Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to introduce the Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of 2012.

I remain deeply committed to protecting our servicemembers and veterans. I was concerned, last year, when banks improperly overcharged and foreclosed upon deployed servicemembers in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Failure to comply with the protections provided to our servicemembers is unacceptable.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better than this, and I appreciate the President's and the Attorney General's leadership and commitment to enforcing these important protections. This bill, which includes a significant number of proposals provided to the Congress by the Department of Justice, would further strengthen the Department's ability to enforce these laws on behalf of servicemembers and veterans.

The bill I am introducing today would improve the Department of Justice's ability to enforce the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by giving the Attorney General limited authority to issue civil investigative demands, which would allow the Attorney General to take a more proactive approach to investigating allegations of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act violations. This bill would strengthen the protections that prevent judgements against a servicemember when they cannot appear in court because of military service. Finally, it would clarify that servicemembers may bring a private right of action to enforce their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

I also remain deeply concerned about veteran employment. The number of unemployed veterans remains unacceptably high. Last year, significant provisions of a bill I introduced, the Hiring Heroes Act, were signed into law as the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. This legislation was a good first step in combatting the high rate of unemployment among our nation's veterans. But we must do more. We must also ensure

that the laws designed to protect the employment rights of our servicemembers during periods of service are equally strong.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, commonly referred to as USSERA, protects servicemembers' employment rights during a period of military service. It also prohibits employer discrimination based on military service or obligation. This legislation would strengthen the ability of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel to enforce these valuable protections.

Specifically, this bill would grant the Attorney General the authority to investigate and file suit to challenge a pattern or practice in violation of USERRA and would grant the Attorney General limited authority to issue civil investigative demands. It will also provide the Office of Special Counsel with subpoena authority in USERRA investigations. These enhancements will ensure that when our National Guard and Reserve members deploy, they do so knowing their jobs are secure.

It is vital that the Federal departments and agencies charged with protecting our servicemembers have the tools necessary to enforce the protections provided to them. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that.

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

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to introduce the Servicemembers Rights Enforcement Improvement Act of 2012.

I remain deeply committed to protecting our servicemembers and veterans. I was concerned, last year, when banks improperly overcharged and foreclosed upon deployed servicemembers in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Failure to comply with the protections provided to our servicemembers is unacceptable.

Our men and women in uniform deserve better than this, and I appreciate the President's and the Attorney General's leadership and commitment to enforcing these important protections. This bill, which includes a significant number of proposals provided to the Congress by the Department of Justice, would further strengthen the Department's ability to enforce these laws on behalf of servicemembers and veterans.

The bill I am introducing today would improve the Department of Justice's ability to enforce the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by giving the Attorney General limited authority to issue civil investigative demands, which would allow the Attorney General to take a more proactive approach to investigating allegations of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act violations. This bill would strengthen the protections that prevent judgements against a servicemember when they cannot appear in court because of military service. Finally, it would clarify that servicemembers may bring a private right of action to enforce their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

I also remain deeply concerned about veteran employment. The number of unemployed veterans remains unacceptably high. Last year, significant provisions of a bill I introduced, the Hiring Heroes Act, were signed into law as the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. This legislation was a good first step in combatting the high rate of unemployment among our nation's veterans. But we must do more. We must also ensure

that the laws designed to protect the employment rights of our servicemembers during periods of service are equally strong.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, commonly referred to as USSERA, protects servicemembers' employment rights during a period of military service. It also prohibits employer discrimination based on military service or obligation. This legislation would strengthen the ability of the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Counsel to enforce these valuable protections.

Specifically, this bill would grant the Attorney General the authority to investigate and file suit to challenge a pattern or practice in violation of USERRA and would grant the Attorney General limited authority to issue civil investigative demands. It will also provide the Office of Special Counsel with subpoena authority in USERRA investigations. These enhancements will ensure that when our National Guard and Reserve members deploy, they do so knowing their jobs are secure.

It is vital that the Federal departments and agencies charged with protecting our servicemembers have the tools necessary to enforce the protections provided to them. The legislation I am introducing today would do just that.

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

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize the dedication of women service members and women veterans in celebration of Women's History Month.

Women have played an important role in our Nation's military from the time of our Founding Fathers. Today, women make up 15 percent of the Active-Duty military and 18 percent of Guard and Reserve forces. Our women soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen have served courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have played a variety of roles ranging from convoy leaders to fighter pilots to field medics. I am inspired by their bravery and their dedication to our country.

Already women make up nearly 10 percent of the veteran population, a proportion that Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, expects to grow over the next decade. VA has already come a long way in addressing the unique health needs and challenges that women face. A generation ago, VA would have been the last place that we would associate with women's health, but just this past January, VA marked an important milestone in caring for

women veterans. In Salt Lake City, UT, a woman veteran not only received all of her prenatal care from VA but also delivered a beautiful baby girl under the care of her VA obstetrician. Yet, for all of its recent progress, VA still must do more to ensure that women veterans are receiving the care that they need and deserve. As they return from the battlefield, the VA system must be equipped to help women veterans step back into their lives as mothers, wives, and citizens.

I am incredibly proud of the women who have served or are serving our Nation in uniform, and I strongly believe we must do all we can to honor them. That is why I led the effort to pass into law the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act. This bill, which was included as part of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, helped to transform the way that VA addresses the needs of women veterans. This act authorized the VA to provide neonatal care, train mental health professionals to provide mental health services for sexual trauma, develop a childcare pilot program, and staff each VA medical center with a full-time women veterans program manager. VA has an obligation to provide women veterans with quality care, and we have an obligation to make sure VA does so.

Our commitment to women veterans does not end with passing legislation like the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act. We must actively monitor the implementation and effect of these bills to make sure that no woman falls through the cracks. In December of 2010, a VA Office of Inspector General report found that the Veterans Benefit Association had not fully assessed available military sexual trauma- related claims data and had no clear understanding of how consistently these claims were being adjudicated. While both men and women service members carry the devastating wounds of military sexual trauma, the GAO found in 2002 that 22 percent of screened women service members reported military sexual trauma compared to 1 percent of screened men. With this shocking statistic in mind, Senator Tester and I pressed VBA to improve the accuracy and consistency of their military sexual trauma-related disability claims process. I am happy to say that VA agreed with our assessment and has since worked to overhaul the way it processes military sexual trauma disability claims.

Mr. President, the committee's experience with military sexual trauma disability claims is symbolic of the kind of work that remains to be done for women veterans. I recognize the challenges that women veterans face over the coming years and remain determined to work on their behalf. The promise that we make to our veterans is sacred and knows no gender. To honor our veterans, we must honor this promise for each and every one of them.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge Frozen Food Month and to recognize the frozen food industry's significant efforts to ensure that families and schoolchildren across the United States have access to healthy, affordable foods such as fruits and vegetables.

In our all too often hectic lives, frozen foods give Americans the flexibility to quickly prepare meals that are both nourishing and affordable.

School lunch planners also rely on frozen foods as they seek to serve healthy, child-friendly meals while stretching limited budgets. For instance, frozen fruits and vegetables are readily available and offer outstanding nutritional value to schoolchildren year-round.

Even during these tough economic times, the frozen food industry continues to provide much needed American jobs, with almost 100,000 employees working in nearly 700 facilities nationwide.

I would like to take this opportunity to honor one of my home State's own frozen food companies, National Frozen Food Corporation. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, National is currently celebrating its 100th year as a leader in the frozen foods industry.

National began its impressive history when a man named William McCaffray, Sr., started selling frozen strawberries in 1912. With a $5,000 loan from a friend, Mr. McCaffray built his small business from the ground up, and in the 1930s expanded to selling frozen vegetables as well as fruit. From Mr. McCaffray's humble beginnings, National has grown

to be one of our country's premiere private-label frozen vegetable producers and employs 670 people throughout the year. Today, National Frozen Foods is committed to continued improvement through innovation within its own walls and at the industry level.

I am proud to acknowledge the part that National Frozen Foods Corporation has played in our economy in Washington State, as well as the positive impact that the frozen foods industry as a whole continues to have on the United States. In celebration of Frozen Foods Month, I applaud the employees and management of National Frozen Foods Corporation, and of the entire frozen food industry, for their hard work and contributions to our country.

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act of 2012.

My colleagues, including my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members Senators Akaka, Begich, Brown of Ohio and Rockefeller, and my Senate colleagues Senators Coons, Harkin, Inouye, Leahy, and Whitehouse, join me in introducing this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of our Nation's veterans.

With the end of the war in Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan, more servicemembers are separating from the military to start their civilian careers. When my father came home from war, the GI Bill helped him go to college. He used that education to get a job, one that gave him pride. That's the opportunity we must provide those returning from today's wars.

America's investment in its newest generation of veterans is tremendous.

In 2012, over 590,000 servicemembers, veterans, and other beneficiaries are expected to enroll in educational institutions using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA is expected to spend over $9 billion dollars in 2012 on Post-9/11 GI Bill payments and over $2 billion for the nearly 400,000 beneficiaries of the VA's other education programs. Despite this level of support, those returning from today's wars are unable to use VA educational benefits to their full potential. Today, that ends.

At its heart, the GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would take significant steps to make certain that GI Bill beneficiaries have access to information to help them make informed decisions about the educational institutions they attend, so they get the most out of this tremendous benefit. This bill would also require VA and DoD to develop a joint policy to curb aggressive recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers and veterans so they can make a decision on a school without bad actors exerting unfair influence on them.

Many servicemembers and veterans attend educational institutions that do not suit their intended goals. This shouldn't be the case. Servicemembers and veterans should enroll in educational institutions which put them on the path to a successful career, or allow them to access more post-secondary education opportunities. For many years we have provided VA educational beneficiaries with billions of dollars in educational assistance, but have given them little to no assistance in deciding where to use these benefits. This bill would put an end to that.

The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act calls for disclosure of, among other data, statistics related to student loan debt, transferability of credits earned, veteran enrollment, program preparation for licensing and certification, and job placement rates. heard from many veterans that this type of information would be very useful to them as they make decisions about where to enroll.

My bill would also require VA to provide educational beneficiaries with easy-to-understand information about schools that are approved for GI Bill benefit use. Collecting data for data's sake is not the goal here. I want VA to use this information to develop a report card of sorts that allows veterans to see how one school compares against another to help them decide which school is right for them.

We must acknowledge the differences between student veterans and their civilian classmates. Unlike their classmates, servicemembers and veterans need to know what services institutions provide to ease their difficult transition to civilian life. Some educational institutions provide more support than others.

The University of Washington, one of the oldest public universities in my

home state, serves as an example of what all universities should be doing. Through its Veterans Center, the University of Washington offers its student veterans a place to connect with other veterans, access university resources, and receive referrals to campus and community resources that help to balance academic and personal demands. The University of Washington is helping to ease the transition from the battlefield to the classroom, and these types of services should be replicated across the country.

Despite this bright spot, I have heard from servicemembers and veterans who don't think their schools are in touch with the assistance that VA and other Agencies can provide to them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would require educational institutions to have at least one employee who is knowledgeable about benefits available to servicemembers and veterans.

My bill would further require that academic advising, tutoring, career and placement counseling services, and referrals to Vet Centers are available and that faculty members are trained on matters that are relevant to servicemembers and veterans. I want to make sure that each educational institution that is approved for GI Bill education benefits has the support services that student veterans need in order to make the most of their educational experience. No veteran should step on a college campus in this country and feel unsupported.

I am concerned about what I am seeing and hearing about groups who mislead our servicemembers and veterans--just to boost enrollment of students with a very lucrative benefit. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would require VA and DoD to develop a joint policy on aggressive recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers, veterans, and other beneficiaries.

When servicemembers and veterans make a decision about a school--it should be done with their own best interests at heart, and in consultation with their families and those Agencies with a mandate to help them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would make educational counseling available to more beneficiaries. As long as a beneficiary has educational entitlement--counseling from VA would be available. I really want VA to be proactive in its efforts to get these servicemembers and veterans in for counseling. This is an important step in choosing a school and career path and one that I hope that more student veterans take advantage of.

This is not a full summary of all the provisions within this legislation. However, I hope that I have provided an appropriate overview of the major benefits this legislation would provide for America's servicemembers after they leave military service. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for the Nation's veterans.

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

Mr. President, today, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to introduce the GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act of 2012.

My colleagues, including my fellow Veterans' Affairs Committee Members Senators Akaka, Begich, Brown of Ohio and Rockefeller, and my Senate colleagues Senators Coons, Harkin, Inouye, Leahy, and Whitehouse, join me in introducing this important legislation. I appreciate their continued support of our Nation's veterans.

With the end of the war in Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan, more servicemembers are separating from the military to start their civilian careers. When my father came home from war, the GI Bill helped him go to college. He used that education to get a job, one that gave him pride. That's the opportunity we must provide those returning from today's wars.

America's investment in its newest generation of veterans is tremendous.

In 2012, over 590,000 servicemembers, veterans, and other beneficiaries are expected to enroll in educational institutions using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA is expected to spend over $9 billion dollars in 2012 on Post-9/11 GI Bill payments and over $2 billion for the nearly 400,000 beneficiaries of the VA's other education programs. Despite this level of support, those returning from today's wars are unable to use VA educational benefits to their full potential. Today, that ends.

At its heart, the GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would take significant steps to make certain that GI Bill beneficiaries have access to information to help them make informed decisions about the educational institutions they attend, so they get the most out of this tremendous benefit. This bill would also require VA and DoD to develop a joint policy to curb aggressive recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers and veterans so they can make a decision on a school without bad actors exerting unfair influence on them.

Many servicemembers and veterans attend educational institutions that do not suit their intended goals. This shouldn't be the case. Servicemembers and veterans should enroll in educational institutions which put them on the path to a successful career, or allow them to access more post-secondary education opportunities. For many years we have provided VA educational beneficiaries with billions of dollars in educational assistance, but have given them little to no assistance in deciding where to use these benefits. This bill would put an end to that.

The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act calls for disclosure of, among other data, statistics related to student loan debt, transferability of credits earned, veteran enrollment, program preparation for licensing and certification, and job placement rates. heard from many veterans that this type of information would be very useful to them as they make decisions about where to enroll.

My bill would also require VA to provide educational beneficiaries with easy-to-understand information about schools that are approved for GI Bill benefit use. Collecting data for data's sake is not the goal here. I want VA to use this information to develop a report card of sorts that allows veterans to see how one school compares against another to help them decide which school is right for them.

We must acknowledge the differences between student veterans and their civilian classmates. Unlike their classmates, servicemembers and veterans need to know what services institutions provide to ease their difficult transition to civilian life. Some educational institutions provide more support than others.

The University of Washington, one of the oldest public universities in my

home state, serves as an example of what all universities should be doing. Through its Veterans Center, the University of Washington offers its student veterans a place to connect with other veterans, access university resources, and receive referrals to campus and community resources that help to balance academic and personal demands. The University of Washington is helping to ease the transition from the battlefield to the classroom, and these types of services should be replicated across the country.

Despite this bright spot, I have heard from servicemembers and veterans who don't think their schools are in touch with the assistance that VA and other Agencies can provide to them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would require educational institutions to have at least one employee who is knowledgeable about benefits available to servicemembers and veterans.

My bill would further require that academic advising, tutoring, career and placement counseling services, and referrals to Vet Centers are available and that faculty members are trained on matters that are relevant to servicemembers and veterans. I want to make sure that each educational institution that is approved for GI Bill education benefits has the support services that student veterans need in order to make the most of their educational experience. No veteran should step on a college campus in this country and feel unsupported.

I am concerned about what I am seeing and hearing about groups who mislead our servicemembers and veterans--just to boost enrollment of students with a very lucrative benefit. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would require VA and DoD to develop a joint policy on aggressive recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers, veterans, and other beneficiaries.

When servicemembers and veterans make a decision about a school--it should be done with their own best interests at heart, and in consultation with their families and those Agencies with a mandate to help them. The GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act would make educational counseling available to more beneficiaries. As long as a beneficiary has educational entitlement--counseling from VA would be available. I really want VA to be proactive in its efforts to get these servicemembers and veterans in for counseling. This is an important step in choosing a school and career path and one that I hope that more student veterans take advantage of.

This is not a full summary of all the provisions within this legislation. However, I hope that I have provided an appropriate overview of the major benefits this legislation would provide for America's servicemembers after they leave military service. I also ask our colleagues for their continued support for the Nation's veterans.

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

Mr. President, I am so honored to join so many of my Senate colleagues and people from Maryland and across this country in recognizing and congratulating the amazing woman you just heard from, my good friend from Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, who, as you have just heard, has just become the longest serving female Member of Congress in the history of the United States.

This is an achievement that takes courage, it takes passion, and it takes commitment. Those are three attributes all of us who know her so well know she has in abundance. But my good friend, Senator Mikulski, has not just served long, she has served well.

The senior Senator from Maryland, over her 35 years in Congress, has established herself as a trailblazer, as a leader, and as a fighter for the people of her State. It is fitting that this milestone was reached during Women's History Month because Senator Mikulski has given so much of herself in support of other women in Congress. She has guided us, she has shown us how to stand and fight, and she has taken all of us under her wing.

Senator Mikulski realized when she arrived here that there was no rule book for women in Congress. So she took it upon herself to guide the way. She drew on her own experiences to make the transition easier for all of us.

She organized seminars that you have heard about. She taught us how to work together. She taught us about the legislative process, the rules on the floor, and the many more subtle rules off the floor.

In short, Senator Mikulski showed us the ropes, and she has done it every day I have been here for all the women who have come since she has been here. While she knows it is important and courageous to lead the charge, she also understands the first ones have to be responsible and successful so others can follow. It is because Senator Mikulski has done her job so well that other women have been able to follow in her footsteps.

She is here today as the longest serving woman in Congress, not by accident or by happenstance. She is here because she has earned it, because the people of her State know she is an indispensable champion of their causes, because she does work across party lines, and because she delivers results.

I know many years from now when women have achieved a larger, more representative role in our Nation's Capital, Senator Mikulski will be at the very top of the list of people to thank--the person who not only forged the path but who went back and guided so many of us down it.

I know many of my colleagues are on the floor today to thank Senator Mikulski. But I am here especially to thank her, as one of those women who have followed in her footsteps, for her more than 35 years of service to her State and to her country. Those of us who know her well know she is not even close to being finished.

So, Mr. President, my very best to my very good friend, Senator Mikulski. I wish her very well in her next 35 years.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, 2 years ago health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions, such as pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. Two years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance premiums and were often paying more for coverage than men. Two years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care, such as mammograms or contraception and more. Two years ago the insurance companies had all the leverage, and too often it was women who were paying the price.

Mr. President, that is why I am proud to come to the floor today, 2 years after we passed the Affordable Care Act, to highlight just how far we have come when it comes to making sure women across America get the care they need at a cost they can afford. Because of this law, women will be treated fairly when it comes to health care costs. Deductibles and other expenses will be capped so a health care crisis doesn't cause a family to lose their home or their life savings. Preventive care will be free, so women never have to delay care because they can't afford to see a doctor. Because of this law women will have more options. They can use health care exchanges to pick quality plans that work for them and for their families. And if they change jobs or move, they will be able to keep their coverage. Because of this law maternity care is now covered and women won't have to skip prenatal care because they can't afford it. Because of this law women are now in charge of their health care, not their insurance companies. That is why I feel very

strongly that we cannot go back to the way things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, we owe it to the women of America to make progress and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs.

I know some of my Republican colleagues are furiously working to undo all of the gains we have made in the health care reform law for women and for their families. I am disappointed but I am hardly surprised. Republicans have been waging war on women's health since the moment they came into power. After they campaigned across the country on a platform of jobs and the economy, the first three bills they introduced in the House were each direct attacks on women's health care in America. The very first bill they introduced, H.R. 1, would have totally eliminated Title X funding for family planning and teenage pregnancy prevention, and it included an amendment that would have completely defunded Planned Parenthood and cut off support for the millions of women in this country who count on it. Another opening round of their bills would have permanently codified the Hyde amendment and the DC abortion ban, and the original version of their bill didn't even include an exception for the health of the mother. Finally, they introduced a bill right away that would have rolled back every single one of the gains I just talked about in the Affordable Care Act.

This law is a winner for women, it is a winner for men and for children and for our health care system overall. So I am proud to stand here today with so many of my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of America. We will keep fighting attempts to take them away, and I am confident we will win.

Export-Import Bank

Mr. President, while I am on the floor today, I also would like to rise to express my strong support for an amendment that will be considered today which will grow American jobs, help small businesses, generate revenue for taxpayers, and which has strong bipartisan backing.

It is no secret that foreign countries are aggressively trying to seize the global market, and America needs to keep fighting back with a program that works for businesses and taxpayers and does create thousands of jobs. The Export-Import Bank is one of the most important resources America has to keep up this fight. For over 75 years the Ex- Im Bank has supported job-creating U.S. exports by helping American businesses sell to the world. No one knows this better than businesses in my home State of Washington--the largest exporter in the Nation per capita--where one in three jobs in my State is tied to international trade. Reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank means more than 150 Washington State businesses that rely on this financing to sell their products overseas can keep their jobs here at home.

At a time when our competitors in the global marketplace provide far more aggressive export credit financing to companies within their borders, the Ex-Im Bank simply levels the playing field for U.S. companies that sell goods overseas. And the Ex-Im Bank helps create U.S. jobs and does not add to our deficit.

U.S. exports have been a bright spot in America's road to recovery, increasing by about 20 percent over the last 2 years and driving about half of all of our economic growth. Given the obvious need for exports to power economic growth, it would be negligent to pull the plug on the Ex-Im Bank. If we do not pass this bill by the end of this month, thousands of jobs will be at risk, not just from our exporters but from businesses large and small across the country.

Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank would not only be a short-term victory for our exporters, it would also tell our trading partners that the United States is a stable place to do business and that we stand behind our products and our companies. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on that amendment when it comes to the floor later.

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

I thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for her longtime advocacy, and our colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, for leading the effort to reauthorize this critically important bill to protect women in this country from violence.

I was very proud to be here with the Senator from California back in 1994 when we first passed the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as we call it. We created a national strategy for dealing with domestic violence, and since we took that first historic step, VAWA has been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service providers, and law enforcement professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic violence.

This law has helped provide lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and their families. It has been supported by Democrats and Republicans, along with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, advocates, and survivors. VAWA has attained such broad support for one reason: It has worked. Since it became law 18 years ago, domestic violence has decreased by 53 percent. And while incidents have gone down, reporting of violence and abuse has gone up. More victims are finally coming forward and more women and families are getting the support and the care they need to move themselves out of dangerous situations. As a result of the language in this law, every single State has made stalking a crime. They have all strengthened criminal rape statutes.

We have made a lot of progress since 1994, but we still have a long way to go. Every single minute, 24 people across America are victims of violence by intimate partners--more than 12 million people a year--and 45 percent of the women killed in this country die at the hands of their partner. In 1 day last year, victims of domestic violence made more than 10,000 requests for support and services that could not be met because the programs did not have the resources.

That is why I was so proud to cosponsor and strongly support the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and that is why I join my colleagues today in proudly expressing our hope that we can move this critical legislation when possible. This is a bipartisan bill which will advance our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assaults, and stalking. It will give our law enforcement agencies the support they need to enforce and prosecute these crimes. It will give communities and nonprofits the much needed resources to support victims of violence and, most important, to keep working to stop violence before it ever starts.

This bill was put forward in a bipartisan fashion. It is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations that deal with this issue every day. It consolidates programs to reduce administrative costs. It adds accountability to make sure tax money is well spent. It is building on what works in the current law, improves what does not, and will help our country continue on the path of reducing violence toward women.

It should not be controversial. We reauthorized this law last time here in the Senate unanimously by voice vote, and President Bush signed it into law

with Democrats standing there with him. So I am hopeful that the bipartisanship approach to this issue continues today as we work to reauthorize this law once again because this should not be about politics. Protecting women against violence should not be a partisan issue.

I thank the Democrats and Republicans who worked together to write this bill. I am very glad it passed through committee. I stand ready to support this bill when it comes to the floor, and I truly hope we can get it to President Obama for his signature in a timely fashion so women and families across this country can get the resources and support this law will deliver.

Finally, many of us women have come to the floor so many times over the last few weeks to fight back against attempts to turn back the clock when it comes to women's health care, as the Senator from California just talked about. I am disappointed that these issues keep coming up, but I know I stand with millions of men and women across America who remain ready to defend the gains we have made over the last 50 years and who think we should be moving forward, protecting and supporting more women and families, and not moving backward. That is what this bill does.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues to mark International Women's Day. This day, which across the globe is celebrated in many different ways, is, at its core, a day to reflect on the achievements of women in politics, business, and society. It is a day to reflect on what a woman's role was in the not-so-distant past and to celebrate how far we have come. But, unfortunately, on this International Women's Day in the year 2012, we cannot celebrate the progress we have made without also acknowledging the unsettling truth that that progress is under threat.

Today a shadow has been cast over this day of celebration by efforts to turn back the clock in Washington, DC, and across the country, efforts we all must fight against. Only 1 week ago in the Senate, we had a debate on the ability for women across this country to access contraceptives. It is a debate most women believed was settled half a century ago and one we had all hoped was in the past. However, in a scene that was eerily reminiscent of half a century ago, last week one woman brave enough to come forward and give voice to the importance of birth control was targeted. First, her story of a friend's battle with ovarian cancer was purposely left out of a House hearing on women's health. Then, as we have all heard, she was scorned and ridiculed by a rightwing pundit.

It was a galvanizing and eye-opening moment for millions of women in our country. It was a reminder that some still see women as easy targets, and it awakened many women to the fact that the gains we are meant to celebrate on a day such as today could easily be lost to political strategy that preys on women.

For many of those who watched the last few weeks play out, it may have seemed an isolated incident. It could appear to some as a sudden and swift effort by some Republicans--who thankfully have been blocked for the time being--but that is not case. The truth is, women's access to care has rarely been at greater risk. From the moment they came into power, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have been waging a war on women's health.

If you don't believe me, look at the very first bills they introduced when they arrived. They campaigned across the country in the last election on a platform of jobs and the economy, but the first three bills they introduced when they got here were direct attacks on women's health. The very first one, H.R. 1, would have totally eliminated title X funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention. The amendment also included defunding Planned Parenthood and cutting off support for the millions of women who count on it. Another one of their bills would have permanently codified the Hyde amendment and the DC abortion ban.

Finally, they introduced a bill that would have rolled back every single one of the gains we made for women in the health care reform bill. That Republican bill would have removed the caps on out-of-pocket expenses that literally protect women from losing their homes or their life savings if they get sick. It would have ended the ban on lifetime limits on coverage, which is so important to everyone. It would have allowed insurance companies to once again discriminate against women by charging them higher premiums than men or even denying women care because of so-called preexisting conditions they had, such as pregnancy. It would have rolled back the guarantee of insurance companies' coverage of contraceptives.

Republicans have shown they will go to just about any length to limit access to women's care, even shutting down the Federal Government. That may seem extreme to all, but that is exactly what happened 1 year ago when Republicans nearly shut down the Federal Government over a rider that was yet another attempt to go after title X and Planned Parenthood. I remember sitting in those meetings late at night, after months of negotiations over the numbers in the budget, astonished that Republicans were willing to throw all those negotiations away over one issue, and that was their attack on women's health.

The attack on women's rights is not just taking place in the Nation's Capital. In State after State across the country, legislators bent on putting politics between women and their health care are undoing years of important work. A recently enacted law in Texas not only strips women of their rights but of their dignity. It is a law about which Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times recently wrote a column.

I ask unanimous consent to have the article written by Nicholas Kristof, ``When States Abuse Women,'' printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

It is a law that all women across the country should be insulted by and outraged over. Today, nearly 40 years after Roe v. Wade was passed, a woman in Texas who seeks an abortion--one of the most difficult choices a woman and her family can face--is not met with compassion and care but with humiliation, and that is because they have passed a law by Republicans that she is now subjected, against her will, to a vaginal ultrasound. Then she is instructed to listen to a fetal heartbeat, watch the ultrasound and numerous other State-mandated hurdles and then she has to go home and wait 24 hours before she can access a health care procedure that was made a right for women four decades ago.

One would think that after 2 years spent railing against any government involvement in health care, Republicans would not want the State to dictate procedures a doctor must perform on a woman, whether she wants them or not, but then you would be confused because, clearly, when it comes to women and their health care choices, these Republicans are willing to do whatever it takes for them to call the shots--not the women, not their doctors, not their families. The sad part is other States across the country are now contemplating similar laws.

So the threats to women's health care are very real and they are growing. We saw it on a panel on contraceptives in the House that didn't include a woman on the panel. We saw it in a young woman being called horrible names for telling the stories of a friend

in need. We see it in Republican efforts to allow an employer to dictate whether a woman has access to contraceptives, and we are seeing it in State laws across the country aimed at stripping women of their rights and more.

So on this International Women's Day, we celebrate our gains with the clear understanding that they must always be defended, and we join with women everywhere to make sure that progress is not reversed.

Exhibit 1

[The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2012]

When States Abuse Women

(By Nicholas D. Kristof)

Here's what a woman in Texas now faces if she seeks an

abortion.

Under a new law that took effect three weeks ago with the

strong backing of Gov. Rick Perry, she first must typically

endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina. Then she

listens to the audio thumping of the fetal heartbeat and

watches the fetus on an ultrasound screen.

She must listen to a doctor explain the body parts and

internal organs of the fetus as they're shown on the monitor.

She signs a document saying that she understands all this,

and it is placed in her medical files. Finally, she goes home

and must wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion.

``It's state-sanctioned abuse,'' said Dr. Curtis Boyd, a

Texas physician who provides abortions. ``It borders on a

definition of rape. Many states describe rape as putting any

object into an orifice against a person's will. Well, that's

what this is. A woman is coerced to do this, just as I'm

coerced.''

``The state of Texas is waging war on women and their

families,'' Dr. Boyd added. ``The new law is demeaning and

disrespectful to the women of Texas, and insulting to the

doctors and nurses who care for them.''

That law is part of a war over women's health being fought

around the country--and in much of the country, women are

losing. State by state, legislatures are creating new

obstacles to abortions and are treating women in ways that

are patronizing and humiliating.

Twenty states now require abortion providers to conduct

ultrasounds first in some situations, according to the

Guttmacher Institute, a research organization. The new Texas

law is the most extreme to take effect so far, but similar

laws have been passed in North Carolina and Oklahoma and are

on hold pending legal battles.

Alabama, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Mississippi are also

considering Texas-style legislation bordering on state-

sanctioned rape. And what else do you call it when states

mandate invasive probes in women's bodies?

``If you look up the term rape, that's what it is: the

penetration of the vagina without the woman's consent,'' said

Linda Coleman, an Alabama state senator who is fighting the

proposal in her state. ``As a woman, I am livid and

outraged.''

States put in place a record number of new restrictions on

abortions last year, Guttmacher says. It counts 92 new curbs

in 24 states.

``It was a debacle,'' Elizabeth Nash, who manages state

issues for Guttmacher, told me. ``It's been awful. Last year

was unbelievable. We've never seen anything like it.''

Yes, there have been a few victories for women. The

notorious Virginia proposal that would have required vaginal

ultrasounds before an abortion was modified to require only

abdominal ultrasounds.

Yet over all, the pattern has been retrograde: humiliating

obstacles to abortions, cuts in family-planning programs, and

limits on comprehensive sex education in schools.

If Texas legislators wanted to reduce abortions, the

obvious approach would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The

small proportion of women and girls who aren't using

contraceptives account for half of all abortions in America,

according to Guttmacher. Yet Texas has some of the weakest

sex-education programs in the nation, and last year it cut

spending for family planning by 66 percent.

The new Texas law was passed last year but was held up

because of a lawsuit by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In a scathing opinion, Judge Sam Sparks of Federal District

Court described the law as ``an attempt by the Texas

legislature to discourage women from exercising their

constitutional rights.'' In the end, the courts upheld the

law, and it took effect last month.

It requires abortion providers to give women a list of

crisis pregnancy centers where, in theory, they can get

unbiased counseling and in some cases ultrasounds. In fact,

these centers are often set up to ensnare pregnant women and

shame them or hound them if they are considering abortions.

``They are traps for women, set up by the state of Texas,''

Dr. Boyd said.

The law then requires the physician to go over a

politicized list of so-called dangers of abortion, like ``the

risks of infection and hemorrhage'' and ``the possibility of

increased risk of breast cancer.'' Then there is the mandated

ultrasound, which in the first trimester normally means a

vaginal ultrasound. Doctors sometimes seek vaginal

ultrasounds before an abortion, with the patient's consent,

but it's different when the state forces women to undergo the

procedure.

The best formulation on this topic was Bill Clinton's, that

abortion should be ``safe, legal and rare.'' Achieving that

isn't easy, and there is no silver bullet to reduce unwanted

pregnancies. But family planning and comprehensive sex

education are a surer path than demeaning vulnerable women

with state-sanctioned abuse and humiliation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Bonelli, a detailee to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, be given floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 1813.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to vote in support of Thomas Rice. He has been nominated to serve as the next Federal judge for the Eastern District of my home State of Washington.

Mr. Rice is a distinguished attorney who has dedicated his professional career to serving the public in the U.S. Attorney's Office. In that time he has earned the respect of Federal judges, opposing defense attorneys, his fellow prosecutors, and local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Rice has a deep connection to eastern Washington and its legal community. He graduated from Gonzaga University with a degree in accounting, and then he returned on a full scholarship to earn his law degree. After earning that degree, Mr. Rice moved directly into public service as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice in Washington, DC. He then returned to the Eastern District to work in the U.S. Attorney's Office, climbing the ranks to become the first U.S. attorney responsible for the management of the Spokane office, and he is currently the highest ranking career DOJ official in the Eastern District.

Over his 20 years of practice, Mr. Rice has tried over 1,000 criminal cases dealing with nearly every area of Federal law. He has gone above and beyond his duties, volunteering additional hours at the office, taking on extra cases, and establishing the local Antiterrorism Advisory Council, which brings together representatives from every law enforcement agency in the Eastern District.

As the assistant U.S. attorney, he has earned the reputation of being tough on crime but also levelheaded and fair in the conduct of his prosecutions. Mr. Rice clearly meets the

standards of fairness, evenhandedness, and adherence to the law we expect of our Federal judges.

I know I speak on behalf of so many in the Washington State legal community in supporting his nomination today. Mr. Rice's nomination was the product of a bipartisan selection commission we use in the State of Washington, and he received strong endorsements from both sides of the aisle.

We continue to use our bipartisan selection process in Washington State, despite the fact that it does take more time and a lot of effort, because it works to select judges of the highest quality and because it is intended to remove partisanship in the selection of our judges. You would think someone such as Thomas Rice would be able to move through this process very quickly and get to work on the court. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have slowed down and delayed this vote. Mr. Rice's nomination was actually reported unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee in October of last year, with strong bipartisan support--almost 4 months ago. But his nomination has sat on the Executive Calendar because some Senate Republicans refuse to consent to debate and vote on nominations just like his. I have not heard any objections from Republicans about Mr. Rice's qualifications, nor have I heard any Republican claim they have been unfairly blocked from any process. This delay is the result of an unprecedented effort by Senate Republicans to delay and block all of President Obama's judicial nominees.

There are now 20 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee that are still sitting in wait on a final Senate vote. Fourteen of those nominations have been pending since last year and should have been confirmed before the end of last year. Eighteen of those nominations received strong bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee. They deserve to move through this process in a fair way and get a vote here on the floor of the Senate--especially when both sides have agreed they are going to pass--because even though Republicans are making this about politics here in DC, this does have a real impact on our families and the court system throughout America. Nearly 10 percent of the Federal judgeships remain vacant right now, and 130 million Americans live in districts or circuits that have a vacancy that could be filled today if the Republican obstruction would end on nominations that have been vetted, considered, and favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee, including families in the Eastern District of my home State. This kind of obstruction is not good for our country. It hurts families' ability to access the courts in a timely fashion, and it puts politics ahead of our judicial system.

I urge all of our colleagues today to vote in support of Thomas Rice. He is a great lawyer, and he is a community leader who I believe will make an exceptional Federal judge.

I really come today to also call on Republicans to end their obstruction and allow us to move forward quickly on debates and votes on these judicial nominations that have been backlogged for far too long.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I want to thank the Senator from California and the many Senators who have stood proudly to fight for a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. Certainly in this year of 2012, after decades of fighting to make sure women have the rights and opportunities to be whoever they want and to make their own health care choices, this vote today is an affirmation of that, if we can beat back this Blunt amendment.

We are at a very serious time in our Nation's history. Our economy is struggling, and though we are getting back on track, millions of families get up every day and are concerned about whether they can afford their mortgage or send their kids to college. I have to say, I am sure millions of women in this country did not think they would have to get up this morning and worry about whether contraception would be available to them depending on who their employer was.

This is a serious issue. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about what the Blunt amendment is. My colleague from California just described it for us. It is terrible policy. It will allow any employer in America to cut off any preventive care for any religious or moral reason. It would simply give every boss in America the right to make health care decisions for their workers and their families. It is a radical assault on the comprehensive preventive health care coverage we have fought so hard to make sure women and men and families across this country have. If this amendment were to pass, employers could cut off coverage for children's immunizations, if they object to that. They could cut off prenatal care for children born to unmarried parents if they object to that.

The American people are watching today. Young women are watching today. Is the Senate a place where their voice will be heard and their rights will be stood up for?

We have watched this assault on women's health care for more than a year now. A year ago, almost to this very day, we were working to make sure we kept the government open by putting together our budget agreement. In the middle of the night, all the numbers were decided, all the issues were decided, and we were ready to move forward within hours to make sure our government did not shut down. What was the last issue between us and the doors of this government closing? The funding for Planned Parenthood.

I was the only woman in the room, and I stood with those men and I said, no, we will not give away the funding for this over this budget. The women of the Senate the next morning stood tall. We gathered all our colleagues together and we fought back and we won that battle. And those who are trying to take away the rights of women to make their own health care choices and to have access to contraception in this country today have been at it every day since.

We are not going to allow a panel of men in the House to make the decisions for women about their health care choices. We are not going to allow the Blunt amendment before us today to take away that right. We believe this is an important day. In fact, this happens to be March 1, the beginning of Women's History Month in this country. Let us stand tall today in this moment of history and say the United States Senate will not allow women's health care choices to be taken away from them.

I urge my colleagues to vote with us to table the Blunt amendment and to tell women in this country everywhere that we stand with them in the privacy of their own homes to make their own health care choices.

Mr. President, has all time expired?

I move to table the Blunt amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.