Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor outraged that following a hearing that I held as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee entitled ``The Path to Freedom: Countering Repression and Supporting Civil Society in Cuba,'' after testimony from Cuba of Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, known as ``Antunez''--and this is a picture taken from that video feed--he was taken into custody by the Castro regime this weekend, arrested, and beaten unconscious.

This is the account of his wife, Yris Tamara Perez Aguilera, who provided this account to Radio Republic, an independent radio station in Miami that she was able to call so that she could denounce what was taking place and let the world know what was happening. Here is the exact statement that she gave the radio station:

My name is Yris Tamara Perez Aguilera, wife of Jorge Luis

Garcia Perez Antunez, a former political prisoner--

--a former political prisoner who spent 17 years of his life in Castro's prison simply because of his peaceful prodemocracy action.

This Saturday, June 9, my husband, together with Loreto

Hernandez Garcia and Jonniel Rodriguez Riverol, after a

brutal beating by the part of the political police--[that is

State security]--were transferred to the precinct here in

Placeta. All this occurred around 3:30 in the afternoon.

After this, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, we--Yaite

Cruz Sosa, Dora Perez Correa, Arturo Conde Zamora, and

myself, Yris Tamara Perez Aguilera, left for the police

precinct to bring my husband clothing since he was taken away

in shorts, since he stepped outside [of his home] to call

Damaris Moya Portieles, who was currently on hunger strike.

After leaving about one block away from my house, I was

intercepted by a police officer, who arrested me where I was

once again beaten by Police Officer Isachi, ordered by the

Chief of Confrontation of the municipality of Placetax,

better known as Corporal Pantera.

I was handcuffed and driven to the police precinct. Upon

arriving to the precinct, once again Officer Isachi, one of

the main oppressors here in Placetas--[that is a town in

Cuba]--of the ill-named National Revolutionary Police,

strikes my head very strongly, where once again my cervical

vertebrae was damaged.

At that point, the screams of my husband, Loreto, Jonniel,

and the prisoners there who said, ``Stop hitting her. Stop

hitting her, you abusers; can't you see she's a woman?'' Then

a military garrison officer approached the cells where my

husband and the other prisoners were pepper-sprayed. When

they were pepper-sprayed, my husband lost consciousness due

to lack of air. Thanks to the activist Yaite Cruz Sosa, whom

stood nearby, emptied a bucket of water on his face and

fanned him with a jacket until he regained consciousness.

My husband, arounds 7 p.m., cried from his cell, ``Yris,

they're taking me away, Yris, they're taking me away.'' I was

not able to speak because of the terrible headache from

all the beatings I took to the head. He said to me, ``The

special brigade put me on a chain of prisoners to take me

from the cell and place me on a bus; I don't know where

they are taking me.''

She goes on to say:

I am very worried about what may happen to my husband. He

has heart problems, and that pepper spray, as many know, is

toxic and may bring bad consequences since my husband has a

blocked artery and vein, and I am afraid for his life.

Furthermore, my husband is currently missing.

I don't know my husband's whereabouts. I was freed

yesterday [Sunday, June 10, 2012] in the afternoon, and I was

given no information as to where I could find my husband.

I lay the responsibility of what may happen to my husband

on the government. I know they took reprisal against him for

his participation in congress. In these moments, I am leaving

for Santa Clara, and together with me, I have Yaite Cruz

Sosa. I am going to the State Security Forces and they must

tell me where I can find my husband so I can bring him his

affairs.

That is the end of her statement.

Mr. Antunez spent 17 years of his life in Castro's jail simply for fomenting peaceful democracy efforts, an effort to create a civil society. We had asked him to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Western Hemisphere Subcommittee's hearing on moving toward democracy in Cuba, and at personal risk he traversed from where he lives--a countryside--on foot to make it to the intrasection. We knew that his willingness to testify was a risk, and so we did not put his name on the committee's notice until he arrived at the intrasection, so that we then amended the notice to the public so that he could be safe because we knew that, as others we invited to testify who were stopped and could not make it to the hearing, that if we talked about Mr. Antunez coming before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee via a video feed, he would likely not make it.

He testified before the committee about the Castro regime's abuses and beatings. He told us that day--among many other things--before the hearing that he witnessed the death of Antonio Ruiz in the city of Santa Clara, where prodemocracy peaceful activists had gathered. He said:

I had to walk many kilometers behind trees and bushes, as

if I was some type of criminal, to attend an event that in

any other free and democratic country in the world would be

an everyday occurrence.

He went on to say at the hearing that, at the very moment he was there testifying before us, an Afro-Cuban woman had been on a hunger strike for several days in Santa Clara because state security had threatened to sexually assault and rape her 6-year-old daughter as punishment for her prodemocracy actions.

This is the life inside of Castro's Cuba--not the romanticism some people talk about. This is the life of those who struggle as human rights activists and political dissidents simply to create a space for civil society inside of

the country. This is the cost paid by one man willing to come forward to put his life on the line, to share his efforts for libertad in Cuba with this institution, the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, our response must be unparalleled. The arrest and beating of Antunez--clearly as a direct result of his Senate testimony--is further proof of the continuing brutality of the Castro brothers' regime and further evidence of the need for the United States and other democratic nations to stand against tyrants and realize that the nature of this regime won't be altered by increasing tourist travel to the island, expanding agricultural trade, or by providing visas for regime officials to come and tour the United States.

Today I am calling on the U.S. State Department to cease providing any nonessential visas for travel to the United States by Cuban officials.

In the last months, the Department has authorized visas for a stream of Cuban regime officials to visit the United States, starting with Josefina Vidal, Cuba's director for North American affairs in April, whose husband was kicked out of the U.N. mission in New York, and most recently for the daughter of Cuba's dictator Raul Castro, the same dictator that sends these rapid-response brigades, which is state security dressed as civilians, to attack innocent civilians like this.

Mariela Castro Espin comes here to the United States with her friends to attend the Latin-American Studies Association conference. While Cuba holds an American hostage, Allen Gross, and is engaged in what has been described as the ``highest monthly number of documented arrests in five decades,'' when well over 1,000 arrests are made of peaceful activists, Mariela Castro has been parading around the United States on a publicity tour describing herself as a ``dissidente.'' I don't know from what she is a dissident.

Enough is enough. Why should Mariela Castro be allowed to openly spout her Communist vitriol while a real leader of the Cuban people, Mr. Antunez, who sought to convey his message to Americans through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is forced to clandestinely make his way to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to talk and then be beaten and jailed simply because of what he said in an open hearing?

Why should Josefina Vidal be allowed to host meetings with regime sympathizers in the United States while an American citizen, Alan Gross, sits as a hostage in a Cuban jail for doing nothing but trying to assist the island's small Jewish community in creating access to the Internet so they are able to communicate with each other?

I am also calling on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. Committee Against Torture, which last week on its own called on Cuba to answer for its dramatic increase in politically motivated arrests, to immediately investigate this incident. Make no mistake, this was not a random bureaucratic arrest, not a random act of violence by thugs of the regime. It was an in-your-face exercise of the most brutal kind intended to send a message to the United States and the Senate.

During the course of the hearing I chaired, I noticed there were members of the Cuban Interests Section; members of the Castro regime-- we are a democracy, so we allow them to come to hearings such as ours-- who were taking copious notes of everything that was going on. I made it clear we would be watching for any retribution against any witness from inside Cuba.

Cuba's leaders heard that message loudly and clearly and their beating and arrest of Antunez was their response to the Senate.

This was a deliberate violation of human rights, in my view, ordered at the highest levels of the regime as punishment simply because Antunez had the courage to speak truth to power.

Enough. Enough violent repression in Cuba. Enough beatings of those who seek nothing more than freedom to speak out and tell the truth. Enough abuse. Enough imprisonment.

What more evidence do we need of the tragedies of daily life inside Cuba for those who are peaceful, prodemocracy, human rights advocates, political dissidents, and independent journalists as we saw here? What more evidence do we need? How much more can we forget? I find my friends in Hollywood have all kinds of great things to say about the Castro brothers, but what about this? What about the 1,000 who were arrested and are languishing in Castro's jails? What about those who die on hunger strikes as a result of their peaceful protest for the abuse they are going through? The silence is deafening.

Let's stand for Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, who knew what might happen when he agreed to testify before our committee. His determination to put Cuba on a path to freedom is what gave him the strength and the courage--in the face of what he knew a brutal dictatorship could do and would do--to come forward and tell us his story, which is the story of a repressed people waiting for freedom. The courage of thousands and thousands of men and women on the streets of Havana, in the countryside across the island is what we can never forget in our dealings with the dictatorial, repressive regime that has ruled Cuba since the middle of the last century.

Still today, 23 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, these Cubans remain trapped in a closed society, cut off from the advancements of the world--repressed, threatened, fearful of saying or doing something that will land them in prison, often for years--years. Imagine an American citizen, protesting outside the Capitol, thinking that could get them put in a gulag for 10, 15 or 20 years. That is what these people are going through. They land in prison, are beaten until they are unconscious. Yet the silence is deafening. It is unconscionable.

I urge each and every one of us in this institution, if we cherish the ability in this institution to have the free flow of testimony from anyone in the world without reprisal, to be outraged about what happened with the beating of Mr. Antunez and his imprisonment. I urge every American to remember Mr. Antunez today. I urge every American to remember all the victims of the Castro brothers, just as we remember all those around the world who have suffered and died under the iron fist of other repressive dictatorships.

As I have said many times before, the Cuban people are no less deserving of America's support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten at other times around the world--lost to their families, left to die for nothing more than a single expression of dissent. I am compelled to ask again today, as I have before, as I did at the hearing, why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba?

I am amazed at colleagues who come and talk about repression, brutality, beatings, and the imprisonment of average citizens around the globe. Yet they are silent, silent, silent about Cuba. We are willing to tighten sanctions in other places around the world, but we let a repressive regime in Cuba basically walk away.

It is not time to forget. It is not time to forget Mr. Antunez, who was willing to risk his life to give testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is not time to forget Alan Gross, an American citizen, who for over 2 years--over 2 years--has been sitting in Castro's jail, sick, his mother dying, his wife and family desperately needing him. What was his crime? His crime was trying to help the Jewish people in Havana talk to each other. We can't forget Alan Gross. We can't forget those who suffered and died at the hands of the dictators. We can't forget the arrest and beating of Antunez, clearly as a result of his testimony--proof positive of the continuing brutality of the Castro brothers.

I hope we can shock the conscience of any Member of the Senate who would want to hear any witness, anywhere around the world, give testimony about an oppressive regime, to come forth to speak and give insight about what is happening in their country and to not face retaliation against them. If the Senate speaks with a powerful voice in this respect, it can maybe save Mr. Antunez's life, and it can send a message to the world that we will not tolerate the beating and imprisonment and near death of those who are willing to come and testify before us.

I think the integrity of the Senate is at stake in terms of how we respond. I hope--I hope--silence will not be the response.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 12; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that all time during adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture on the Hurwitz nomination.

Mr. President, we expect to yield back time and confirm the Hurwitz nomination during Tuesday's session. We are also working on an agreement for amendments to the farm bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote No. 114 on the nomination of Timothy S. Hillman to be a United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr President, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill we are debating, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.

This legislation, which has been the model of bipartisanship and effective legislating on the part of Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi, is critically important to the people of New Jersey and the Nation.

This bill is about more than drug safety. It is about more than protecting patients. It is about improving the approval process to speed access to new lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs and devices, and making sure the FDA is a partner in the production of safe and effective products.

This bill does this and accomplishes several key goals that are critically important to our Nation's health care system. Not only does it reauthorize the key user fee agreements for prescription drugs and medical devices, but it establishes agreements for generic drugs and generic biologic drugs called biosimilars.

Together, these user fee agreements will provide the FDA with the resources necessary to improve the drug and device approval process to more quickly and efficiently bring new products to market. It will enhance communication between manufacturers and the agency to foster a more cooperative environment, and it will allow for better and more thorough postmarket reviews to ensure continued patient safety and product efficacy.

There is more to this bill than the FDA user fees.

It permanently reauthorizes two vital programs that are a lifeline to our Nation's children--the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which are incredibly important to our children. It helps reduce and mitigate the ongoing problem of drug shortages we have heard about throughout the country. It provides for enhancements to the prescription drug supply chain and increases the accountability and transparency of the Food and Drug Administration.

It is good for children. It is good for business. It is good for patients. It makes the FDA a more effective partner in the process, and it demonstrates that we can reach across the aisle and work together to tackle tough issues and find solutions that benefit the people we collectively represent.

This just touches the surface of what this bill will accomplish. However, this incredibly hard work could very easily be unraveled by some of the amendments being considered.

Amendment No. 2107

It seems that, once again, despite the countless times--the countless times--the Senate has rejected the policy my friend from Arizona pursues, he has brought us an amendment that I believe puts Americans at risk, undermines FDA's authority, and would have a devastating ripple effect throughout our country's drug supply by allowing untraceable foreign pharmaceuticals into our country.

This amendment would ostensibly only allow drugs from Canada into the United States. However, nothing in the amendment comes close to ensuring that is the case. In fact, this amendment would easily allow Web-based pharmacies within Canada to provide untraceable, unaccountable drugs from all over the globe into the U.S. market without any FDA oversight whatsoever.

This amendment does not provide the FDA with any additional resources to monitor the drugs coming in from Canada, and even the Canadian authorities have said they cannot be expected to monitor all the drugs coming through their country and into ours. Once one of those drugs hits and causes consequences to some family, then we will all be running and saying: How did we allow that to happen?

The Senate has soundly and repeatedly voted against this type of drug importation because we understand the implications it has on bringing counterfeit and dangerous products into our Nation. As we work to strengthen the FDA, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, which would significantly weaken the agency and put Americans at risk.

Amendment No. 2109

Additionally, I wish to address another critically important issue brought up by my friend from Vermont. The Sanders amendment would lead to a radical change in how our Nation's biotech and pharmaceutical industry achieves the process of bringing lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs into the marketplace.

I certainly respect the passion for the issues he pursues. But there are over 200,000 people in New Jersey who work in the biopharmaceutical industry every day who take pride in the work they do creating breakthrough, lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs, and I take issue with this characterization of an industry which is responsible for some of the world's most important medical breakthroughs that have saved millions of lives. If you are one of those people waiting for one of those drugs to come to the marketplace, hoping that for your mother's Alzheimer's--the Alzheimer's that took my mother's life--we will finally have a breakthrough; that for your husband with Parkinson's, we will finally have a breakthrough; that for your loved one with cancer, we will finally have a breakthrough, you want to see that come to the marketplace.

This industry is responsible for finding the cures and treatments for diseases that kill people and destroy family incomes. This is the industry that has more than 1,600 active clinical trials in New Jersey on drugs to treat cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, mental and behavior disorders, and, especially important to me personally, trials for drugs treating Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Families look forward to those breakthroughs coming to the market to help cure their loved ones.

This work is what keeps our Nation competitive and on the cutting edge of medical science, providing billions of dollars in economic impact annually--roughly $900 billion nationally and more than $35 billion in New Jersey--and it provides countless people across the globe with lifesaving medications.

The amendment being offered could have a chilling effect on all this--all the hope for new treatments and perhaps new cures for diseases, having an opportunity for that to be turned around, to stop having those families lose a loved one who succumbs to a disease, ruining countless lives. It has the potential to dry up investment in the next cure and severely curtail the number of high-skill, high- paying jobs and billions of dollars in economic investment in the biopharmaceutical industry.

I know my friend from Vermont wants to prevent fraudulent behavior, and I wholeheartedly agree that bad actors who willfully commit fraud need to be punished, which is why we have the most incredible, stiff civil and criminal penalties in current law to prosecute those who commit fraud. But ultimately taking away the incentives we have in place to attract investment in this important research, especially when the penalties could be triggered by a minor, unrelated offense--the way the amendment is written--is just plain and simple bad policy. It is akin to having the death penalty for a simple assault.

The current intellectual property laws that protect pharmaceutical products provide researchers and their investors with a stable and predictable timeline that allows them to recoup the risky investments in research and development of new drugs.

We only think about the drugs that have success. But remember, out of every 5,000 to 10,000 potential drug compounds identified, only 1--only 1--of those 5,000 to 10,000 potential drug compounds will result in a new medicine on the market.

Do we want the companies not to take the risk of going through all those thousands and thousands of compounds to come up with the one that can be the cure for so many lives and save so much money in the government under Medicare and Medicaid and in our entire health care system? That is risky investing by anybody's standard, so removing incentives is bad policy for the public health of the United States.

This amendment will lead to uncertainty among investors. It will dry up capital. It will further delay access to new medical products. It will pull us back from the cutting-edge research and development that has always made this Nation great.

As I have said--and as my friends who are managing this bill have said--this FDA reauthorization is too important not to pass. So I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful amendments so we can move forward and have an FDA that has the ability to do its job on behalf of the American people to create a process that will be safe but will give us the lifesaving, life-enhancing cures that ultimately will lead to a better life for all of us.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is not the special interests that have caused the Senate countless times to reject this policy. It is an amendment that puts Americans at risk, undermines the FDA's authority, and would have a devastating ripple effect throughout the country's drug supply by allowing foreign pharmaceuticals into the country.

It is not simply about Canada. The Canadians themselves have said they cannot be expected to monitor all the drugs coming through Canada and into our country, and all the Web-based opportunities would allow untraceable drugs to come through Canada into the United States.

This is about the health and security of the American people. That is why time after time the Senate has rejected it. It is why it should be rejected once again.

Madam President, first let me thank the majority leader for his doggedness in making sure we could come to an agreement that sends a clear message to Iran before the P5+1 talks take place this week. His commitment made the difference.

I would also like to thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, who, in

an agenda that is incredibly full with all of the challenges the Banking Committee is taking up, made sure the whole effort on Iran sanctions had a priority in the committee and worked to get the strong, bipartisan, unanimous vote that came out of the committee that gives us the foundation to move forward today. So I thank both of them.

Today the Senate sends a clear message to Iran as it prepares for the P5+1 talks in Baghdad, and basically that message is: provide a real and verifiable plan for completely dismantling your nuclear weapons program or Washington will further tighten the economic noose. The Obama administration is moving forward with full implementation of the Menendez-Kirk Central Bank sanctions, and the U.S. Congress is ready with additional measures, such as sanctions on the National Iranian Oil Company and Iranian energy joint ventures that will further isolate the regime.

I think Iran's Supreme Leader has a choice: Either come to Baghdad with a real plan to terminate Iran's nuclear program or we will make our own plan through sanctions and other necessary measures to ensure that Iran fails to achieve its nuclear ambitions.

And lest anyone think this is necessary, Madam President, as negotiators head to Baghdad this week for the P5+1 talks, this bill is another tool that will demonstrate to Iran that the United States is not backing down and that buying time and just thinking that you can go and talk without substantive, meaningful concessions here is just not going to work.

In case anyone has doubts as to the need for this legislation, the record is pretty clear. In recent weeks the International Atomic Energy Administration has been subject to Iranian delays and deception over access to the Parchin facility--a facility they claim has no connection to their nuclear program but which scientists believe may contain a blast chamber used to test explosives that can trigger a nuclear blast.

Combine that information with Iran's continued enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, development of new enrichment facilities, conducting of high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead, and the August 2011 IAEA inspection that revealed 43.5 pounds of a component used to arm nuclear warheads was unaccounted for in Iran, and that Iran is working on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, a missile capable of reaching Israel, capable of reaching some of our allies in Europe which we are committed to NATO to defend, there is a pretty clear picture of why this is in the national interest and security of the United States and what is going on in Iran.

The bill is intended to give Iran a pretty clear picture in return of what America's response to their posture would be. This includes sanctions on the national Iranian oil and tanker companies to terminate a work-around to the Central Bank sanctions; sanctions on satellite companies that provide satellite services to the Iranian regime but fail to prevent jamming by Iran of transmissions by other users of the same satellite service company; sanctions on financial messaging service companies that provide services to sanctioned Iranian financial institutions; imposition of liability on parent companies for actions of foreign subsidiaries; and sanctions on energy joint ventures with Iran related to the development of petroleum resources. Those are just some.

This is perfecting legislation to CISADA and I am so thrilled we are seeing it today.

Finally, I wish to also comment on one particular section of the bill to ensure there is no ambiguity about its intent. Section 503, as revised in the managers' amendment, preempts any conflicting Federal or State law, but only as they pertain to the eligibility for attachment and execution of certain blocked assets of the state of Iran, identified in the section, for judgments against Iran for the execution of terrorist acts, including the marine corps barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, which killed 241 U.S. servicemen, and the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996 which killed 19 U.S. servicemen. Nothing in this legislation alters any other applicable law.

As someone who authored these provisions, I wanted to be sure that there was understanding on the record that Iran, in addition to stopping its nuclear weapons program, which is in the national interest and security of the United States, should not be able to avoid having its assets attached and pursued and executed upon as they killed Americans and having been part of killing Americans abroad.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the leader for yielding. I want to applaud him for asking to bring the legislation that passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee to the floor because there is no one in this Chamber who has been stronger on pursuing sanctions on Iran and trying to defer Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. I support and am on Senator Lieberman's resolution.

But time is of the essence. We must send to the Iranians a clear message that they cannot just forestall negotiations and have negotiations thinking that they are buying time. We must show them that notwithstanding their intentions to buy time, there are consequences.

The consequences of those sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran that are already moving forward and that the administration is fully seeking to enforce, and the continued perfecting sanctions that the Banking Committee sent out unanimously is incredibly important to send the Iranians a message.

I look at what the legislation will do in part. It, in essence, closes loopholes that the Iranians have figured out. It creates sanctions on the national Iranian oil company and the national Iranian tanker company, making them agents of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and imposes sanctions on financial institutions that would facilitate transactions.

This is important. The Iranians are using this as a way to get around it. It has sanctions on satellite companies that impose human rights sanctions on those companies that provide satellite services to the Iranian regime but fail to prevent jamming by Iran of transmissions by others of the same satellite service company. It has sanctions on financial messaging services, and even though Swift, the largest of them, already pulled the plug on the Iranians, we don't want any other messaging service to fill that void. We want to make sure that noose is as tight as possible.

Originally, when we sent a 100-to-0 vote out of here, they said: We are in trouble. But now they are saying to themselves: Well, buying time seems to succeed.

We cannot allow the Iranians to believe, as they head into these negotiations next week, that there is anything but a foot on the head of the snake and that we will continue to do that and drive every possible sanction and close every possible loophole, which is largely what the legislation the leader was seeking to pass accomplishes. That is why it passed unanimously out of the Banking Committee.

Even as we talk about the resolution, there is no reason to stop the very essence of what would send a message to the Iranians--that it will hurt them in their economy and undermine their ability to continue in Iran as a government, and that it is going to be the very strongest set of sanctions we can levy from one government to another. It will have a multilateral effect, which is when sanctions take place the best.

I am beside myself. Are there amendments that I might want to offer? Of course. But I find it far more important to move now and get passage and send this strong set of sanctions so that the Iranians will get the message rather than to linger and ultimately have those negotiations take place and not send a message.

I appreciate the majority leader's efforts. I applaud them. I am certainly for Senator Lieberman's resolution. I don't believe in containment as a policy, but moving the set of sanctions to ensure that the Iranians don't do anything but come to the table and say they are ready to follow a course of disarmament in terms of their nuclear production is incredibly important.

Sometimes things can wait. This is not one of those times in which waiting produces the desired result. On the contrary, it produces a negative result because they believe we will not continue to pursue tightening the noose and closing every loophole and being of one mind. I hope we can achieve that before we leave.

Yes.

Yes, the legislation came from the Banking Committee.

That is correct.

It is.

She did until the majority leader took her from me.

We have thought at various times that we would be on the Senate floor and have it passed, and

there has always been an additional desire or objection. I just think what we have before us, especially in timing, doesn't mean we cannot continue to perfect it as we move to the future, as we are doing in this legislation.

But this legislation, now passed unanimously out of committee, is supported by the major advocates of those who share our vision that we cannot have a nuclear-powered Iran and an Iran with nuclear weapons, and believe that it is important to move now so we can achieve that goal and send a message to the Iranians.

So I think time, in this case, is of the essence. That is why I came to the floor to support the leader's efforts.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of both my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague from Arizona. They are leaders in this regard in terms of the national defense. And if I ever had a case, I would want Senator Graham to argue it for me because he is a fine lawyer. I have seen that on the floor and I have seen it in his role as a reservist in part of, as I understand, the Judge Advocate General program. So he does a fantastic job.

Let me make some observations that I think are critically important.

No. 1 is that I share Senator Graham's and Senator Lieberman's concern and the desire to have the Senate on record as saying we do not and cannot accept an Iran that has nuclear power and nuclear weapons. That is why I signed on to their resolution. And I think their resolution moving exactly in tandem, parallel with the sanctions legislation that I played a significant role with the chairman of the Banking Committee, Chairman Johnson, and others to bring to the floor is incredibly important.

But let me make some observations.

First of all, in the committee itself, when it passed unanimously, all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle had the opportunity to offer an amendment and/or language that would have done exactly what the Senator wants, and no one on either side of the aisle sought to do it because the focus was on the jurisdiction of the committee, which is economic sanctions--economic sanctions that have proven in their first iteration to begin to have real consequences to the Iranians: devaluing the rial by over 50 percent; creating challenges in their economy; closing the financial institutions they can deal with in the world; looking at their oil, having major discounts on their oil and finding it increasingly difficult to sell. And we have the opportunity to perfect that, to make it even stronger, even more viable before they head into negotiations and think they can buy time.

Now, it was silent when it came out of the Banking Committee. And, yes, in the managers' amendment there is that provision because, in fact, in order to deal with one of the objections of our colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Paul, provisions saying that this was not a direct military authorization were included so that we could ultimately find the opportunity to pass it on the floor with unanimous consent--the same unanimity the Banking Committee had, the same unanimity we had when we passed the sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. That unanimity sends an incredibly strong and powerful message to the Iranians.

So it was in the process of accommodating that Senator Reid talked about over the last 2 months to try to get us to a point that we could pass legislation, that in the process of accommodating that, that language comes forward.

The concern is ultimately taken care of by Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham's resolution; that, in fact, the President has said, as the Commander in Chief of the country, that a nuclear-armed Iran is not an option; that containment of a nuclear-powered Iran is not an option.

This President has put all of the military assets that are necessary that did not exist before in the Persian Gulf to both respond to any incident or to initiate any action he thinks may be necessary. Therefore, those actions more than any words have made it very clear to the Iranians that is a real possibility if the national interests and security of the United States are ultimately challenged.

So I really think that insisting on the sanctions part of the legislation, that has the full force and effect of law and real consequences to the Iranians in their economy--which is the most significant way that we undermine their march toward nuclear weapons-- is important to move, while you move independently the legislation that Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham have talked about, which is making the intentions or amplifying the intentions of the President crystal clear. But you should not hold hostage the sanctions legislation in order to accomplish a goal that should be taken care of by the Lieberman-Graham resolution, and you shouldn't hold it hostage when, in fact, you have a powerful tool to exercise before the next round of negotiations.

The Iranians must know that we are one of purpose, and that oneness comes by passing the sanctions unanimously through this Chamber and achieving, ultimately, their effects.

So that is the only point of disagreement with us. Don't hold the sanctions legislation hostage. None of our colleagues sought to include that language. And the language that is included is in response to a colleague from the other side of the aisle in order to be able to move the legislation. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. But we do need to have our ability to move the sanction before the Senate adjourns this week, and I think that will meet our collective interests as a nation.

There is only one piece of turf we should be fighting for; that is, the collective turf that is our country. That is what we can do by passing the sanctions legislation.

I hope Senator Reid will have the opportunity to clear the way and to move it by unanimous consent and in doing so send a very powerful message on behalf of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, last year the Budget Control Act became the law of the land, and it set discretionary spending limits for security and nonsecurity spending for not just 1 year but for 2 years. It puts us on a

path to reducing the deficit by more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years.

We now hear claims from our friends on the other side of the aisle that we don't have a budget. I guess if one says say it often enough people may believe it. But it seems our Republican colleagues have selective amnesia about the Budget Control Act.

We have a budget. It is called the Budget Control Act, and it has the force of law, which is more than we can say for any of the proposals before us today. So today's debate makes me wonder if we are on a dance floor instead of the Senate floor because we have already taken one step forward and now it is two steps back.

These Republican proposals call for extreme cuts on the backs of seniors, students, and the most vulnerable in our society without asking any contributions from millionaires and corporations. That is not fair, it is not balanced, and it doesn't reflect the priorities of New Jersey's middle-class families.

I strongly believe we must get our Nation's fiscal house in order, and I have always supported a fair and balanced approach to reducing our deficits. But I cannot, in good conscience, support proposals in which working families, seniors, and students must endure billions in cuts while oil companies--making $1 trillion in profits over the next decade--and billionaires are not asked to pay their fair share.

Supporters of the House Republican budget, introduced by Congressman Ryan, justify their radical changes to Medicare and other programs by saying: We simply can't afford it. But in the very same Republican budget in which we can't afford that, we see an average tax cut of over $\1/4\ million to millionaires, and that is on top of the six-figure tax break they are already currently receiving from the Bush tax cuts. At the same time Republicans propose to add thousands of dollars of increased costs on the backs of middle-class seniors, they somehow find the money for another tax cut for millionaires that is worth more than four times the entire average household income of an American family.

People who have worked hard to build personal wealth should be applauded for their success. At the same time, many of them are willing to contribute to help the Nation in this tough economic time, if we ask. We know from experience that asking a fair share from the wealthiest and most successful, as we did during the Clinton era of prosperity, will not break our economy. It just comes down to a matter of fairness.

What we are seeing today is our friends on the other side of the aisle taking yet another run at shifting our Nation's financial burdens onto middle-class families, seniors and students, all while defending special breaks for their special interests. How is that fair? How is that balanced? It is not. And we can't let it stand.

Let's talk about the facts. Republicans are not only seeking to repeal the affordable care act, but they are also dismantling Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital programs. Under the Ryan budget, New Jersey's health care system would be devastated. The Republican plan would cut $39 billion in health benefits from New Jerseyans over the next decade, leaving families unable to find care and doctors unable to provide it. Their plan will throw upwards of 465,000 low-income families and seniors off Medicaid, kick more than 70,000 young adults off their parents' health insurance, and leave more than 3 million New Jerseyans--including 877,000 children--worrying about whether they will hit their lifetime benefit limit and lose coverage as a result.

For seniors, the Republican plan ends Medicare as we know it, leaving retirees to worry about whether the system they paid into their entire working lives will really be there for them when they need it. Their plan would force seniors out of the Medicare they know and instead provide an inadequate voucher they claim will cover the premiums for private insurance. That claim, however, is false, leaving seniors with an increase in out-of-pocket expenses of over $6,000 a year.

It also means immediately higher costs for the more than 126,000 seniors in New Jersey who have saved a combined $95 million on prescription drugs because every one of these Republican budgets will reopen the gap in prescription drug coverage we call the doughnut hole. The Republican budget also means 1 million seniors in New Jersey who have already accessed no-cost preventive health services, such as cancer screenings, would now be forced to pay for those screenings out of pocket. It also means 270,000 seniors and disabled individuals in my home State who rely on Medicaid for services such as long-term care will be kicked out of the system.

The most shocking about all of this is the radical Ryan budget seems to be the least extreme of the Republican budgets. For example, Senator Paul's proposal calls for Medicare to end abruptly on January 1, 2014, while simultaneously decreasing Social Security benefits and raising the eligibility age to 70. Senator Toomey's plan would force seniors off Medicare and only provide a modest voucher to purchase private coverage. It would slash Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion--$180 billion more than even the Ryan budget calls for--and shift a massive and untenable burden on the States while leaving millions of families without coverage.

How is that fair and balanced? It is not, and we should reject these proposals.

Here is another fact about the Ryan House budget. Instead of making college more affordable, more accessible, and more achievable, the Ryan budget will do the exact opposite. It will create additional obstacles for students that could--according to a study by the Education Trust-- ultimately take Pell grants away from 1 million students. For those who aren't kicked out of the system entirely, it will freeze the maximum Pell Grant award, despite tuition costs rising far above the rate of inflation. To add insult to injury, the Ryan budget would allow the interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans to double--a debate that is all too familiar to this body.

My Republican colleagues claim to support lower rates, but then they filibustered them, and now they are proposing a budget that would allow the interest rates to double. So for more than 60 percent of students who receive Pell grants while also taking out loans, the Ryan budget is a double whammy. Not only will they lose some or all of their Pell grants, they will be forced to pay double the interest on their loans, which will only increase with a reduction in Pell grants.

Today receiving some form of higher education is almost a prerequisite for a 21st-century career. In fact, young adults with only a high school diploma are almost three times as likely to be unemployed and earn just over half as much as those with a bachelor's degree.

But even as the demand for college graduates in the workforce increases, so have the costs of tuition, making higher education all the more critical, as well as for the Nation to be the global leader competitively. Yet it is more out of reach for millions of students if we follow these plans. How is that fair? How is that balanced? It is not, and it just shows the misguided priorities that are behind these proposals.

Middle-class families can't afford it. Seniors can't afford it. Students can't afford it. That is why we can't afford to let it happen.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Violence Against Women Act that the Senate passed, but we seem to have a challenge with our colleagues in the House of Representatives. In my view, violence against any woman is still violence. Apparently, my Republican colleagues in the House do not share that view. Republicans in the House have introduced a bill that would not protect all women. Their bill would roll back protections for certain vulnerable populations. It would strip provisions in the Senate bill that protect women from discrimination and abuse, specifically Native American women, the LGBT community, and for undocumented immigrants it actually rolls back protections they have under current law.

We have seen that violence against women is an epidemic and it plagues all of us, not just some of us. We have fought against it, we have tried to end it, we have established programs and policies at the national and State levels to mitigate it. We have stood with the victims of domestic violence. Now we must stand and reaffirm our outrage.

It is in my mind a no-brainer. I am, frankly, hard-pressed to understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence against any woman, no matter who they are, no matter what their sexual orientation or citizenship. I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude violence against certain women, turn back the clock to a time when such violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace, and make a distinction when and against whom such violence meets our threshold of outrage. There can be no such threshold and no such distinction. Violence against any woman is an outrage, plain and simple.

Is the message to be that we are willing for some reason that in my mind defies logic to accept violence against certain women? Because that seems to be the message the other body is sending us. I cannot believe anyone would take such a position, but that is exactly what we would do if we listened to our Republican House colleagues, and that is completely unacceptable to this Senator and should be unacceptable to every Member of Congress and every American. If our friends on the other side deny they are waging a political and cultural war against women, then why are they willing to accept an actual war against certain women by excluding them from protection under the Violence Against Women Act?

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act doesn't just affect those who are or might become victims of sexual violence or domestic violence; it affects all of us. Nearly one in five women reports being the victim of rape or attempted rape. One in six reports being stalked. One in four reports having been beaten by their partner. Of those who report being raped, 80 percent report being raped before the age of 25. The short-term physical and emotional trauma of such an event cannot be overstated. Domestic and sexual violence is an issue that affects us all, and we must all be part of a solution.

Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece in our comprehensive approach to protect and empower women, and it must remain so. Since the passage of VAWA in 1994, there has been enormous positive change.

From 1993 to 2010, the rate of intimate partner violence declined 67 percent. More victims are reporting violence to police, and those reports are resulting in more arrests and prosecutions. VAWA is working, but there are still women who need protection.

For example, in 1 day in New Jersey, a survey found that domestic violence programs assisted 1,292 victims. On that same day, New Jersey domestic violence hotlines answered 444 phone calls. So our work on this issue is not yet done.

Looking to the merits of the reauthorization, let me highlight, for the record, several critical changes in the legislation--changes that did not simply extend successful programs but built upon them. Every reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has incorporated new understanding and updated knowledge, and this reauthorization was and should be no different.

First and foremost, the Senate reauthorization includes additional training for law enforcement, victim services, and courts that increase the focus on high-risk offenders and victims, including connecting high-risk victims with crisis intervention services. I am sure no one can argue against that.

Second, the Senate bill strengthens our response to sexual assault while increasing the connection to nonprofit groups. Sexual assault coalitions in every State have been indispensable allies. I met with a large roundtable before our debate and discussions in the Senate, and this bill supports their efforts. It included a 20-percent setaside for assistance to States for sexual assault programs and also included reforms to reduce the unprecedented backlog of rape kits.

I have been proud to support funding to reduce this backlog. Just recently I supported Senator Leahy's effort to fund the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program at the current level of $125 million with at least $90 million directly spent on reducing the DNA backlogs. I am happy to say the Violence Against Women Act will make important strides to reduce the backlog.

Most importantly, given the debate on this legislation, this reauthorization recognizes that domestic and sexual violence affects all groups regardless of their sexual orientation. We included commonsense protections against discrimination on race, religion, national origin, sex, and disability because it is, quite simply, the right thing to do because all violence against women is an outrage to all of us.

For the first time the Senate bill established the fundamental notion that victims cannot be denied services based on gender identity or sexual orientation. We included provisions to protect

immigrant victims of violence and Native American victims.

In the Senate the bill passed 68 to 31 with a dozen Republicans voting in support of the final legislation despite Republican attempts to weaken the bill during the Senate's consideration of the legislation. Unfortunately, Republicans in the House are attempting to weaken the bill and do what a minority in the Senate could not. For the first time in the nearly 20-year history of the Violence Against Women Act, the House reauthorization doesn't expand protections but instead eliminates a series of them.

In its version, the House sent an undeniable message: If you are Native American, LGBT, or undocumented, you do not deserve protection. That is the House message.

To start, LGBT victims do not receive the protection they need in the House bill. Professionals in the field specifically requested nondiscrimination provisions based upon their direct experiences. Studies on the issue only confirm this need: 45 percent of LGBT victims were turned away from domestic violence shelters, and 55 percent were denied protective orders. The Senate version ensures all victims, gay or straight, share in the protections of VAWA. But the House version denies these critical protections to LGBT victims.

Under the House legislation, immigrant victims of violence would fare far worse than under current law--far worse than under current law. Domestic violence advocates tell us that often abusers threaten their significant others that they will take them to the authorities with the possibility of deportation unless they continue to submit themselves to dangerous and inhumane treatment.

The Violence Against Women Act provides a way out, but the House version of that law does away with confidentiality protections for immigrant victims. Studies have shown that victims are most vulnerable immediately before or after they leave the abuser. VAWA protects these victims with confidentiality when they come forward to seek help. The House version instead creates a cruel possibility that in seeking help, the victim will be exposed and face more abuse. How perverse is that?

House Republicans would put burdensome new requirements on immigrant victims and give them less help than they receive under the current law. The abuser often possesses the relevant evidence while the abused faces language barriers, isolation, and limited access to legal representation.

In past Violence Against Women Act debates, we have had wide bipartisan consensus around protections for these victims because a victim is a victim is a victim. But the House reauthorization ignores this consensus and places an unimaginable burden on self-petitioners.

Under the House proposal, the program to protect immigrant victims, called the U Visa Program, would be a hollow shell of its former self. The permanent visa would now be temporary, reducing the incentive for immigrants to take the risk and assist law enforcement in identifying the person who may have committed a sexual rape.

Of course proponents claim these reforms are needed to combat ``fraud'' in the system. But I have to ask: What fraud? To obtain a U visa in the first place, law enforcement personnel must personally sign off. Is there a suggestion that somehow the law enforcement personnel are engaged in a fraud? There is no evidence of fraud in this program. The simple enforcement technique has proven profoundly effective. Yet the House insists on adding additional burdens on a vulnerable population only to fight a nonexistent problem.

Moreover, allowing these abusers to go free puts more criminals in our community who can then victimize more women in the future. Our whole goal is to end the abuse and to get the abuser to ultimately face up to their punishment. Instead we would say: Oh, no. Let the abuser go ahead and continue their abuse, and we will subject the victim ultimately to a set of circumstances in which not only will they not come forth and talk about the abuse, we will subject the victim ultimately to facing even greater challenges in their lives.

Knowing what is at stake and what it would mean to the many victims of domestic violence and sexual violence, there is no question we must pass final legislation as soon as possible. The debate should be about one thing and one thing only: protecting victims, all victims. Each and every one of these women in these categories is, in fact, a victim. There should be no differentiation and there should be protection for all.

I yield the floor

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

Madam President, I cannot believe we have come to the floor of the Senate at a time of economic hardship and recovery for millions of families, a time where jobs are scarce, the need for a skilled workforce is critical, and student loans are about to double, only to have those on the other side turn this into yet another filibuster, another capitulation to those on the far right of their party--those who are so far right that when they look back along the political spectrum they can only see the small image of their hero, Ronald Reagan, fading in the distance.

They have gone so far to the right that they can no longer see any heroes, not even their own. So here we are with our side once again debating the obvious and the other side defending the indefensible position of the far right.

We are looking for common sense, reason, and fairness. We are, that is, looking to govern fairly for all. They are looking to play politics that benefit a few.

We are asking to stop interest rates on student loans from doubling for 7 million Americans by closing a gaping tax loophole that those who have benefited most from this economy can drive an S corporation through. My Republican friends are once again saying no. They are once again attempting to govern from the extreme, once again demanding that even closing an obvious tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest is an unacceptable government intrusion but that ending preventive care for those who are struggling with rising health care costs is the best option.

Can they be serious? Can we be standing in this Chamber saying that the most reasonable option to prevent student loans from doubling is not commonsense tax reform but ending breast cancer screening for millions of women? Is that the view from the far right of the political spectrum? I ask my colleagues on the other side do they truly believe that is a fair option? Have we run through all other possible options to have reached a point where we can now say: The only arrow left in the quiver is to end preventive care as we know it. Have we already ended all outrageous tax loopholes for the wealthy? Have we already ended subsidies to Big Oil that will make $1 trillion over the next 10 years and yet we give them $24 billion of tax cuts? Have we ended the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent and now have no other option than to end preventive health care for women, for millions of Americans whose health depends on it?

Unfortunately, it seems our Republican friends have once again put partisanship and politics first. Their budget prioritized tax breaks for the wealthy over keeping college costs down for middle-class families. Only when they realized this would not play well politically did they reverse course and drop their objections to keeping student loan rates lower because, they said, no, that is not the government's role. But then they said: OK. We will climb on board with that idea but only under certain conditions.

Rather than close a special-interest loophole that only a small minority of

wealthy businesses can exploit, they would rather cut funding for children's vaccines, mammograms, and other critical services. This is the classic case of giving with one hand and taking with the other and all without asking the wealthiest Americans--those who have reaped the most rewards and benefited the most, particularly in tax breaks they have received over the last almost decade--to help the country, simply to help the country at this critical time.

If that does not tell us about the priorities of each party, I do not know what will.

These preventive health services not only improve people's health and their lives, they also reduce the cost of health care. That is because it is a lot easier and less costly to treat illnesses when they are first detected.

When women have access to affordable mammograms, their doctors will be far more likely to catch breast cancer in its early stages, when it is most treatable and least expensive to cure.

When we give a child a simple inexpensive measles vaccine, we do not have to worry about expensive treatment for measles later on.

When we help people quit smoking, we dramatically reduce the cost of treating that individual for a whole host of illnesses.

The saying, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' could not be more appropriate to this debate.

For a party that loves to preach about fiscal responsibility, it boggles my mind that they would fight to cut preventive care that will reduce health care costs but allow tax loopholes to stay open.

Republicans decided to make a target of these programs, not because of substantive issues--I would respect that--but just because, plain and simple, they were included in the President's health care bill. As we know, as the distinguished minority leader said, it is all about defeating the President. The problem with that is, it is not about the President failing, it is about the Nation failing at one of the most critical times in its history. They lost the health care debate in 2010, and they have spent every day since trying to refight that battle.

Now Republicans will try to scare people into thinking that closing this corporate tax loophole will kill small businesses. That is the mantra we hear every time. But, actually, according to Citizens for Tax Justice:

[C]losing this loophole will actually help most small

businesses, which are currently subsidizing the minority who

abuse it to avoid [paying] payroll taxes.

Isn't that interesting? So most small businesses are out there meeting the economic challenge every day. They pay payroll taxes, but those who are taking advantage of this loophole do not. It seems to me we would be giving small businesses a far better competitive advantage.

Let's be clear: The vast majority of small businesses pay their fair share into Medicare. But this loophole--affectionately dubbed the Edwards/Gingrich loophole--has allowed certain professionals such as former Senator John Edwards and former Speaker Newt Gingrich to avoid paying millions of dollars into the Medicare Program. Technically, they were not wrong to take advantage of this loophole. We were wrong to allow it to even be available.

But enough about the details on how we pay for it. This debate is all about people, all about families struggling to pay for college. As the first person in my family to go to college, who had to rely on Federal grants and loans to pay tuition, I have a firsthand appreciation of the importance of giving all students the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

For students struggling to pay for college and racking up debt, this is not an academic argument. The extra $1,000 they would have to pay each year is not theoretical money. It is the difference between being able to repay their loans and entering the workforce with good credit versus being overwhelmed by debt and going into default.

Recently, I had the pleasure of having a roundtable and speaking to students from Montclair State University in my home State of New Jersey about how the interest rate would affect them.

I heard from Emily Delgado, a first-generation American and the first person from her family also to go to college. She just completed her freshman year at Montclair. Despite working for the college as a student mentor, Emily will still be saddled with approximately $20,000 in debt by the time she graduates. If she decides to go on to graduate school after that, then, of course, that will rise significantly.

She told me she cannot even bring herself to calculate how much the interest rate hike will cost her because, in her words, ``it will just crush my dreams.''

Nick Weber, works three--not one, not two, but three--part-time jobs to help pay for college. Despite these three jobs, Nick only makes around $175 per week, which is about how much extra he would have to pay in interest every month if we do not act now. He does not think that is fair, and neither do I.

A student by the name of Jamie Sommer--who dreams of one day becoming a professor--works part time for the school, but her income hardly puts a dent in her debt, and she fears she will not be able to afford graduate school, she will never realize her dream.

Emily and Nick and Jamie and all the other students who are struggling to pay for college deserve to be able to realize their hopes and dreams and aspirations. It falls to us--all of us in this Chamber-- to do all we can to keep those dreams alive.

These students deserve our support. They deserve the common sense of a community that understands we have to reduce the deficit but we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the next generation. We cannot cash in their dreams and let those with the most cash out. We need a fair solution, not political dogma.

These students have worked hard. They deserve better. They are not asking for a handout. They studied hard in high school, got good grades, took out loans, and got jobs to pay for college. They are working toward a better life, doing what every parent dreams of for their children: to do well, build a decent life for themselves and their family, and give something back to their community and to the economy.

They epitomize everything we want our young people to be. All they are asking in return is fairness--not a political sleight of hand that helps them with their student loans, but in the process takes away their health care. All they are asking is for us not to make it harder for them, for us not to add yet another stress to their lives. Certainly, it is our obligation to not shut down their dreams of a higher education. For it is in their dreams for a better life that the economic future of this Nation will be built.

We are globally challenged--globally challenged--for the creation of a product or the delivery of a service in terms of human capital. The boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital. So an engineer's report is done in India and sent back for a fraction of the cost in the United States. A radiologist's report is done in Northern Island and read by your doctor at your local hospital or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up with a call center in South Africa.

In the pursuit of human capital for a product or service, we are globally challenged. For the Nation to continue to be a global economic leader, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect--the most highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever had. We cannot achieve that if we have students who have to forgo not only their dreams but the ability to help the Nation compete globally by getting a world-class education.

We owe them every chance to achieve their dreams and to help us make this another American century. Isn't that the least we can do? Isn't the choice clear? Let's choose closing a tax loophole that is actually creating challenges to small businesses that are paying their payroll taxes, and let's preserve the preventive health care that will improve the quality of the lives of our fellow citizens and, at the same time, save our health care system hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think that choice is pretty clear--the choice the Senate should take clearly on behalf of our students of the future and our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to salute the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the incredible work he has done to bring us to this moment.

I held a roundtable in New Jersey with about 35 organizations that deal with the challenge of violence against women. They unequivocally expressed their support for what we are doing here today and the importance in the lives of women whom they deal with every day.

I know my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to strip provisions that protect women from discrimination and abuse in certain categories. In my view, violence against any woman is still violence. The Nation has been outraged about violence against women for almost two decades. We have seen the violence. We continue to fight against it. We have tried to end it. In my mind, there is no doubt--and I would find it very hard to understand why anyone would stand in the way of denouncing violence against any woman, no matter who they are, no matter what their class is.

I am hard-pressed to understand why anyone would choose to exclude violence against certain women; turn back the clock to a time when such violence was not recognized, was not a national disgrace, and make a distinction when and against whom such violence meets our threshold of outrage. In my mind, there can be no such threshold, no such distinction. Violence against any woman is an outrage, plain and simple.

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act does not just affect those who are here or might become victims of sexual violence or domestic violence; it affects all of us. Nearly one in five women report being the victim of a rape or an attempted rape. One in six report being stalked. One in four women report having been beaten by their partner. Of those who report being raped, 80 percent report being raped before the age of 25.

The short-term physical and emotional trauma of such an event cannot be overstated. That is why it is critical we pass VAWA as the committee has moved forward.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the following statement is from Senator Birch Bayh in honor of the 40th anniversary of Congressional passage of the Equal Rights Amendment:

Recent events have seen an assault on those who provide

health care services to women and we have even seen questions

raised anew about issues like contraception. It may have been

40 years since we passed the ERA in Congress but the reasons

why many of us tried to write women's rights into the

Constitution are still with us today.

As the Chief Senate Sponsor and floor leader of the Equal

Rights Amendment, I remember well the intensity of the battle

we fought in the early 1970's. America's history has been a

steady expansion of individual rights, beginning with the

expansion of the franchise in our early years. From the

rights of former slaves after the Civil War to the expansion

of the vote for women and then for 18 year olds, we have

codified in our Constitution an ongoing commitment to

individual rights. It seemed fitting then, and seems fitting

now, that our Constitution speak loudly and clearly that the

law allow no discrimination on the basis of gender.

While the principles involved in this battle remain, the

country has evolved quite a bit since 1972. In 1972 there

were 2 women in the U.S. Senate and 13 in the House of

Representatives. Now there are 17 women Senators and 75

Congresswomen. There were no female Governors in 1972 and had

been only 3 in all our history before that, there are 6 now.

We have had a female Speaker of the House and have scores of

CEOs, business owners and leaders in all walks of life who

are female. The number of women elected to state legislatures

across the country is larger than ever before. The number of

women in the military cannot be compared to the numbers 40

years ago. And in a recent issue of Newsweek, long-time

Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg spoke about taking the

job at NPR in the 70s because the pay was too low for men to

want the job.

There has indeed been progress, but the principles remain

the same. To open the sports pages in the morning is to see

female athletes in a number of sports. To watch the

television news in the evening has us watching many female

anchor persons, weather ladies, and sports announcers. Even

the major sports telecasts regularly involve on-air female

broadcasters. But is there equal pay for equal work today?

Are there still obstacles on the professional paths to

boardrooms for women? Is sexual harassment still a prominent

issue in offices around America and in our military?

It is still fitting in the 21st century for our nation to

include in its basic law the principle that discrimination

based on sex has no place in American life. It is fitting for

our daughters and granddaughters to be reminded that their

parents and grandparents took a stand to protect their

futures and to ensure that they have an equal place in modern

America.

In closing, let me stress that the ERA is still the right

thing to do, not only in principle but in every day practice.

Thank you for your continued, dedicated efforts.