Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, this body is at its best when we come together to support our most vulnerable neighbors. Today, and in the coming days, we have a chance to do just that.

The Senate will be considering two pieces of legislation that will provide vital support to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault: the VAWA Reauthorization Act of 2022 and the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.

Both of these bills are the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. And they will ensure that survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault can reach for a lifeline in a moment of crisis and seek justice against their abusers.

At a time when nearly one in three women living today say they have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence, this Senate must be united in standing with survivors. With these two pieces of legislation, we can prove to them and every survivor in America that they are not alone.

Every day, domestic violence hotlines throughout the country receive roughly 20,000 calls from victims or people who are at risk of intimate partner violence. That number is a sobering reminder that the crisis of sexual and domestic violence touches every community in America.

We need to ensure that every victim, whether they live in a Native community in rural Alaska or in a city like Chicago or Las Vegas, can reach for help the moment they need it.

Mr. President, yesterday, I joined Senator Feinstein, Senator Ernst, Senator Murkowski--and 16 of our Democratic and Republican colleagues-- in introducing a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act-- also known as VAWA.

Since VAWA was first enacted nearly 30 years ago, it has transformed the way we address domestic and sexual violence in America. And it has helped save the lives of countless survivors.

Let me tell you about one of them. Her name is Meaghan. Years ago, Meaghan was brutally assaulted by her ex-husband. The beating was so violent that she is still suffering from hearing loss to this day. While Meaghan was being attacked, her 2-and-half-year-old son, who is on the autism spectrum, ran over to help her. As he was running, the ex-husband picked up the child and threw him into a closet. Meaghan says the experience was so traumatizing that her son didn't speak for a full year after the attack.

When Meaghan finally broke free from her ex-husband, she packed her bags, buckled her two children into the car, and fled for her life. And today, her ex-husband is on the run with six open warrants for his arrest. Meaghan says she and her kids are constantly looking over their shoulders. As Meaghan and her family have begun to heal from this horrifying ordeal, she says they have found much-needed compassion and support in the detectives and social workers who came to their aid.

She wrote that service providers ``were patient with me and didn't push me, [they] only showed me they cared, and most of all didn't give up . . . with their support and guidance I found the light at the end of the tunnel and I fought my way out of the darkness

that my ex-husband had cast . . . on my life.''

Meaghan's story is just one example of the world of difference VAWA has made for victims of sexual and domestic violence. In her case, VAWA provided critical resources to law enforcement and social service agencies that helped her and her family escape a perilous situation.

And with the bill we introduced yesterday to update and modernize VAWA, we can build on that lifesaving legacy. To be sure, this legislation is a compromise. It does not include every provision I would like--nor every provision that Senators Feinstein, Ernst, or Murkowski would like.

But it will deliver critical assistance to survivors across the country--including funding for legal services, trauma-informed law enforcement responses, and access to services for survivors who require culturally specific services, like LGBTQ survivors, survivors living with disabilities, survivors in rural areas, and members of other underserved communities.

We have crafted a proposal that will save lives--and has a pathway to passage in the Senate.

In fact, the broad, bipartisan coalition in support of this effort was on full display yesterday, when we announced this legislation alongside survivors and advocates, district attorneys, the Baltimore police commissioner, and actor and advocate Angelina Jolie.

Let me just say: If Thena, the goddess of war, can't convince 60 Senators to support this bill, well, I certainly have my work cut out as whip.

It has been 9 years since we last reauthorized VAWA and 4 years since that reauthorization expired. Survivors can't wait any longer. Let's send this law to President Biden's desk as soon as possible.

Mr. President, there is more we can do to support survivors of sexual misconduct. These acts of abuse and harassment leave behind scars, both visible and invisible, that can last a lifetime. Every survivor deserves the right to seek justice on their own terms.

That is why, this morning, the Senate will vote to enact the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. It was introduced in the House by my friend and Illinois colleague Representative Cheri Bustos and was passed in that Chamber on Monday with a resounding, bipartisan vote of 335-97.

The members of this Senate will join the House in passing this legislation on a bipartisan basis. This bill was introduced last year by Senators Gillibrand, Graham, and myself.

The premise of this legislation is simple: Survivors of sexual assault or harassment deserve their day in court. They should be able to choose whether to bring a case forward, instead of being forced into a secret arbitration proceeding where the deck is stacked against them.

It has become increasingly clear that forced arbitration clauses have enabled sexual abusers to escape scrutiny while their victims are compelled to stay silent. That is wrong.

Survivors deserve accountability. And that is exactly what this law will deliver.

Far too many survivors have been locked out of the court system because of a forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print of a contract they signed.

Consider the case of Lilly Silbert. She had a monthly membership to a therapeutic massage company, ``Massage Envy.'' And one day, she was sexually assaulted by a massage therapist.

Afterwards, Lilly tried to cancel her membership. To do so, she had to download the company's app and agree to its terms and conditions. But there was a detail buried deep within those terms and conditions: a forced arbitration clause. Lilly didn't even know it was there.

So when she tried to file a lawsuit against the company, they responded by trying to force her into a secret arbitration proceeding rather than let her get her day in court.

Even national figures have been trapped by forced arbitration clauses, people like Gretchen Carlson, a journalist and FOX News anchor who has been a champion in bringing this issue to light.

You may remember that Ms. Carlson brought a sexual harassment case against her former boss, Roger Ailes. He responded by invoking a forced arbitration clause in her employment agreement.

Forced arbitration clauses not only deny survivors their right to a day in court, they also conceal their allegations from public view. That is a green light for abusers to continue harming and harassing victims.

Hidden in fine print, these agreements silence survivors and enable abusers. We must end this injustice.

The bill we will pass today will ensure that every survivor has the choice to go to court. It will not change the law around what constitutes sexual harassment or assault.

But it will give survivors a choice of whether or not to bring a claim in court after the sexual assault or harassment claim has arisen, notwithstanding the presence of a forced arbitration clause.

There are a few other points about the bill that I want to emphasize.

The Senator from Iowa discussed her concerns about the bill being used to move claims that are ``unrelated'' to allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault.

The bill is clear on this point. Under the bill, if the survivor so chooses, no predispute arbitration agreement shall be valid or enforceable ``with respect to a case which is filed under federal, tribal or state law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.'' That resolves the Senator's concern.

I do want to clarify, though, that the bill text does not require any court to adopt new dismissal mechanisms for survivors' claims. Current State or Federal law governs how and when a case moves forward, and the bill does not create any new mechanism to allow for dismissal, nor does it require that victims have to prove a sexual assault or harassment claim before the rest of their related case can proceed in court.

Furthermore, the bill should not be interpreted to require that if a sexual assault or harassment claim is brought forward in conjunction with another related claim and the assault or harassment claim is later dismissed, the court must remand the other claim back to forced arbitration. That is not what the bill requires.

There is nothing in the bill directing courts to dismiss related claims and compel them to forced arbitration if a victim ultimately does not prevail on her sexual assault or harassment claim.

If there were such a requirement, it would have the undesirable effect of hiding corporate behavior such as retaliation and discrimination against women who report assaults and harassment.

Take the real-world example of Ms. Taylor Gilbert. In 2015, at age 22, she had just started working for a company called Indeed, Inc. While at a company training at a hotel, she was assaulted and raped by a company manager. Fearing she would lose her job, she did not initially report the assault to the company, but after repeated further sexual harassment from colleagues, she filed complaints with the company and told her supervisor what happened.

The company took no action, and Ms. Gilbert claimed she faced retaliation for having reported her complaints, including being bypassed for promotions and raises. Ms. Gilbert tried to bring a case in court against the manager who raped her and against the company--not just for the rape and harassment, but also for the retaliation that adversely affected her career path. But there was a forced arbitration clause in her employment contract, and her case was sent to forced arbitration.

Under this bill, that would change. Her case and all of its claims were related to the assault and harassment. Under this bill, the survivor would get the choice to bring that case in court, and the bill does not require dismissal of some claims in the case if other claims are not ultimately proven.

In Ms. Gilbert's case, it was essential that the company's conduct in enabling the abuse and harassment and also retaliating against her be brought to light, not covered up by being separated and forced into arbitration.

So to clarify, for cases which involve conduct that is related to a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, survivors should be allowed to proceed with their full case in court regardless of which claims are ultimately

proven. I am glad that is what this bill provides.

With this bill becoming law, survivors like Lilly Silbert, Gretchen Carlson, and Taylor Gilbert will finally have the right to make their case in court. And it will prevent abusers--along with those who enable them--from hiding behind a veil of secrecy.

I want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Cheri Bustos, once again for her leadership on this proposal in the House. And I want to thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership as well--and for all the work she does to support survivors.

Senator Graham has also been a vital partner in this effort; he held a hearing on this legislation when he served as chair of the Judiciary Committee. And he has been a great partner in getting it across the finish line.

Finally, I want to thank the members of our staffs who have worked day and night on this legislation--in particular: Alexandra Lowe-Server on Senator Gillibrand's staff, Katherine Nikas on Senator Graham's staff, and most of all Shanna Winters on my Judiciary Committee staff, who has worked tirelessly on this effort.

Today will be an historic day in the U.S. Senate. With the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, the rights of every survivor will be protected.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. I read his published article in the Guardian newspaper yesterday, and it paralleled many of the things which he said on the floor today.

We have a very positive starting point between us. I think my record on voting to go to war may be identical to his, if not very close. Neither of us wants war--that is the last resort--and it is frightfully predictable that there will be innocent people killed, even in the best of times and in the best of military force.

Secondly, I couldn't agree with the Senator more that we should be promoting all that we can in terms of diplomacy at this moment. The other night, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with some Senators and with the new Chancellor of Germany, Chancellor Scholz. He was on his way, soon, to Moscow; President Macron of France has been there; and others are going. I encourage that communication, that dialogue, as much as possible. I think it is hopeful that these efforts can lead to a peaceful resolution in the controversy that we are now facing in Ukraine.

The third point, which I agree with, is that it is certainly in the interest of the United States, for our values, to make it clear that we want to protect and defend--at least not in a military fashion but, let me say, in a general fashion--the notion of sovereignty when it comes to Ukraine. It is up to the Ukrainian people to chart their course and make their future.

Where I think we disagree, Senator, is on this whole question of sphere of influence. I am afraid that that suggestion is the green light for Vladimir Putin. If you will concede that he is somehow entitled because of the size of his country to reclaim Soviet Republics or to move into other theaters, I am sorry, but I have to part company with you at that point.

I was fortunate enough, 30 years ago or so, to be on the ground in the Baltics when I saw a dramatic demonstration of courage rarely seen in the world. This tiny nation of 3 million people broke away from the Soviet Union and scheduled a free election. I was there at the time the election took place, and we knew that it was an invitation for Mikhail Gorbachev to retaliate, and he did. He moved in the Soviet tanks and started killing innocent people. Before it was all over, more than a dozen innocent Lithuanians--and several in Latvia--had given their lives because they wanted to be free again. And who would question why they would want that?

I happened to have visited that area--my mother was born in Lithuania; I must put that on the record--in 1978, and I saw what life was like in the Baltic States under Soviet rule. It was sad. It was enraging. It was disgusting. What they have done in the Soviet Union is to forcibly take those countries and others--some through the Warsaw Pact, some through the direct accession to the Soviet Union--and control every aspect of their lives with communism.

I went to the University of Vilnius, which I believe dates back to the 16th century. They took me to their Catholic chapel, which, under Soviet times, had been converted into what they called a museum in tribute of atheism. On display in the middle of this former chapel setting were showcases of boomerangs from Australia in this holy space, in which they were trying to eradicate religion by demonstrating a new materiel approach to the entity.

I only say this because, when the time came and they finally, through their courage, broke from the Soviet Union, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia came to me, knowing that I had an interest in the region, as did the Polish people, and said: We don't want to be under the thumb of Russia ever again. We want our freedom. We want to decide our future. The only way that we can achieve that is if we can ally with the United States. Can we be considered for NATO membership?

Eventually, through a lot of hard work and determination, that is what occurred. Poland and the Baltic States, along with others, joined in the NATO alliance.

It is worth noting here that the NATO alliance is a defensive alliance. The Suwalki Gap, which links Russia as it now exists in Kaliningrad with Belarus, is a gap, a land bridge, and on either side is Poland and Lithuania. It is still contested territory by the Russians, and they are concerned about it. When the Russians put tens of thousands of troops and military exercises on the Baltic border in Belarus, it is understandable they are concerned. They are small countries that could be easily pushed over. The only thing that saves them, I believe, is their NATO alliance.

Should Ukraine be part of the NATO alliance? Well, there are two decisions that must be made, and the first and most important one is by the Ukrainian people. They have to decide if they believe that it is in their best interest

for their future. We cannot decide it for them nor should we try to.

Secondly, the NATO alliance has to decide. Under article V, are we willing to risk the lives of the NATO allies if some terrible event should occur in Ukraine?

That is what the sovereign nations of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and so many other countries did when they decided to ask for membership in NATO.

I don't understand this theory of the Senator's that, somehow, Vladimir Putin is entitled to a sphere of influence or control. That, to me, is unacceptable and inconsistent with the notion of Ukrainian sovereignty. If they are to decide their future, how can we say that Vladimir Putin has any voice in that process?

There is a way that he can find a more peaceful situation in the world, and that is if he will stop being a thug and stop sending his troops to the borders of countries and stop cutting off gas supplies to countries that he doesn't like.

I mean, his strong-arm tactics deserve a response from the United States, and I am afraid simply sending him a harsh letter is not enough anymore. So we have made it clear that he will pay a price if he invades, the NATO alliance has. The price will be a string of sanctions, and we have included some of them in the legislation that Senator Menendez is working on, which I cosponsored. But that is the only way to make it clear to him that such a price will be paid.

What he has done is very obvious to me. He has united the NATO alliance in a way we didn't expect. There were some divisions within the alliance--some serious and some not serious--but he has brought us together. And we should be together in standing in defense of the territory of the NATO allies and in making it clear that if Vladimir Putin is going to try to extend his reach into Ukraine or into any other area, he will at least meet with political resistance.

I think, at a minimum, that is where it should be. I hope it doesn't go any further. I share the Senator's feeling on that. I don't want the military situation to escalate or to threaten American lives or to involve us at that level at all, but unless we are firm with him now and don't concede that he has any sphere of influence in Ukraine, I am afraid he will take advantage of the situation.

I am open to a question if you have one. I would like to have a dialogue, if possible, on this through the Chair, of course.

It is a legitimate historic question.

But if you are saying that in the name of the Monroe Doctrine, to protect ourselves in this hemisphere we have done things which we are not proud of today, interfering with the sovereignty of nations--the term ``banana republic'' emerged from that Monroe Doctrine.

And what happened in many of these countries is that they became vassals of the U.S. economy, and I don't say that with any pride. We wouldn't want to welcome that to happen in Europe, would we, I mean, Putin invading some sphere of influence and the sovereignty of other nations?

I think that hypothetical is just that. Of course, it is only a hypothetical. But look at the reality. It wasn't that long ago when Ecuador elected a new President. At the inauguration of that President were representatives of Russia, Cuba, and Iran. Now, you wouldn't put any of those countries today on a list of close American allies. And yet did we invade Ecuador? Never considered it. Never considered it.

We live in a different time in the 21st century. I understand the Monroe Doctrine and the days of gunboat diplomacy and the days of moving a handful of troops in to take control back on the Dominican Republic. But to posit the notion that somehow there is going to be a military alliance on the border of the United States, therefore Putin is able to compromise the sovereignty of Ukraine, that doesn't follow, Senator.

I would only disagree in this respect: I believe Ukraine has been a victim of Russian aggression for a long period of time. The leader Yanukovych who was deposed in Ukraine when the Maidan demonstrations took place was clearly a servant and vassal of Moscow.

I believe it was the Russians who invaded Crimea and reclaimed that territory for their own. It was the Russians who sent in little green men with no symbols or emblems on their uniforms to invade eastern Ukraine and continued to kill innocent Ukrainians for 8 years now. So it is clear to me that Ukraine has been a victim of Russian aggression for a long period of time.

To suggest the notion that this is somehow within Putin's sphere of influence is to rationalize Putin's conduct, to forgive his conduct. And I am not about to do that. I don't think we should.

You don't put 110,000 Russian troops on the border and prepare for war unless you believe you can pressure that country into acceding to your demands. Ukraine is not a military power. It won't last very long, sadly, if the Russians do invade. But at this moment saying spheres of influence, that the United States has made its own

mistakes in the past in the name of sphere of influence and therefore we should look the other way at what Putin is doing is just contradictory.

And I thank you for it.

And I just want to close by saying that there is a--I see the Senator is waiting to speak. I close by saying that I hope very soon, in the next couple of weeks, to make a trip to Poland and to the Baltics.

And I will tell you that the people of Polish descent and Ukrainian descent and Baltic descent in the State that I represent are watching these events by the day. They lived through the Soviet takeover of their countries. They understand what happened to their basic freedoms of speech and political expression and religious belief as a result of it. They don't want to return to those days.

The United States has said we are committed to their democracy and their values, and I think we have demonstrated it, and we should continue to.

I sincerely hope Putin does not take advantage of the situation and invade Ukraine. I am not calling for a military response, but we should have a type of response that he will never forget if he does something that foolhardy.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 28, following the prayer and pledge; further, that Senator Leahy be recognized to deliver the address.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 69, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 467.

I ask unanimous consent that the Blumenthal amendment at the desk to the resolution be agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the Blumenthal amendment at the desk to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 510, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate