critical role in these difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make it even harder for victims to rebuild their lives. At the same time, state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services. Just this summer, Topeka, Kansas, took the drastic step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. We can and must do better than that. Budgets are tight, but we cannot simply turn our backs on these victims. For many, the programs funded through the Violence Against Women Act are nothing short of a life line.

In Vermont, VAWA funding helped the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence provide services to more than 7,000 adults and nearly 1,400 children last year alone. These women and men, and girls and boys, received shelter, counseling, legal advocacy and access to transitional housing--lifesaving services to help them recover from unspeakable trauma and abuse.

In one case, a mother of three children living in rural Vermont endured a long and abusive marriage in which she was not allowed to get an independent job or even a driver's license. For most of her adult life, she was subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse by her husband. After she summoned the courage to call a domestic violence hotline, her husband was arrested. Advocates helped her find temporary housing and gain access to a lawyer who helped her navigate the criminal process and establish supervised visitation for her children. Because of funding provided by VAWA, she and her children are safe and living independently. The lives of this woman and her children are just a few examples of how VAWA is having a real impact in our communities.

I have heard stories like this time and again from victims and advocates in Vermont and across the country. Without this critical funding, state and local programs like the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence will not be able to provide their services to victims in desperate need.

The reauthorization bill that I am introducing with Senator Crapo reflects Congress's ongoing commitment to end domestic and sexual violence. It seeks to expand the law's focus on sexual assault, to ensure access to services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence, and to address the crisis of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities, among other important steps. It also responds to these difficult economic times by consolidating programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively.

The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. Today, we build on that foundation. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization, which will provide safety and security for victims across America.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 and to be joined by Senator Crapo in doing so. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. We should reauthorize and strengthen these programs.

Since VAWA'S passage in 1994, no other law has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The resources and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes, improved the response of law enforcement and the justice system, and provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together.

As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We have come a long way since then, but there is much more we must do.

Over the last few years, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on VAWA in anticipation of this reauthorization. We have heard from people from all around the country, and they have told us the same thing I hear from service providers, experts, and law enforcement officers in Vermont: While we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain, and there is more work to be done.

The victim services funded by VAWA play a particularly critical role in these difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make it even harder for victims to rebuild their lives. At the same time, state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available services. Just this summer, Topeka, Kansas, took the drastic step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. We can and must do better than that. Budgets are tight, but we cannot simply turn our backs on these victims. For many, the programs funded through the Violence Against Women Act are nothing short of a life line.

In Vermont, VAWA funding helped the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence provide services to more than 7,000 adults and nearly 1,400 children last year alone. These women and men, and girls and boys, received shelter, counseling, legal advocacy and access to transitional housing--lifesaving services to help them recover from unspeakable trauma and abuse.

In one case, a mother of three children living in rural Vermont endured a long and abusive marriage in which she was not allowed to get an independent job or even a driver's license. For most of her adult life, she was subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse by her husband. After she summoned the courage to call a domestic violence hotline, her husband was arrested. Advocates helped her find temporary housing and gain access to a lawyer who helped her navigate the criminal process and establish supervised visitation for her children. Because of funding provided by VAWA, she and her children are safe and living independently. The lives of this woman and her children are just a few examples of how VAWA is having a real impact in our communities.

I have heard stories like this time and again from victims and advocates in Vermont and across the country. Without this critical funding, state and local programs like the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence will not be able to provide their services to victims in desperate need.

The reauthorization bill that I am introducing with Senator Crapo reflects Congress's ongoing commitment to end domestic and sexual violence. It seeks to expand the law's focus on sexual assault, to ensure access to services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence, and to address the crisis of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities, among other important steps. It also responds to these difficult economic times by consolidating programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and effectively.

The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. Today, we build on that foundation. I hope that Senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization, which will provide safety and security for victims across America.

Mr. President, the Udall-Webb-Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin-Paul- Wyden amendment would remove the very troubling detention subtitle from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because I believe the detention subtitle is deeply flawed. We should hear from the Pentagon and other agencies about what they believe to be the appropriate role of the Armed Forces in detaining and prosecuting terrorism suspects. Unfortunately, the language in the bill before us blatantly disregards the concerns of these agencies.

Contrary to statements by the bill's authors, the current version of the detention subtitle, considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC

on November 15, contains virtually all of the same concerns as the earlier version of the bill. The changes made by SASC do not correct the problems that have been raised by the administration.

Since the SASC marked up the new version, we have received several letters from the administration in opposition to the new language. Secretary Panetta, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, and FBI Director Mueller, have all written to Senate leaders in opposition of the language. That means this language is opposed by each of the agencies whose officers in the field will be directly affected by it.

Just yesterday, Director Mueller wrote that the ``legislation introduces a substantial element of uncertainty'' into terrorism investigations. Secretary Panetta wrote that the legislation ``may needlessly complicate efforts by frontline law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence.'' Director Clapper wrote that ``the various detention provisions . . . would introduce unnecessary rigidity'' into investigations. And we have a Statement of Administration Policy raising very strong objections to some of these provisions. I ask unanimous consent to place these letters and the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.

So, contrary to what the bill sponsors claim, they have not incorporated the administration's requests, and the current language does not remove the risk of impeding intelligence investigations or prosecutions of terrorist suspects.

As currently written, the language in this bill would authorize the military to indefinitely detain individuals--including U.S. citizens-- without charge or trial. I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention, and certainly when the detainee is a U.S. citizen held without charge. It contradicts the most basic principles of law that I subscribed to when I was a prosecutor, and it severely weakens our credibility when we criticize other governments for engaging in similar conduct.

I fought against the Bush administration policies that left us in the situation we face now, with indefinite detention being the de facto administration policy, and I strongly opposed President Obama's Executive order on detention when it was announced last March because it contemplated, if not outright endorsed, indefinite detention.

I am also deeply troubled by the mandatory military detention requirements included in this bill, which I believe dangerously undermine our national security. In the fight against al-Qaida and other terrorist threats, we should be giving our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need-- not limiting those tools. But limiting them is exactly what this bill does. Secretary Panetta has stated unequivocally that ``[t]his provision restrains the Executive Branch's options to utilize, in a swift and flexible fashion, all the counterterrorism tools that are now legally available.'' Requiring terrorism suspects to be held only in military custody, and limiting the available options in the field, is unwise and unnecessary.

The language in the detention subtitle of this bill is the product of a process that has lacked transparency from the start. These measures directly affect law enforcement, detention, and terrorism matters that have traditionally been subject to the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but neither committee was consulted about these provisions in July when the bill was first marked up, or earlier this month when it was modified.

The administration proposed revisions to significantly improve the detention provisions. However, rather than negotiate with the administration in good faith, the Armed Services Committee drafted a new version of the language behind closed doors and claimed that it had solved all of the issues raised by the administration. It is obvious from the letters we have received that this is not the case.

I can see no reason why these provisions were rushed through the Committee without the input of the Defense Department and Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies that will be directly affected if this language is enacted.

We must allow a thorough review to determine the legal and practical consequences that these changes will have

on future counterterrorism and national security operations to ensure they are not hindered. That is what the Udall amendment does. I urge all Senators to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, am I correct that we are on the Defense authorization bill?

Mr. President, one of the amendments that have been pending is the Leahy-Graham National Guard empowerment amendment, which is amendment No. 1072. I was just discussing with the distinguished leaders of the Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and McCain, the possibility of a time to bring that amendment up for a vote. While we are in quorum calls anyway, let me talk a little bit about what the amendment is.

Over the past decade, as we all know, the National Guard has undergone a profound change--actually, a historic change. Once, it was a hollow force, considered only a strategic reserve for nightmare contingencies, but the National Guard has become an operational reserve that deploys in regular rotation with the Active-Duty Force. As a matter of policy and reality, Army and Air National Guard troops from States around the country shoulder their load overseas, but they also carry a disproportionate share of the domestic response in disaster relief missions at home, including responding to terrorist events. Institutional support for the National Guard still lags behind its operational role.

When I have been on battlefields, whether Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, and I have talked to the commanders there, they do not know the difference between, when looking at soldiers about to deploy, which one is Guard and which one is regular force because they are deploying together and expected to do the same job. But, unfortunately, today's National Guard is a superb 21st-century force trapped inside the 20th- century Pentagon bureaucracy.

Without raising the profile of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the supreme military advisory body of the Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States will miss an opportunity to capitalize on positive changes that began in response to post-9/11 operations tempo. So our amendment makes that change, as well as several others that will enhance the Guard's effectiveness.

I may sound parochial, but I think of immediately after 9/11. We had armed F-16s flying guard over New York City around the clock, day after day. They were from the Vermont Air National Guard, and they maintained their readiness 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, protecting us because we did not know what else might come. Well, I think just about every Senator here could talk about similar types of work the Guard from his or her State has done.

Now, in this period of flatlining or even declining Pentagon budgets, the Department of Defense has to increase the role of the National Guard as an element of the overall force mix. Without the Chief of the National Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among the other changes made by this amendment, the unique experience of nearly half a million members of the National Guard will continue to be largely unknown, and their voices, their interests, and their concerns have gone mostly unheard. So the change is not only necessary, it is actually a decade overdue.

This amendment is not just out of the blue. It has 70 cosponsors. More than two-thirds of the Senate support it. It is an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority of Senators. It goes across the political spectrum, and it goes across the States of this Nation. It demonstrates that the provisions contained in this amendment, all of which empower the National Guard, should be included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

As I have said, I have been overseas. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has. Most of us here have. We have watched our troops operate, and you cannot tell which troops are in the Guard and which are Active Duty. Certainly when they are out facing the enemy and putting their lives on the line, there is not a sign that says: Shoot at this one because they are Active but not this one because they are in the Guard. They are all facing the same dangers.

They stand and work side by side. We have to reflect our reality inside the Pentagon as well as outside of it on the battlefield.

I urge all of my colleagues, cosponsors and nonsponsors alike, to join me in making sure the Guard finally has a voice commensurate with its operational role.

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

Mr. President, I will not use all my time, by any means. I spoke earlier about this. I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona.

Senator Graham and I, as cochairs of the National Guard Caucus, introduced amendment No. 1072. I spoke earlier this afternoon about it, so I will not speak longer on it, except to say the amendment is long overdue. The men and women of our Guard deserve the same recognition as everyone else in uniform. It is high time we made sure they receive it.

Senator Graham has been a close and valued partner in helping us bring about this bipartisan piece of legislation. Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum have cosponsored it.

I will close with this. The Senator from Arizona has been in war zones probably more than I ever will in my lifetime. The Senator from South Carolina certainly has been in Iraq and Afghanistan more than most Members of this body. But I think every one of us who has been in a war zone knows this. We see soldiers going out to face battle. Nobody knows whether they are members of the Guard or the regular forces. Certainly those who would do harm to our men and women in uniform do not say we will do different harm to members of the Guard or members of the regular forces. I say this because they all put their lives on the line. They all go through training. And we could not field the forces our Department of Defense is called upon to field without our Guard and Reserve. So I do hope the Leahy-Graham amendment No. 1072 will pass.

I yield to Senator Graham.

Mr. President, I would join the Senator from South Carolina in thanking Senator Levin, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCain, the ranking member, who worked closely with us. But I must say again, my good friend from South Carolina, I think even as late as a week ago, in the meeting we had with the Secretary of Defense, talked about this need.

We have tried not to show any light between one Republican and one Democrat but to do what was best here. I want to see the Senate get back to the days when Republicans and Democrats work together like that. But I thank the distinguished Senators from Michigan and Arizona for their help.

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

For debate only.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and amendment No. 1087, the Leahy FOIA amendment, be called up and then be set aside.

Mr. President, today I offer an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that would address an overbroad exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, contained in the bill. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition of open government groups from across the political spectrum. I hope that the Senate will adopt it.

For 45 years, the Freedom of Information Act has been a cornerstone of open government and a hallmark of our democracy, ensuring that the American people have access to their government's records. My amendment will help ensure that FOIA remains a viable tool for access to information that impacts the health and safety of the American public.

I am concerned that the exemption included in the NDAA would allow the Department of Defense to keep secret important information that Americans need to know to protect their own health and safety. For example, there have been alarming reports about the Department of Defense keeping citizens in the dark about health hazards, such as groundwater contamination on military facilities, by claiming that this information was a matter of national security. While I certainly understand the need for the government to keep certain sensitive information confidential, I believe this exemption goes too far.

This amendment adds a public interest balancing test to the Secretary of Defense's determination about whether to withhold critical infrastructure information from the public. This change will help ensure that truly sensitive information is protected, while allowing the public to obtain important information about potential health and safety concerns. An essentially identical provision is contained in the House-passed version of this bill.

The amendment I offer today will also revise the language in section 1044 related to Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Systems to ensure that truly sensitive flight information is protected, while maintaining the public's interest in obtaining information about the safety of military aircraft.

This amendment strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding the ability of the Department of Defense to perform its vital missions and the public's right to know. I hope that all Senators will support this commonsense amendment and that the Senate will adopt it without delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 1186, Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act, and it then be set aside.

Mr. President, I am proud to have joined once again with Senator Grassley to offer the bipartisan Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which we have a long track record of working together, with great success. In these trying economic times, cracking down on fraud, which has harmed so many hardworking Americans, is more important than ever.

Fraud in military contracting and procurement is a persistent problem which costs taxpayers millions and hurts our military men and women. This amendment will help the critically important effort to crack down on fraud in the military and elsewhere, and so including this amendment with the Department of Defense authorization bill makes good sense. I urge Senators from both parties to support this amendment.

One of the first major bills the last Congress passed was the Leahy- Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud investigators and prosecutors additional tools and resources to better hold those who commit fraud accountable and has led to significant successes. Our work is not done though. Our amendment reflects the ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect hardworking taxpayers from fraud.

In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.

The centerpiece provision of the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act capitalizes on this rate of return by ensuring that a percentage of money recovered by the government through fines and penalties is reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. That means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more returns to the government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without spending new taxpayer money.

The bill also makes other modest changes to promote accountability and to ensure that prosecutors and investigators, including the Secret Service, have the tools they need to combat fraud. For example, it extends the international money laundering statute to tax evasion crimes and increases key fines. The bill also promotes accountability through increased reporting and transparency.

The renewed focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from Congress and this administration has yielded significant results, but we must continue to strengthen the tools that law enforcement has to root out fraud. Hardworking, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that their government is doing all it can to prevent fraud and hold those who commit fraud accountable for their crimes. Fighting fraud and protecting taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have long worked together to address. I thank Senator Grassley for his commitment to these issues, and ask all Senators to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 1160 and Amendment No. 1253 En Bloc

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator from Colorado aware that the administration has raised real concerns--both DOD and the White House--saying that requiring the President to devise the kind of procedures discussed in this bill creates all kinds of problems, and that this is one of the reasons why both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked to have the opportunity to hold hearings on a section that obviously involves the jurisdiction of both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees?

I thank the Senator.

Reserving the right to object, before we go into the series of speakers, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to just call up and then set aside amendment No. 1072, which is sponsored by myself and Senator Graham, and there is a list of 67 cosponsors.

I thank my friend from Arizona.

Amendment No. 1072

(Purpose: To enhance the national defense through empowerment of the

National Guard, enhancement of the functions of the National Guard

Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military coordination in

domestic emergency response)

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1072.

Mr. President, this is on behalf of myself, Senators Graham, Rockefeller, Ayotte, Baucus, Begich, Bennet, Bingaman, Blumenthal, Blunt, Boozman, Boxer, Scott Brown, Sherrod Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Coats, Conrad, Coons, Corker, Crapo, Durbin, Enzi, Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Grassley, Hagan, Harkin, Heller, Hoeven, Inhofe, Inouye, Johanns, Ron Johnson, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lee, Lugar, Manchin, McCaskill, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Moran, Murray, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Risch, Sanders, Schumer, Shaheen, Snowe, Stabenow, Tester, Mark Udall, Vitter, Warner, Whitehouse, and Wyden. It has been called up, and I ask unanimous consent to have it set aside to deal with the pending matter.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor a dear friend and native Vermonter, Dana Singiser. Dana has accepted the position of Vice President for Public Policy and Government Affairs for Planned Parenthood, and while I am sorry to see her leave President Obama's administration, I am proud to recognize Dana's hard work and wish her continued success in her career.

Dana was raised in the small rural town of Mendon, VT, where her mother--the Mendon town clerk--instilled in her the values of democracy and the importance of staying engaged in her community. Dana carried this spirit with her in her career on Capitol Hill and on several presidential campaigns. Dana came to my office as an intern in the summer of 1991 while attending Brown University. I was immediately impressed with her intelligence, work ethic, and gregarious personality. I knew she would go on to accomplish great things, and indeed she has. After graduating from Brown, she attended law school at Georgetown University and spent 7 years at a law firm before her return to public service, where she has remained.

Dana served as the Director of Women's Outreach for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid--an opportunity that allowed her to grow her career in politics. She later also quickly proved herself a valuable asset to President Obama's campaign, and following his election she was appointed Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs, where she has served for the last 3 years.

While she has enjoyed her time at the White House, Dana has also gained immeasurable experience that will certainly add to her already successful career. In Dana's new role with Planned Parenthood, she can continue her long fight to protect women's rights, and I am glad to see her continue to follow her passion. Vermonters are proud to recognize Dana Singiser's hard work, and we wish her continued success in her career.

I ask unanimous consent that an article about her achievements, from The

National Journal, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, few things are more important to consumer well being than ensuring the safety of our pharmaceutical supply chain. Yet today, the penalties for counterfeit drug offenses are outdated and insufficient to deter this epidemic problem. As a result, counterfeit medicines reportedly lead to 100,000 deaths globally each year, with upwards of 90 percent of drug sales estimated to be counterfeit.

Similarly, few things are more important to the American economy and long-term job creation than protecting our companies' intellectual property. Yet businesses manufacturing and selling counterfeit drugs reportedly generate more than $75 billion in annual revenue. This means lost profits for American businesses and lost jobs for American workers. Such staggering numbers would be unacceptable in any economic climate, and they are devastating today.

Combating the sale of counterfeit drugs is increasingly difficult. Whether it is the prevalence of Internet pharmacies, or the new and sophisticated methods of manufacturing, packaging and distributing counterfeit drugs, the obstacles to safeguarding the pharmaceutical supply chain in today's economy are many. As a result, large counterfeit drug enterprises are being funded on the backs of consumers, both in Vermont and around the country, whose health and safety are at stake.

Under current law, it is illegal to introduce counterfeit drugs into interstate commerce, but the penalties are no different than those assessed for trafficking other counterfeit products, such as handbags or sneakers. While the manufacture and sale of any counterfeit product is a serious crime, counterfeit medication poses a grave danger to public health that warrants a harsher punishment. Legislation is needed to raise counterfeit drug penalties to a level commensurate with the severity of the offense in order to deter an epidemic problem.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which will raise the maximum penalties for counterfeit drug offenses, and direct the United States Sentencing Commission to consider amending its guidelines and policy statements to reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

This legislation will protect the safety of American consumers, and the investment that American pharmaceutical companies make in developing the quality medicines that lead to reputable brands. Ensuring patient safety and combating intellectual property theft are not uniquely Democratic or Republican priorities, these are bipartisan priorities, and I hope that we can quickly take up and consider this much needed legislation.

We should not expect that enactment of this or any legislation will completely deter this serious problem. But this bill is an important step towards countering a problem that harms American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs.

I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Bennet for working with me on this legislation, and I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, few things are more important to consumer well being than ensuring the safety of our pharmaceutical supply chain. Yet today, the penalties for counterfeit drug offenses are outdated and insufficient to deter this epidemic problem. As a result, counterfeit medicines reportedly lead to 100,000 deaths globally each year, with upwards of 90 percent of drug sales estimated to be counterfeit.

Similarly, few things are more important to the American economy and long-term job creation than protecting our companies' intellectual property. Yet businesses manufacturing and selling counterfeit drugs reportedly generate more than $75 billion in annual revenue. This means lost profits for American businesses and lost jobs for American workers. Such staggering numbers would be unacceptable in any economic climate, and they are devastating today.

Combating the sale of counterfeit drugs is increasingly difficult. Whether it is the prevalence of Internet pharmacies, or the new and sophisticated methods of manufacturing, packaging and distributing counterfeit drugs, the obstacles to safeguarding the pharmaceutical supply chain in today's economy are many. As a result, large counterfeit drug enterprises are being funded on the backs of consumers, both in Vermont and around the country, whose health and safety are at stake.

Under current law, it is illegal to introduce counterfeit drugs into interstate commerce, but the penalties are no different than those assessed for trafficking other counterfeit products, such as handbags or sneakers. While the manufacture and sale of any counterfeit product is a serious crime, counterfeit medication poses a grave danger to public health that warrants a harsher punishment. Legislation is needed to raise counterfeit drug penalties to a level commensurate with the severity of the offense in order to deter an epidemic problem.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Counterfeit Drug Penalty Enhancement Act, which will raise the maximum penalties for counterfeit drug offenses, and direct the United States Sentencing Commission to consider amending its guidelines and policy statements to reflect the serious nature of these crimes.

This legislation will protect the safety of American consumers, and the investment that American pharmaceutical companies make in developing the quality medicines that lead to reputable brands. Ensuring patient safety and combating intellectual property theft are not uniquely Democratic or Republican priorities, these are bipartisan priorities, and I hope that we can quickly take up and consider this much needed legislation.

We should not expect that enactment of this or any legislation will completely deter this serious problem. But this bill is an important step towards countering a problem that harms American consumers, American businesses, and American jobs.

I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Bennet for working with me on this legislation, and I look forward to working with all Senators to pass this important, bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk for a few moments about the positive impact next year's Transportation-HUD appropriations bill is going to have on my home State of Vermont, particularly as we continue rebuilding from Hurricane Irene's destructive forces back in August.

I want to praise subcommittee chair Patty Murray and ranking member Susan Collins. Their hard work and dedication ensures the final bill, filed last night, provides both appropriate funding for disaster relief accounts and also moves heavy truck traffic out of historic downtowns both in Vermont and in Maine.

As you and the others know, ever since Hurricane Irene, I have spoken over and over again on the floor of the Senate but also in meeting after meeting of the Appropriations Committee and probably in hundreds of hours in discussions with both Republican and Democratic Senators, especially on the Appropriations Committee, about the needs to Vermont.

Irene was devastating to our small State of Vermont. Both my wife and I were born in Vermont, and never in our lifetime have we seen anything like what we saw--record rains, and flash floods simply washed away homes, farms, businesses, roads, and bridges all over the State, including some that had been there for 100 years. Of all the body blows we suffered when Irene raked our State from border to border, repairing the damage to our roads and our bridges and our rail lines is one of our most urgent priorities, especially in a State in which we have already had substantial snowfalls.

The huge expense of mending our transportation network is well beyond the ability of a small State such as ours. When we tallied up the destruction, it became quickly very clear that Vermont is going to need more Federal help than the money that is now in the pipeline. In fact, we are not alone in that. The same can be said of other States ravaged by Irene.

With many Federal aid disaster programs underfunded, I am especially pleased that this bill contains $1,662 million to replenish the Federal highway disaster relief fund. That is going to help Vermont and the other States that were so badly damaged rebuild vital roadways and bridges. Of course, these connections are crucial to distributing aid, rebuilding our economy, and serving as a lifeline to small communities, and, working with Governor Shumlin, Senator Sanders, Congressman Welch, and community leaders across Vermont, it became clear right away that, given the mammoth destruction of the storm, certain waivers are going to be needed to allow States to have these emergency funds without unnecessary burdens or delays. We have made adjustments to these caps in the past after major natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Andrew and tornadoes in the South.

I traveled around the State the day after Irene. It was hard to believe it was such a beautiful day. The Sun was shining. It looked like the nicest summer day you could imagine, except that as the Governor and I and General Dubie, the head of our National Guard, went by helicopter, we would go along and we would see a beautiful road, houses, farms, a river running along one side, everything peaceful, and we would go about a mile, and all of a sudden the river was on the wrong side of the road and hundreds of yards of road had disappeared, there were gaping holes 50-, 100-, 150-feet deep and businesses, houses, barns in the river, destroyed. These are places that have not changed for 100 years but did in this. I remember saying to the Governor: We will get the aid.

I was already getting e-mails from some of my colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--here in the Senate saying that Vermont had always supported their States when they had disasters, and they would support us. But the Governor and I and everybody else realized that we had to have waivers in the final bill to do the things we needed. They are essential to ensuring that Vermont can promptly begin work on emergency and permanent repairs sooner rather than later. It is the middle of November, and they no longer make asphalt after about the middle of November. Severe winter weather is right around the corner. So it will make it nearly impossible to rebuild before March or April.

When I proposed the waivers in this bill, I can't tell you how much I appreciated the fact that Senators Murray and Collins supported that, as did Republicans and Democrats alike, on the appropriations bill. It may seem like a small thing, but to our little State, it is the difference between economic disaster and being able to rebuild, and I can't thank Senators enough for supporting me on these waivers.

The bill also includes another high priority for Vermont: moving heavy trucks off the State's secondary roads and onto our interstate highways. Overweight truck traffic in our villages and downtown poses a threat to the State's infrastructure, but it is also an unnecessary safety risk to both motorists and pedestrians.

The Leahy-Collins provision in this bill will end the steady parade of overweight trucks in Vermont and Maine from rumbling through our historic downtowns and small, narrow roads that come within a few feet of schools, houses, businesses, and town greens. It will help Vermont businesses and communities struggling even more right now because of the large number of State and local roads already heavily damaged during the recent flooding.

When we first met in the Appropriations Committee and I first raised the needs of Vermont, I have to admit that I got emotional in that appropriations meeting, as I did here on the floor. It is because I saw my fellow Vermonters, some, people I have known literally all my life, who drew from their deep reservoirs of resiliency and resolve in the wake of Hurricane Irene; people helping people they don't even know but saying, ``That is the way we do it in Vermont''; people moving even before FEMA or anybody else came to help with the disaster, moving to make sure that people who might need to get to a hospital, even if we had to carve a road through woods for them, it would be done. This is the Vermont way.

But I was moved to tears going through the State and seeing things that I remembered as a child that had always been there and I assumed would be there all my life destroyed in a matter of hours.

These storms are going to enter the history books alongside the horrific floods of 1927 in our State--something I remember my grandparents and parents talking about. I remember my grandparents and parents saying: We hope we never see something like this again. They didn't, but their son did, and I can't tell you how much it hurt.

But I cannot tell you how much it means to me that, again, Senators joined with me in saying: We will find the money Vermont needs. Back in 1927, the National Government helped our State recover, as it should, because, after all, we are the United States of America. The American people come together in times such as these, just as Vermonters have always been among the helping hands extended to other States at their time in need. So the progress this bill makes in helping Vermont and other States meet their urgent needs is a testament to the determination of many in this body. Again, Republicans and Democrats have been willing to set aside ideological differences and partisan tensions to accomplish the work the American people expect from their government.

When I first proposed this increase in disaster aid not only for Vermont but for every other State, when I first proposed these waivers, I hoped they would happen. None of us knew whether they would. I am pleased now to see a bill where they have. It came about because Senators from all over the country of both political parties worked together. You know, I wish we had more of that in Washington these days. I would like to think that maybe this is a wonderful step forward and we are all going to benefit from it.

Mr. President, I know we are shortly to vote on the judicial nominations. I would ask the Chair how much time remains before that vote.

Mr. President, just to notify other Senators, I am shortly going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I will then ask us to come out of the quorum at noon, and unless I hear that somebody wishes to speak on either of the nominees, I will then move that time be yielded back. I will

not do that until 12:00. But I now suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I see nobody on either side who wishes to speak. I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back on the two nominations.

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

Mr. President, when the first nomination is called up, I will ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 3 p.m. today.

Of course.

I thank the Chair. After decades of doing this, I should have remembered, of course, we have to notify the President. I recall one day, when we went into the beginning of the session and swore in new Senators, one was the new Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The President of the United States was sitting in the gallery. When we convened as a Senate, the usual notice was said to notify the President that the Senate has convened for that session, at which point several of my colleagues rather honorably pointed out the President: You do not have to notify him. He is sitting right up in the gallery.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 3 p.m. today.

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

Madam President, I have mentioned this to the distinguished Republican floor leader, and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for a few minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, at some point we may bring up the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee's appropriations bill. I understand that several Senators on the other side have refused to allow the Senate to debate and vote on this bill, for one reason or another. That is unfortunate, because it provides the funding for many programs that have critical importance to the Nation's security. Let me mention a few:

It supports our counterterrorism strategy in South Asia,

the Horn of Africa, and the Far East. It responds to the

turbulent events in the Middle East and North Africa, and

threats on the Mexican border. It combats transnational

crime, piracy of intellectual property, and the denial of

fundamental freedoms. It promotes access for U.S. companies

to foreign markets. It provides the funds to operate and

secure our embassies and consulates that serve millions of

Americans while traveling, working and studying overseas. It

preserves U.S. influence in key international organizations

and alliances. And it responds to a massive famine in

Somalia, floods, and other humanitarian disasters.

We have to do this and much more with a budget allocation that is $6 billion below the President's request.

I worry that ``foreign aid'' today is a term often maligned and misunderstood. It is viewed by many as a form of charity, or a luxury we can do without, or that it is a sizable part of the Federal budget. But it is none of those things, as that list I just mentioned illustrates.

These have never been Democratic or Republican issues. The funds in this bill determine whether the United States will remain the global leader it has been since the Second World War.

Six weeks ago, former President George W. Bush said:

One of the lessons of September 11th is that what happens

overseas matters here at home. . . . We face an enemy that

can only recruit when they find hopeless people, and there is

nothing more hopeless to a child who loses a mom or dad to

AIDS [than] to watch the wealthy nations of the world sit

back and do nothing.

Former President Bush is right.

In fact, his former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was equally blunt about the stakes involved. She said:

We don't have an option to retire, to take a sabbatical

from leadership in the international community and the world.

If we do, one of 2 things will happen. There will be chaos,

because without leadership there will be chaos in the

international community, and that is dangerous. But it's

quite possible, that if we don't lead, somebody else will.

And perhaps it will be someone who does not share our values

of compassion, the rights of the individual, of liberty, and

freedom.

I could not agree more, and I hope other Senators appreciate what is at stake. Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable challenges of the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we will bear responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today.

I wonder if, in my parents' generation, this country had not rallied behind President Truman and Secretary George Marshall, who had the Marshall plan, which to many people was very unpopular, whether we would have given aid to countries we had just been at war with. What a different world it would be today if we had not helped rebuild Europe or Japan.

It is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence around the world and to compete in the global marketplace. Great Britain's conservative government is on a path to increase its international development assistance to .7 percent of its national budget. You might say: Only .7 percent of its national budget? In the United States, it is .2 percent of our national budget.

Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than any other region except the European Union, our share is shrinking while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere.

There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world is changing profoundly, and we cannot afford to retrench or succumb to isolationism.

The funding in the State, Foreign Operations bill enables us to engage with our allies, defeat our competitors, and deter our adversaries. It may be an attractive target for campaign speeches and bumper sticker politics, but without it we cannot meet the growing threats to our struggling economy and our national security.

The bill that Senator Graham and I will, I hope, be able to bring to the floor of this body, was reported by the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan vote of 28 to 2. It is $6 billion below the President's budget request. It scales back many Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development operations and programs. It is going to force significant reductions in planned expenditures. I wish it did not, but I also agree that we have to control spending.

I doubt there is any Member of Congress from either party or either body who does not care if the United States becomes a second or third rate power. I think all of us in Congress expect the United States to lead, to build alliances, to help American companies compete successfully, and to protect the interests and security of our citizens.

Yet there are unmistakable signs that our global influence is already waning. It is not preordained that the United States will remain the world's dominant power. As Former Secretary Rice said:

If we don't lead, somebody else will.

I think every one of us can imagine which countries that might be, and I shudder to think of some of them.

You cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect others to follow if we do not lead. And we cannot lead if we do not pay our way.

We need to stop acting as though these investments do not matter; that the State Department is not important; that we do not need the United Nations; that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, Somalia, or other countries does not matter; and that the global threats to the environment, public health, and safety will somehow be solved by others.

Think of this: The most deadly, contagious diseases in the world are only an airplane trip away from our shore.

This year's State, Foreign Operations bill, which was drafted in a bipartisan manner, balances our priorities. Funding for these programs was requested by Republicans and Democrats. In fact, I the total number of requests we received from both parties dwarfed what Senator Graham and I had available to spend.

There are no earmarks in this bill. Because of the budget cuts, Members on my side did not get close to everything they wanted, and neither did Members on Senator Graham's side.

But to anyone who thinks the 1 percent of the Federal budget we spend on international diplomacy and development is too much, this bill will freeze most embassy and consular operations, curtail programs, and in some cases defer payments to international organizations that we are obligated by treaty to pay.

This country is at a crossroads. We can retreat from the world, as some seem to want, while China and our other competitors continue to expand their influence, or we can remain a leader. This Senator hopes we will have the sense to choose the latter course.

I was barely a child at the end of World War II, but I watched as our soldiers came home, and I saw America's influence grow. I saw it as a young student in college and in law school. I saw students who came to this country to learn what we did--why?--they were inspired by America and wanted to learn from our example. I saw members of my family and friends join the Peace Corps. And when I have traveled overseas since becoming a Senator, I hear people say: Thank goodness America helped us. I hope my children and my grandchildren do not hear a different story.

The funding in this bill, which is strongly supported by the Department of Defense, is, along with the U.S. military, the best form of insurance the American people have.

I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Senator Cochran for their support of the subcommittee's budget. And I want to thank Senator Graham, who is a highly informed and passionate advocate for U.S. global leadership. I appreciate his input and support, as I do the other members of the Appropriations Committee from both parties.

It is easy for us to stand up and speak about how we want America to be No. 1. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and say you want to win the New York marathon but you do not want to train for it. If we want to be No. 1, we have to earn it.

One thing that has united some of the great leaders of our country-- both Republicans and Democrats--is their desire to expand, in the most positive way, America's influence around the world, one, so we could help others, and two, because it protects us. If we get to this bill, I hope we will not find ourselves tangled in knots with sloganeering or special interest amendments, but, rather, debate it with only one interest in mind: that of the United States of America.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entititled ``Oversight of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Medical Devices: Protecting Patients and Promoting Innovation'' on November 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room G50 of the Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on November 15, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fix Gun Checks Act: Better State and Federal Compliance, Smarter Enforcement.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 15, 2011, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financial Security Issues Facing Older Americans.''