Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today about the importance of passing the Violence Against Women Act, how this has been a long-time bipartisan bill back to 1994 when the late Senator Paul Wellstone was involved in this bill, as well as Vice President Biden. People came together and said we have to do something about domestic violence. This is no longer a hidden crime behind closed doors. Do you know what we have seen since then? We have seen a 50-percent reduction--a 50-percent reduction--in domestic violence in this country. This is a victory. We do not want to go backward. Unfortunately, the bill that has been submitted by Senator Grassley, the substitute amendment, I believe would take us backward. Let me explain why. First of all, we know the VAWA reauthorization bill was months of negotiation between the two lead authors, Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Crapo. It has bipartisan consensus and was drafted after months of input from numerous stakeholders. Unfortunately, the Grassley substitute doesn't do a lot of the things that are so important to us in this Violence Against Women bill. This is not an acceptable substitute. While much of this bill is consistent with past policy in the Violence Against Women Act, there were some changes that we felt necessary to match the times. One of them is a growing problem of tribal domestic violence. Domestic violence in tribal communities, unfortunately, is an epidemic. Four out of five perpetrators of domestic or sexual violence on tribal lands are non-Indian and currently cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments. The only way is to have the U.S. Attorney's Office come in. They do a lot of good work. My United States Attorney's office has done great work historically through several administrations with our tribal communities, but these cases should be able to be prosecuted not only by U.S. attorneys but also by tribal governments. The Leahy-Crapo VAWA reauthorization bill builds on the protections for Indian women by recognizing tribes' authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit domestic violence against their Indian spouses or dating partners. Let me say this was narrowly tailored for these acts of domestic violence with specific requirements. The Grassley proposal, unfortunately, does not provide the tribes the authority to enforce laws against domestic violence on their own lands. It also takes money away from other Justice Department grant programs to install Federal magistrate judges and prosecutors on tribal lands. Bringing in large numbers of Federal officials goes against the locally based solutions to domestic violence that VAWA has so successfully promoted. Federal judges and prosecutors already, as I pointed out, have authority to handle cases on tribal lands. This has not stemmed the plague of violence against Indian women. That is what you do with the reauthorizations. That is why you don't have bills go on forever and forever into eternity. You have reauthorizations to try to address some issues which can make things better. Here we have addressed one. While the Violence Against Women Act has helped so much with so many victims of domestic violence in this country, we still see incredibly tragic numbers when it comes to domestic violence against American Indian women. That is why we have made these changes. It allowed us the reauthorization to adjust. While the Grassley proposal allows a tribe to petition a Federal court for a protective order to exclude individuals from tribal land, this does not begin to address the problem of non-Indian perpetrators who are not arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for those heinous crimes. This is a false alternative that does almost nothing to solve the epidemic of violence against Native women. Another issue. There was a very careful negotiation that went on with where the funding went. We had to make cuts to funding this year in many areas, including this one. We negotiated how much of the funds would go to sexual assault and how much would go to domestic violence. The Leahy-Crapo VAWA reauthorization bill includes a 20-percent set- aside for sexual assault programming in the STOP program, a balance that was achieved after months of discussions with domestic violence and sexual assault service providers. The bill increases the focus on sexual assault without endangering domestic violence victims. It was a big deal that we were able to get it done. Unfortunately, the Grassley proposal makes a change to that and goes against the negotiation we already had in place. Finally, there is the issue with the Grassley proposal on U visas. As you most likely heard, we actually made changes to the original bill on U visas already in this negotiated bill. We were going to be able to use U visas that had been issued in prior years but not actually used, and be able to use those numbers in the coming years. We ended up taking that out. I didn't agree with that, and I hope it is something we can address and fix in immigration reform. Unfortunately, the Grassley proposal goes even farther. It adds more restrictions on U visas. Let me stop for a moment to explain what these U visas are. This is when you have an immigrant victim of domestic violence. When I was a prosecutor for 8 years, we would have a number of cases where an immigrant was a victim. What do you think her perpetrator did to get her to be scared to come forward? They said, We are going to deport you if you come forward to law enforcement. You will never be able to stay in this country. What the U visas do is give that victim a status to remain in the country to make sure this person gets prosecuted and then work on some kind of a permanent immigration status. That is what the U visas are. I think they are a necessary component. There have been agreed-upon numbers for years when this bill has been reauthorized. Unfortunately, as I said, the Grassley proposal adds restrictions on U visas which are a law enforcement tool to encourage immigrants to report and help prosecute crime. The restrictions are put in there--I am sure Senator Grassley, who is so good at fighting fraud, put them in there for good reason--to deter fraud, but no study or report has been cited to indicate that there is an issue here. U visas already have fraud protections because law enforcement officers must personally certify that the victim is cooperating with the criminal investigation. I tend to believe the personal certification from a law enforcement officer, and that is the proof that we have to issue the U visas. No program is perfect. I am sure we can work with Senator Grassley in the future if there are some fraud issues here. At this point, after a year of negotiation in trying to get the bill through here, we have significant bipartisan support. It is not the time to put a substitute in. I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute Grassley amendment, embrace this bill, and vote for it. It is a good bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to first thank the Senator from New Mexico for his great leadership on this issue. This is a national issue. It is a bipartisan issue. It crosses geographic lines. Those of us who have significant tribal communities know how important these provisions are to this bill. We tried very hard on the Judiciary Committee to make sure this bill is consistent with the bipartisan work we have done in the past, but we also saw it as an opportunity to consolidate some of the programs to save money and then to look at areas where we needed to be more sophisticated, where we needed to respond to changing issues in the law. Certainly, the tribal jurisdiction issue was one of those major issues. I rise today to talk about the importance of this bill. It is a law that has changed the way we think about violence against women in the United States of America. The Violence Against Women Act is one of the great legislative success stories in the criminal area in the last few decades. Since it was first passed in 1994, annual domestic violence rates have fallen by 50 percent. Now, you usually cannot say that about criminal prosecution efforts. I usually do not have that kind of number. But that is what we have--since 1994, a 50-percent difference in domestic violence rates. People have stopped looking at the issue of domestic violence as a family issue, and they have started treating domestic violence and sexual assault as the serious crimes they are. Last year Minnesota recorded the lowest number of domestic-related deaths since 1991--down from 34 in 2011 to 18. This is in no small part due to the Violence Against Women Act. Women have more access to intervention programs, and they feel more empowered to come forward. I know in my own county, where I was chief prosecutor for 8 years, thanks to the good work of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, and my predecessor Mike Freeman, we set up one of the most unique domestic violence service centers in the country. It has been a model for the rest of the country. Under my leadership, we also made changes to it to advance it to even higher levels. But the point is that it is a one- stop shop for the victims of domestic violence, so they can come in, see a prosecutor, see a cop, have a place for their kids to play, be able to find a shelter and a place to live, all under one roof instead of walking through the maze of the bureaucracy in the Government Center. Both prevention and prosecution of domestic violence work were among my top priorities as a prosecutor. I know we have done good work, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. According to a recent survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in this country. Approximately one in four women has experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in her lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States are killed by their partner. Every year close to 17,000 people still lose their lives to domestic violence. These statistics mean that sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking are still problems in America. That is why it is so important that we move quickly to take up this bill. Just like the two prior authorizations in 2000 and 2006, this bill strengthens current law and provides solutions to problems that we have learned more about since VAWA first passed in 1994. The Senate bill continues a tradition of bipartisan sponsorship, with 60 cosponsors, including 7 Republicans. As we know, last April the Senate approved this bill by a 68-to-31 vote. All 17 women Senators--I see my colleague Senator Murkowski here from Alaska. We thank her for her support and vote for that bill. This truly brought the women of the Senate together to stand up against domestic violence. What does this bill do that is different from the last bill? Well, it consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. It provides greater flexibility for the use of grant money. It has new training requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims. As I mentioned, it takes important steps to address the disproportionately high domestic violence rates in Native American communities. I am disappointed that we were unable to include the modest increase in U visas for immigrant victims of domestic violence. There were technical objections to including that provision. It was removed in order to improve our chances of getting this bill done once and for all. U visas are an important tool for encouraging victims to come forward. I will press to increase the number of U visas available to victims when we work on the comprehensive immigration reform bill in the spring. One thing I wish to note about this bill is that it closes many gaps in the current system, ways to improve the current system. There was a bill I introduced with Senator Hutchison to address high-tech stalking, cases where stalkers use technology such as the Internet, video surveillance, and bugging to stalk victims. This is not something we probably would be talking about if I were standing here in 1994, but here in 2013, we know it is an issue. We have seen cases across the Nation of this kind of video surveillance and Internet bugging. In fact, we had a very high profile case involving a high profile newscaster who was willing to come forward and work with House and Senate authors on this bill. We are very pleased to have had the support from the Fraternal Order of Police, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They have all endorsed this bill. This provision, the high-tech stalking provision, is included in the Violence Against Women Act, so we are very happy about that. Again, I believe our laws have to be as sophisticated as those who are breaking them. If they are using the Internet, if they are spying with video cameras through peepholes, we have to be able to respond to that. I wanted to end by telling a story I told when we first started to consider this bill over a year ago. A year ago, over the holidays, I went to one of the saddest funerals I ever attended. It was the funeral for Shawn Schneider. He was a Lake City police officer in Minneapolis. I have since gotten to know his widow. He died responding to a domestic violence case. He went up to the door. He had received a call from the 17-year-old victim--the department had. He went up there to that door, and he got shot in the head. His bulletproof vest did not protect him. Nothing protected him. When I was sitting in that church and saw his three little children, including that little girl in her little blue dress covered in stars, I thought to myself at that moment, the victims of domestic abuse are not just one victim. It is an entire family. It is an entire community. So in their honor today, in the honor of those children, I would like us to have strong bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. I believe we can do it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters from law enforcement and criminal justice organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to support the confirmation of our colleague Senator Kerry to be Secretary of State. Senator Kerry is one of our Nation's great leaders in foreign affairs, and has been since he arrived in the Senate 28 years ago. His remarkable record speaks for itself, but I would especially like to recognize and thank him for his service as chairman of Foreign Relations Committee over the past 4 years.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I wanted to actually follow up a little bit with Senator Rubio's analogy on the teams and the sports because I did note he mentioned basketball and baseball but not hockey. As my colleagues know, Minnesota is a State of hockey. In fact, we are very happy the NHL is back playing again and that our team The Wild is playing. I actually looked at some of the numbers similar to what Senator Rubio was talking about and, in fact, a significant number of our players on our professional hockey team come from other countries. As my colleagues know, there are a lot of Canadian hockey players and players from all over the world in all these sports. You wonder: Why is that? With all the talk about immigration backlogs and the visa shortages, you wonder how all these great athletes are contributing to our teams. The answer is, there is no cap on visas for athletes. Again, there is no limit on how many athletes can come over and play on our sports teams. As a result, athletes from across the globe can compete here, and we have the best sports leagues in the world. Why shouldn't we apply the same principles to engineering, to innovation, to science, to medical development? That is what we should be doing. In this bill, we do have some caps. But we are raising those caps because we think it is time to compete with the rest of the world. Immigrants have always played a crucial role in these disciplines in the United States. In fact--and this was an interesting statistic we got--of the U.S. Nobel Prize winners, 30 percent of them, I say to Senator Hatch, have been immigrants--30 percent of them. One of those was Mario Capecchi. He was born in Italy in 1937. His mother survived a Nazi concentration camp and was eventually able to bring him to the United States. In 2007, he won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on altering genes in mice through the use of stem cells. Obviously, this is an exciting area of work that gives us great hope to solve many diseases. Medtronic, a Minnesota institution that has pioneered medical devices for years, started in a garage and was started by the child of an immigrant. So why would we want to prevent the next person who would come in who could cure cancer, who would create a new energy source, who would bring in new means of communication to our country? This bill is about moving our country forward. This bill is about competing in the world economy. If we can do it in baseball, in basketball, and I would add, I say to Senator Rubio, hockey, we can do it in engineering, science, technology, and math. I thank my colleagues and turn it over to Senator Rubio.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Rubio and Senator Coons. I also thank the Senator from Utah for his incredible leadership. We have worked as a team. I think that is what this is, a team--team America. We must be a country that makes stuff again, invents things, and exports to the world. In order to do that, we need the world's talent, and that is what this bill is about. As everyone can see by looking at the four of us here on the Senate floor, it is something on which both parties can agree. In order to get this done and get comprehensive immigration reform done, we must work in a bipartisan manner. I support the comprehensive immigration principles that were outlined yesterday for reform and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to get this done. The I-squared bill is about encouraging engineers, inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs to work here in this country and discouraging companies from contracting out with people in other countries. I cannot say how many Minnesota companies--small companies-- have told me that they could not bring someone over because of the caps and they contracted with that person in another country. Well, guess what. That person then hired assistants and other people to work with them, but in one case they hired French people instead of hiring Americans. In fact, a recent study headed by Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Mayor Castro of San Antonio, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, and others showed that every H-1B visa creates 1.8 American jobs. Those are jobs in Hawaii and those are jobs in Minnesota. Take a look at the Fortune 500 companies. Ninety of those companies were founded by immigrants, and over 200 were founded by immigrants or their children, including Medtronic and 3M in my home State. This has meant an extraordinary number of good American jobs, and we want more. We want the next pacemaker or Post-it note, which were invented in my State, to be invented again in the United States of America. I want to quickly lay out the four areas of reform that are included in the I-squared bill. First of all, we reformed the H-1B visa system to meet the needs of a growing science, engineering, tech, and medical community and to help the workers who form the backbone of those businesses. Second, we make changes to student visas to encourage students who get degrees here to stay in this country so we don't just say: Hey, go back to India or China or some other country and start the next Google over there. We want them to start it here. Third, we improve the green card system. Finally, and one of the most important aspects of this bill, we actually change the visa funding structure so that companies that bring in these high-tech and science and engineering immigrant workers will also be spending some money on funding all of the education efforts we need to do in this country for science, engineering, technology, and math, the STEM education that is going on in this country. Even by a conservative estimate, that would be $300 million a year and something like $3 billion in 10 years. That is real change, and it can change the system. I am very appreciative of the work of my colleagues. I know Senator Rubio, who has shown great leadership on this issue, is next and will talk about the H-1B and student visa reforms. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Coons for their leadership on this issue. We are very excited about moving ahead on this bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I wanted to actually follow up a little bit with Senator Rubio's analogy on the teams and the sports because I did note he mentioned basketball and baseball but not hockey. As my colleagues know, Minnesota is a State of hockey. In fact, we are very happy the NHL is back playing again and that our team The Wild is playing. I actually looked at some of the numbers similar to what Senator Rubio was talking about and, in fact, a significant number of our players on our professional hockey team come from other countries. As my colleagues know, there are a lot of Canadian hockey players and players from all over the world in all these sports. You wonder: Why is that? With all the talk about immigration backlogs and the visa shortages, you wonder how all these great athletes are contributing to our teams. The answer is, there is no cap on visas for athletes. Again, there is no limit on how many athletes can come over and play on our sports teams. As a result, athletes from across the globe can compete here, and we have the best sports leagues in the world. Why shouldn't we apply the same principles to engineering, to innovation, to science, to medical development? That is what we should be doing. In this bill, we do have some caps. But we are raising those caps because we think it is time to compete with the rest of the world. Immigrants have always played a crucial role in these disciplines in the United States. In fact--and this was an interesting statistic we got--of the U.S. Nobel Prize winners, 30 percent of them, I say to Senator Hatch, have been immigrants--30 percent of them. One of those was Mario Capecchi. He was born in Italy in 1937. His mother survived a Nazi concentration camp and was eventually able to bring him to the United States. In 2007, he won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on altering genes in mice through the use of stem cells. Obviously, this is an exciting area of work that gives us great hope to solve many diseases. Medtronic, a Minnesota institution that has pioneered medical devices for years, started in a garage and was started by the child of an immigrant. So why would we want to prevent the next person who would come in who could cure cancer, who would create a new energy source, who would bring in new means of communication to our country? This bill is about moving our country forward. This bill is about competing in the world economy. If we can do it in baseball, in basketball, and I would add, I say to Senator Rubio, hockey, we can do it in engineering, science, technology, and math. I thank my colleagues and turn it over to Senator Rubio.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Rubio and Senator Coons. I also thank the Senator from Utah for his incredible leadership. We have worked as a team. I think that is what this is, a team--team America. We must be a country that makes stuff again, invents things, and exports to the world. In order to do that, we need the world's talent, and that is what this bill is about. As everyone can see by looking at the four of us here on the Senate floor, it is something on which both parties can agree. In order to get this done and get comprehensive immigration reform done, we must work in a bipartisan manner. I support the comprehensive immigration principles that were outlined yesterday for reform and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to get this done. The I-squared bill is about encouraging engineers, inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs to work here in this country and discouraging companies from contracting out with people in other countries. I cannot say how many Minnesota companies--small companies-- have told me that they could not bring someone over because of the caps and they contracted with that person in another country. Well, guess what. That person then hired assistants and other people to work with them, but in one case they hired French people instead of hiring Americans. In fact, a recent study headed by Mayor Bloomberg of New York, Mayor Castro of San Antonio, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, and others showed that every H-1B visa creates 1.8 American jobs. Those are jobs in Hawaii and those are jobs in Minnesota. Take a look at the Fortune 500 companies. Ninety of those companies were founded by immigrants, and over 200 were founded by immigrants or their children, including Medtronic and 3M in my home State. This has meant an extraordinary number of good American jobs, and we want more. We want the next pacemaker or Post-it note, which were invented in my State, to be invented again in the United States of America. I want to quickly lay out the four areas of reform that are included in the I-squared bill. First of all, we reformed the H-1B visa system to meet the needs of a growing science, engineering, tech, and medical community and to help the workers who form the backbone of those businesses. Second, we make changes to student visas to encourage students who get degrees here to stay in this country so we don't just say: Hey, go back to India or China or some other country and start the next Google over there. We want them to start it here. Third, we improve the green card system. Finally, and one of the most important aspects of this bill, we actually change the visa funding structure so that companies that bring in these high-tech and science and engineering immigrant workers will also be spending some money on funding all of the education efforts we need to do in this country for science, engineering, technology, and math, the STEM education that is going on in this country. Even by a conservative estimate, that would be $300 million a year and something like $3 billion in 10 years. That is real change, and it can change the system. I am very appreciative of the work of my colleagues. I know Senator Rubio, who has shown great leadership on this issue, is next and will talk about the H-1B and student visa reforms. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Coons for their leadership on this issue. We are very excited about moving ahead on this bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize my colleague Kent Conrad for his many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the people of North Dakota. It has been such an honor for me to serve with Kent as my neighboring Senator these last 6 years. I like to kid with Kent that it seems like North Dakota is always in the middle of some kind of drought or flood or other natural disaster. There's actually a joke I once told him about how you can spot a tourist from North Dakota in the middle of a beach in Florida. It's easy--they are the ones putting all the sand in sandbags. But jokes aside, Kent has been truly tireless in his work to improve our current flood prevention measures and to ensure North Dakota has the tools it needs to prepare for and recover from natural disasters. As anyone who has worked with him on the Agriculture Committee knows, he has also been an outstanding advocate for our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Kent has consistently led efforts to strengthen the sugar program, which is critical to sugar beet growers in States like North Dakota and Minnesota. He played a key role in crafting both the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills, and he was a driving force in getting the 2012 Farm Bill drafted and passed out of the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote in June. So there is no question that Kent's expertise on farm policy will be sorely missed. As Congressman Collin Peterson likes to say, ``There are only 11 people who truly understand how the complex farm payment programs work. And ten of them are in North Dakota.'' Well, with Kent retiring I guess there will only be nine. Whether it's standing up for farmers or fighting floods or saving the Minot military base, Kent has touched and improved the lives of people in every corner of North Dakota. At the national level, he has been an outspoken leader on the issue of debt reduction and has consistently advocated for policies that benefit the middle class. It would be impossible to do full justice to Kent's legacy in a single statement, so instead I will simply say this: North Dakota is better off because of Kent Conrad's leadership, and so is our country. Senator, thank you for all of the friendship, wisdom and support you have shown me over the years. You will be missed, but I know that even in retirement you will continue to find ways to improve our great country and work for the people of North Dakota. Herb Kohl Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Herb Kohl for his many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the people of Wisconsin. It has been an incredible honor for me to serve with Herb as neighboring Senators these last 6 years. He is a statesman in the truest sense of the term, not to mention one of the most genuinely kind and steadfast public servants of our time. This is the reason he is so admired in the Senate, and it is how he came to be known as one of the most beloved and respected public figures in the State of Wisconsin. Like Herb, my mom was born and raised in Milwaukee. I have many fond memories of visiting Wisconsin and can personally attest to how loved and respected Herb Kohl is throughout the State. People know him for the jobs he created as a businessman. They know him for the scholarship program created in his name. And of course, they know him for the way he ``saved basketball'' by keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee. But above all, people know Herb for his consistent record of putting Wisconsin first. From strengthening Wisconsin's manufacturing sector and keeping jobs in the State to improving the MILC program and better supporting our dairy farmers, Herb has touched and improved the lives of people across Wisconsin and throughout the Midwest. At the national level, he has earned a reputation as a masterful policymaker with a quiet, commonsense approach to legislating that is the stuff of Senate legend. But don't be fooled by Herb's even keel. When it comes to protecting consumers and standing up for the middle class, few people are as fiercely committed as Herb Kohl. As chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee, he has been a truly tireless champion for consumer rights and competition policy. I've seen this firsthand, while working with him on legislation to crack down on captive shipping in the rail industry and to restrict the so-called pay-to-delay deals that keep affordable prescription drugs off the market. Senator Kohl, it would be impossible to do full justice to your legacy in a single statement. So instead I will simply say this: Wisconsin is better off because of your leadership, and so is our country. Thank you for all of the friendship, wisdom and support you have shown me over the years. You will be missed, but I know that even in retirement you will continue to find ways to improve our great country and work for the people of Wisconsin. Kay Bailey Hutchison Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Kay Bailey Hutchison for her many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the great State of Texas. Over the course of her 19 years in the Senate, Kay has earned a reputation for being one of Washington's hardest-working and most masterful policy makers. I've seen this firsthand, while working with her on a number of different issues over the years. During the debate over Wall Street reform, Kay and I teamed up on legislation that helped keep the lights on at over 600 community banks in Minnesota and over 2,000 in the State of Texas. We also worked together to update and improve our Federal anti-stalking laws, making it easier for law enforcement to crack down on high-tech predators using devices like spyware and video surveillance. In both cases, I was impressed with Kay's ability to reach across the aisle and find commonsense solutions. No matter what the issue, Kay has always stood up for the people of her State. She has been a strong and consistent voice for the people of Texas, but I also think it's important to recognize her role as a pioneer for women. I will never forget a story Kay once told me, about how she was one of just seven women in her law school class and couldn't find a job at any of the all-male Houston law firms when she graduated. So instead, she took a job covering the Texas State Legislature for a local TV station. Kay clearly caught the political bug, because it was just a few years later that she ran for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives. When she won, she became the first Republican woman ever elected to that body. She shattered another glass ceiling in 1993, when she became the first woman to represent Texas in the Senate. It was a milestone for women everywhere from the Lone Star State to the North Star State. When I was running for the Senate in Minnesota in 2006, only two women had run before me and both of them had lost. This came up during my campaign when reporters would ask me, ``Can a woman win in Minnesota?'' My response? Of course. A woman won in Texas. So even before I knew Kay personally, I was inspired by her story and by everything she had accomplished. Senator, thank you for all of the friendship, wisdom and support you have shown me over the years. You will be missed, but I know that even in retirement you will continue to find ways to improve our great country and give back to the people of the State you love so much. Ben Nelson Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Ben Nelson for his many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the people of Nebraska. It has been an honor to serve with Ben over the past 6 years. He is a true statesman and a champion for the people of Nebraska. During his time in the Senate, Ben has earned a reputation as a pragmatist who values problem-solving over partisanship, and I have admired his sensible, commonsense approach to legislating. Ben seemed to be destined for public service from an early age, winning his first election at the age of 17, and he is known for his consistent record of putting Nebraska first. No matter what the issue, Ben has always stood up for his State and he has improved the lives of people across Nebraska. At a national level he has been a strong voice for fiscal responsibility and shared sacrifice. Having grown up in a small town in Nebraska, Ben has never forgotten his roots. While serving on the Senate Agriculture Committee with Ben I saw firsthand his deep appreciation and respect for the farmers, outdoorsmen, and rural communities that are vital not just to our economy but to our way of life in the Midwest. He was instrumental in crafting both the 2008 and the 2012 Farm Bills and he has been a clear and consistent advocate for homegrown energy, leading the way on policies to help our country achieve energy independence. He has also been a champion for our men and women in uniform, helping to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and our veterans receive the support they need and deserve. Senator Nelson, it would be impossible to do full justice to your legacy in a single statement. So instead let me simply say this: The State of Nebraska is better because of your leadership, and so is our country. You will be missed in the Senate, but given everything you accomplished before you were elected--as Governor of Nebraska and as a successful businessman--I know in your retirement you will continue to find ways to improve our great country and work for the people of Nebraska. Olympia Snowe Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Olympia Snowe for her many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the great State of Maine. Olympia has long been a friend and mentor to me. In fact, she was assigned to be my official Republican mentor in the Senate, and she has been a great one. That was almost 6 years ago. So much has happened in that time, but throughout it all I have continued to be impressed with Olympia's grace, composure and unfailing ability to find commonsense solutions. Time and again, she has reached across the aisle to put politics aside and get things done for the good of her State and the country. In addition to being a voice for bipartisanship, Olympia has earned a reputation as one of the Senate's most masterful policy makers. I've seen this firsthand, while working with her on a number of different issues over the years. Olympia cosponsored my very first major bill in the Senate ``Carbon Counter'' legislation to reduce carbon emissions and combat global climate change. I also had the pleasure of working with her to create an Airline ``Passengers Bill of Rights,'' which was included in the 2011 FAA reauthorization bill and has led to a significant decrease in tarmac delays. And we joined forces again this year, on legislation aimed at addressing sexual assault in our military by improving the process for tracking and reviewing claims. Working with Olympia these last 6 years has been an incredible privilege for me. I've respected her as a policymaker, particularly for her work on national security and small business issues. I've admired her for her outspoken leadership and commonsense approach to legislating. And maybe most importantly, I've genuinely enjoyed her as a friend and a colleague--for her kindness, for her wisdom, and for her unfailing good nature. Olympia has been a truly outstanding voice for the State of Maine and a great leader for the people of this country. To say that she will be missed would be a tremendous understatement, but I know she will continue to find ways to improve our great country and give back to the State she loves so much. Thank you, Senator Snowe. I wish you the best. Joe Lieberman Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Joe Lieberman for his many years of distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the people of Connecticut. Joe will always have a special place in my heart. As many of my colleagues know, he was actually one of my professors in college. He gave me one of my first introductions to the political process through a seminar he taught on the subject of the national political parties. Interestingly enough, Senator Sherrod Brown also took that same class just a few years earlier. Even more interesting is the fact that everyone remembers what grade I got, but no one seems to recall what grade Sherrod got. But I digress. Not many political science professors can say they've taught two concurrently serving U.S. Senators. Joe can, however, and I think that's an enormous tribute to his character and genuine zest for public policy. As one of his former students, I made a point of following his career over the years and always admired his political courage. But it never occurred to me that I might someday be serving alongside him in the Senate. Working with Joe these last 6 years has been an incredible privilege for me. I've respected him as a policymaker, particularly for his work on national security and climate change. I've admired him for his outspoken leadership and commonsense approach to legislating. And maybe most importantly, I've genuinely enjoyed him as a friend and a colleague--for his kindness, for his wisdom, and for his famous sense of humor. Joe Lieberman has been a truly outstanding voice for the State of Connecticut and a great leader for the people of this country. To say that he will be missed would be a tremendous understatement, but I know he will continue to find ways to improve our great country and give back to the State he loves so much, even in retirement. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. I wish you the best. Jim Webb Mr. President, I wish to recognize my colleague Jim Webb for his distinguished service and leadership on behalf of our country and the people of Virginia. I will always have a special place in my heart for Jim Webb, and that is because he and I were members of the same incoming class of Senators back in 2007. We ran for the Senate at the same time in 2006, and to this day I will never forget how he wore his son's old combat boots on the campaign trail. Day in and day out, no matter where he went, no matter what the weather, Jim was walking tall in those boots. Since his very first days in office, Jim has been a tireless champion for our men and women in uniform. On day one, he introduced a 21st Century GI Bill to deliver the most comprehensive educational benefits since World War II. It led to legislation that was eventually signed into law, and it has made it possible for tens of thousands of post-911 troops and veterans to afford a college education. While Jim is best known for his leadership on defense and military issues, he has also earned a reputation for being a problem solver who takes a commonsense, bipartisan approach to legislating. Time and again, Jim has reached across the aisle to put politics aside and get things done for the good of the country. He has been a clear and consistent voice for energy independence and a stalwart advocate for policies that benefit the middle class. As a former prosecutor, I have greatly admired his work to improve our criminal justice system from top to bottom--not just by strengthening law enforcement, but by addressing systemic challenges of reentry and recidivism. Jim, it would be impossible to do full justice to your legacy in a single statement. So instead allow me to end by saying this: The Commonwealth of Virginia is better because of your leadership, and so is our country. You will be missed in the Senate, but given everything you accomplished before you were elected--as Secretary of the Navy, as an Emmy award-winning journalist, as the author of nine books--I'm confident you will find some way to occupy your time in retirement. I know you will continue to find ways to improve our great country and give back to the State you love so much. Thank you, Senator Webb. I wish you the best. Scott Brown

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate the women's volleyball team of Concordia University in St. Paul, MN, for winning their sixth consecutive NCAA Division II championship. On December 8, 2012, the Golden Bears bounced back from a two-set deficit to defeat the University of Tampa and secure the national title. The team has an incredible record of success, winning the national championship every year since 2007--a title streak that matches the NCAA record in all divisions. They have clinched 36 NCAA tournament matches in a row, and have won 44 out of 48 matches in 10 tournament appearances. Brady Starkey, who has coached the team for a decade, has led the team to victories in six out of seven tournament matches. I would especially like to recognize the team's All-Americans--Ellie Duffy, Cassie Haag, Kayla Koenecke, and Amanda Konetchy, all four of whom were named to the all-tournament team. Ellie Duffy was also selected to the Academic All-American Division II Volleyball team. The women of Concordia University's volleyball team are part of Minnesota's long tradition of excellence in college athletics and they make our State proud. I want to commend the team on their hard work and outstanding achievements this season and wish them success in many seasons to come.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to express my deepest sympathy to the families of the 28 people who were murdered last week at Sandy Hook Elementary. These last few days have been immensely painful as our nation has mourned the loss of life and desperately searched for answers that might somehow explain such a senseless act of violence. Like all Americans, my thoughts and prayers have been and continue to be with the students, teachers, and families. But my heart especially goes out to those mothers and fathers who lost their children. As a mother, I cannot even begin to fathom the depth of their anguish. The murder of a child is the most heinous of crimes. But the mass murder of 20 children trapped in an elementary school is an act of unspeakable evil. There are simply no words to describe the shock, horror, and grief. There is nothing we can say to undo the horrific events of that day or to numb the wounds of the families who are grieving. The best we can hope for is that our words and prayers might somehow bring them comfort and to show them they are not alone in their sorrow. At moments like these, the weight of despair falls heavy upon us. But we cannot forget that, even amidst the horror and sadness, there have been remarkable acts of decency. And for that, we have hope. I think of the brave law enforcement officers and first responders who answered the call to serve and protect that day, just as they do every day. I think of the incredible outpouring of support we have seen from people across the country, most of whom have never met the victims or their families but have come forward anyway with checks, with flowers, with stuffed animals, and messages of sympathy. And of course, I think of those heroic teachers who risked, and in some cases gave their lives to save their students. We will always remember the names and faces of people like Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, the principal and school psychologist who died trying to disarm and dissuade gunman. They didn't think twice. They did what they knew was right. And we will always remember 27-year-old Victoria Soto, the teacher who hid her students in closets and cabinets before bravely approaching the gunman and pointing him in the other direction. She had her whole life ahead of her, but she laid it down to save those kids. These are the stories that keep us going. They remind us that, even in the wake of senseless violence, no individual act of evil can match the overwhelming goodness of our people. We are a resilient and fundamentally decent country, and my hope is that in the coming weeks and months we will find a way to come together to ease the pain of the families and to make some sense out of this tragedy.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge a fiscal compromise that will allow us to avoid negative and very real consequences of the approaching fiscal cliff. Every day that passes without a deal only increases uncertainty in the markets and puts the brakes on potential economic activity. Failure to bring the national debt under control threatens our country's future. In the weeks following the election, the message was clear from the people of this country. They want the people in this Capitol, they want people in Washington to come together to find reasonable, balanced solutions to our Nation's problems. We need to show the country we are serious about working together to address our fiscal challenges--reducing the cost of borrowing and strengthening our financial outlook. The sooner we can agree on a long- term, balanced deficit reduction package, the better for our economy and the better for our country. It is time to put political differences aside to work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness. I have always said that we need to make things in America, that we need to invent again, and that we need to export to the world. We are starting to do that again. I see it all over our State, where fortunately our unemployment rate is better than a lot of other States. It is about 5.8 percent, but we can do even better. One of the keys to doing better is not only focusing on exports, on education, it is also bringing down this debt in a balanced way, in a way that will not suddenly jar our economy and put us over the edge but in a way that in the long term means businesses, the people of the world can look at it, the businesses can look at it and say: They are serious about this. They are doing this in a measured, balanced way, but they are going to get this done. If we refuse to have an honest conversation, if we insist on using the debate only for a vehicle for political rhetoric, we will not just be doing ourselves a disservice, we will be cheating our children and grandchildren out of knowing the America we grew up in, the America in Minnesota, where one smalltown businessperson can start a business and grow and grow and grow and employ their kids and their grandkids, where a farmer can build a farm that employs people throughout the town, where someone in New Mexico can get an idea for wind energy or solar energy and start a new business. That is what this America is about. In 2011 we came together and put in place discretionary spending caps that will reduce our debt by over $1 trillion in the coming decade. We also agreed to find another $1 trillion in savings before December 31 of this year. While significant spending cuts are a necessary part of a balanced solution, any plan to responsibly lower the deficit cannot come from cuts alone. Revenue must also be part of the solution. I have appreciated that several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have acknowledged this, that revenue must be part of the solution. Now we have to put words into action. I think the most common refrain I hear from the business community at home when we discuss what it will take to spur investment and create jobs--what they talk about is certainty. They need certainty. They need certainty if they are a farmer. We need to include the farm bill in this package so they know what they need to get for their crop insurance. They need certainty if they are a businessperson and deciding whether they should invest in new equipment, and they need to know exactly what the tax consequences and other consequences of that investment will be. So on the revenue side, in addition to the cuts I just discussed, what does that mean on the revenue side? First, it means extending the tax cuts for middle-class America. In Minnesota, 2 million families and small businesses will see their Federal income taxes increase by an average of $1,600 unless the middle-class tax cuts are extended. This means a lot for a family trying to decide whether they can afford a student loan to send their kid to college this fall or a business owner looking to invest in their company. It means a lot. Second, this means returning to the Clinton tax levels for people making over $250,000 a year. Let's go back to that time. Under those rates, the economy created nearly 23 million jobs. Small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate during the Clinton years than they did under the years of the Bush tax rates. But we do not have to look as far back as the 1990s to see the impact of extending tax cuts for 98 percent of all Americans versus extending them for those making over $250,000. At a recent Joint Economic Committee hearing, I pointed out that extending tax cuts to households making under $250,000 would increase real GDP by 1.3 percent and increase employment by 1.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2013. By comparison, expanding the tax cut extension to include taxpayers making over $250,000 per year would only add an additional one-tenth of 1 percent to GDP. That is very little bang for the buck than what you get by extending them for the middle class. So that is one of the reasons why we are so focused on looking at this in terms of extending those tax cuts for people making under $250,000 and then going to the Clinton levels for people making over $250,000. What is the other reason? The other reason is pretty obvious. That is what I started with. We have to bring our debt down. When you look at how much this would save just by going back to the Clinton levels for people making over $250,000, it would save nearly $700 billion over the next 10 years, and when interest payments are included, that number could easily exceed $1 trillion. How many times have we heard economists say that we should look at the neighborhood of $4 trillion in reduction in debt over 10 years to give the world confidence in our country? So that is $1 trillion of it right there simply by going back to the Clinton tax levels for people making over $250,000. You have another $2 trillion--$1 trillion of which we already agreed to--that you can do in spending cuts. I believe the other $1 trillion you can get by closing loopholes and making some changes that will not be on the backs of the middle class and seniors and veterans in this country--things such as the oil subsidies, such as looking at the home mortgage deduction, which is incredibly important, but perhaps we could limit it to $500,000 of the value of a home. So if you buy a $1 million home, that is great, you get a home deduction for up to $500,000 of the value of the home. Those are a couple examples. That is the last part we are most likely not going to get to in the next 2 weeks, which is closing loopholes and ending subsidies, but right now we have to look at the Bush tax cuts and what we can do to extend them for the middle class and then get $1 trillion in debt reduction, with a downpayment on that debt reduction going into next year, as well as the spending cuts we need to make. The downpayment on deficit reduction would send a strong signal that Washington is serious about getting our Nation's fiscal house in order. Finally, in addition to the spending cuts and revenue measures I spelled out, in order to ensure that our country remains competitive, we must move toward tax reform. One of the ways we can ensure business growth and more jobs is to create incentives to invest here in the United States and spur innovation, and that is by simplifying the Tax Code, by closing some of these loopholes I discussed, and by reducing some of the business rates and paying for reducing those business rates by closing those loopholes and ending some of the tax subsidies. We know that is not going to be an easy task, but I believe we are up to it because Americans are up to it. They are up to it every single day when they go to work, when they make it sometimes in a very difficult situation, with one, two, three jobs, having difficult profit margins. They make that decision every day, and the least we can do in this Chamber and in Washington, DC, and in the House of Representatives is to get this done. It is time we get serious about advancing a deal that is both fair and achievable. If we are committed to our country and not to rigid ideologies, we will get this done. None of us want to see our economy crippled. We have finally seen it stabilize, and in States such as mine we are beginning to see it grow again. We just found out we had a huge increase in November home sales in Minnesota. There are positive signs across our country. But the way we get this in the direction we want to go, which is moving forward in a strong way, not just a stable way, moving forward to make sure we bring down our debt in a balanced way--we do not want to see things go backwards; Democrats do not want that, and Republicans do not want that--it is time for us to work together to show the American people that Washington is not broken, that, instead, we are willing to put aside our politics to do what is right for America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. It might be easy to forget as we sit in this Chamber all that goes into growing the most abundant, safest food supply in the world. But when I travel across our State, I am impressed by the work and planning that goes into making each farm and ranch operate in the face of market failures, in the face of natural disasters, in the face of volatile weather. Well, guess what. This is the time when that planning goes on. It goes on right now. Anyone who learned in kindergarten about how we plant crops and how we get things done knows that the fall and winter is the time when you plan ahead, and then you plant your crops, then you move ahead, and then pretty soon you are harvesting them. Well, they need to know what the rules of the game are to get this done. Each year family farmers make tough decisions about which crops to plant, what equipment to purchase, and when to market their crops. Congress should be no less committed to completing work on the farm bill, which provides the safety net and certainty for farmers, for ranchers, for rural communities. The stakes are high for Minnesota. Agriculture is our State's leading export, accounting for $75 billion in economic activity every year and supporting more than 300,000 jobs. Minnesota is No. 3 in the country for hogs and soybeans. It is also home to pork processors and biodiesel plants. Minnesota is No. 4 in corn, and it is also home to 21 ethanol plants that produce over 1 billion gallons of ethanol every single year. We are No. 1 for sugar beets, we are No. 1 for sweet corn. But as we all know, this is not just an issue in our State. Our Nation's farms and ranches are responsible for a $42 billion trade surplus. This is one of the jewels of our economy and our country. We actually are making things, producing things, and exporting to the world. Why would we want to pull the rug from underneath one of our most promising and successful exporting industries in this country? And that is the business of farming. This is so promising. We are already doing well. We can even do better. With the critical role farming plays in our country's economy, there is no excuse to further delay the consideration of the farm bill. Agriculture is a bright spot in our economy. We cannot jeopardize the economic future of rural America and of our entire country just to score political points over in the House. I continue to believe that the carefully crafted bill we did in the Senate finds a good balance between a number of priorities. I urge the House of Representatives to complete work, to work with the Senate, so we can make sure as we come to the year end we have a major deal which we must have on the fiscal cliff, that we also include the farm bill, because with the farm bill we save $23 billion over what we have been spending in the last few years. So let's get to work and get this done. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the need for action on a 5-year farm bill for our farmers and our rural communities. The Senator from Iowa, who just spoke, understands how important this farm bill is. I know the Acting President pro tempore, from the State of New York, understands how important this farm bill is. This summer, farmers in the Corn Belt of our country waited, sometimes in vain, for rain that could either make or break an entire year of work. Many of them lost their entire crop. This fall, sugar beet farmers along the Red River Valley in Minnesota and North Dakota waited for dry weather because they needed that to pull out the last of their crop. And right now, at this very moment, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities throughout the country continue to wait. But this time they are not waiting for weather. They are not recovering from weather. They are waiting for a new farm bill. In fact, they have waited 167 days since the Senate passed the bipartisan farm bill this June, and they have waited 66 days since the 2008 farm bill expired in September. Unlike the drought this summer and the hurricane that hit the State of the Acting President pro tempore this fall, the failure to complete a farm bill is entirely preventable. Inaction in the House of Representatives is hurting farmers right now. Without a new farm bill, dairy farmers have lost their safety net. In fact, prices may go to the 1939 levels. Talk about moving backward; that is what will happen if we do not get this farm bill done. Livestock producers operate without key disaster programs without this farm bill, and farmers and rural communities are left guessing about what rules they will operate under as they plan next year's crop. These are not small things. What kind of crop insurance are they going to be qualified for? Is there going to be some kind of safety net? They have absolutely no idea because we wait and we wait and we wait for the House of Representatives to act. They did pass a farm bill through their committee. I liked ours better, but they got it through the committee. But guess what. They have not been able to bring it to the floor for a vote, and our farmers and our ranchers and our people in our rural communities wait, and they wait, and they wait. I believe there are good reasons we can finish the farm bill this year. There is already a path forward to complete work on a farm bill and have it signed by the President at the end of this year. The farm bill passed in the Senate, as we all know. It passed with strong bipartisan support. It was approved by a vote of 64 to 35. Thanks to Chairman Stabenow's leadership and the leadership of Ranking Member Roberts, we were able to get this bill through. We voted on nearly 80 amendments. We did our job in the Senate. The Senate farm bill saves money. It would reduce the deficit by $23 billion over the next 10 years. That is a savings over the last farm bill. The Senate farm bill also makes major reforms, such as eliminating direct payments and further focusing farm payments on our family farmers. It extends disaster programs for livestock producers and it continues credit provisions to help our farmers get through tough times. It creates a public-private partnership to fund agricultural research to give farmers the tools they need to stay competitive and feed a growing world. When Bill Gates comes and talks to me about the farm bill, you know this farm bill is more than just about some farmers in Minnesota. It is about feeding our country, it is about feeding the world, it is about the research we need to do to make sure we have the most efficient crops; that we are developing crops and we are developing livestock and varieties of crops and farm products that can feed the world. This farm bill works to eliminate fraud and waste throughout the farm bill to ensure these programs are efficient and targeted. Passing this farm bill is important, and that is why 235 agriculture, conservation, research, and energy organizations signed a letter this November to leadership in the House urging that they pass a farm bill before the end of the year. Our farmers and agricultural communities understand that tough budgetary choices need to be made. That is why the Senate Agriculture Committee actually came forward and said: OK, we are going to find a way to do this very differently. We are going to eliminate direct payments, and we are going to strengthen our crop insurance. We are going to still make sure we maintain our nutrition programs--something for which the Acting President pro tempore fought so hard as a Senator from New York--and we also made sure there were incredibly strong conservation programs in the bill, but we still found a way to cut $23 billion. I am also opposed to playing red light-green light with agriculture policy which prevents our farmers and ranchers from making long-term capital investments that help them remain competitive in today's marketplace.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of Senator Baucus's staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 6156: Lisa Pearlman, Rebecca Nolan, Heather Sykes, Owen Haacke, and Dan West.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 5, 2012, at 9 a.m., to hold a African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Assessing Developments in Mali: Restoring Democracy and Reclaiming the North.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 5, 2012.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their leadership, including their leadership on this very issue last year when the Defense Authorization Act was on the floor. Last year we made some improvements. Here is the issue. According to the Veterans Affairs Administration, a full one in five female veterans at VA facilities across the country says she has had an issue with sexual assault or harassment. In 2010 the Department of Defense cited more than 3,000 reports in the military. We know that the vast majority of our soldiers are law- abiding and would not engage in this kind of behavior, but this is clearly an issue, and we have seen an increase. I would like to again take the time to recognize Senator Levin and Senator McCain, who last year supported the inclusion of the amendment that I introduced to preserve records of military sexual assault in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Until that time, it was really a patchwork of rules for each branch of the military as far as how long those records would be preserved. Thanks to the support of every woman Senator, we were able to get this changed, and so now these records are preserved. But there are still some additional changes that can be made. Those are the amendments that I submitted. There is a records retention amendment--and I am working with the chairman and ranking member on this issue--that once again tackles this issue. Unfortunately, not all records are being stored for 50 years, as was our agreement last year. Documents filed in a restrictive reporting setting are stored for just 5 years, and this amendment changes that. Our second amendment, No. 3103, addresses another area of records retention, and its purpose is to target the issue of repeat offenders. As we all know, sex offenders are often repeat offenders, and what this does is target it and makes clear that only substantiated charges of sexual offenses would be preserved in the permanent personnel file of the perpetrator. The third amendment, No. 3104, involves sexual assault reporting and expands the data the Department of Defense reports on sexual assault incidents in the military. The fourth amendment, No. 3105, tackles one of the key precursors to sexual assault--sexual harassment. The fifth and final amendment involves the disposition of sexual assault cases. It makes a statement about what the U.S. policy should be regarding the disposition of sexual assault charges in the military. All of these requests came from women in the military. My office has been working with these women. They signed up to serve. They performed their service well and honorably. In the course of their service, if they experienced an assault that could have been prevented, an assault that would not have been experienced had they not volunteered for the service, then our country owes them the basic decency of ensuring them a fair trial, fair access to health benefits, and the promise of justice. That is the goal of our amendments. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Levin and Senator McCain in not only working with me last year to dramatically alter this policy so these records are now preserved for 50 years but for working this year on improvements to that policy once again. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise to discuss the importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I wish to thank Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their outstanding leadership on this important treaty, as well as Senator Harkin, my neighbor to the south, for all he has done for people with disabilities. For many years I have served on the advisory board of Pacer, which is one of the Nation's greatest organizations for parents of kids with disabilities, and saw firsthand what so many families go through every day, the incredible courage and the love they show for their children and the inspiration so many people with disabilities bring to our country. To paraphrase Minnesota's own ``happy warrior,'' Hubert Humphrey, the moral test of a government isn't just how it treats the young, the healthy, and the able bodied, it is also how it treats the sick, the elderly, and the disabled--those in need of a little extra support. That may be the moral test of a government, but I believe it is also the moral test of a people and the moral test of a country. Today, I call on all my colleagues to vote to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for two simple reasons. First of all, ratifying this treaty is about protecting the rights of U.S. citizens who are living with disabilities overseas. Right now, thousands of Americans with disabilities, including our men and women in uniform, live, work, study, and travel abroad. I believe these Americans deserve the same rights and protections they would enjoy if they were living in the United States. This treaty is about ensuring those rights and protections. Second, ratifying this treaty is about advancing a core moral value we all share as Americans, the idea that all people are created equal and that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Our country has long led the world as a beacon for equality and human dignity. This treaty would elevate our role in promoting human rights around the globe. These are American values, but they are especially near and dear to my heart as a Senator from Minnesota, where we have a long and proud tradition of working to ensure that people with disabilities have access to the same basic resources and opportunities as everyone else. After all, it was the Minnesota Ramp Project that introduced a new American model for building statewide standardized wheelchair ramps. We are the State that sent Paul Wellstone to the Senate, where he fought long and hard for mental health parity, something that finally passed in the Senate and was signed into law after he died--but it was signed into law. We are home to some of the most innovative centers for the disabled in the country, including Pacer, that I already mentioned, the Courage Center, and ARC. We even have one of the most accessible baseball stadiums in the country. We are looking forward to a better season for the Twins next year, and we are so proud of our new stadium and how accessible it is for people with disabilities. In many foreign countries, not even schools and hospitals can meet these standards for people with disabilities. When a person is not even able to get an education or access to health care they need because of a disability, that is a very big problem. Even more troubling is the fact that some foreign countries lack laws for protecting the disabled against discrimination, meaning they have no recourse after being denied a job or an education or the use of public services. Remember, these inequities do not just affect foreign citizens, they affect Americans who are living in those countries. So this is what is at stake: protecting our own citizens when they travel to other countries and extending the values of equality and justice we so cherish in our own country. It is important to note that ratifying this treaty will not require any changes to U.S. law, nor will it impact American sovereignty, nor will it incur costs to taxpayers. It has been endorsed by every major disabled person's rights organization, every major veteran's service organization, the Chamber of Commerce, and several Republican and Democratic administrations. Protecting the rights of the most vulnerable among us is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of decency and an issue of dignity. I believe it is an issue we must all stand behind as Americans. I urge my colleagues to ratify this treaty and move us forward in advancing the rights of disabled people around the world. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here today to talk about the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act which, as you know, we passed in April with the leadership of Senator Leahy and with the cosponsorship of Senator Crapo. We got that strong bipartisan bill through the Senate on a 68-to-31 vote. As you know, all women Senators, Democrats and Republicans, supported that bill, just like the two prior reauthorizations from 2000 and 2006. This bill improves the current law in many ways to better address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. We have heard from a long list of experts in our Judiciary Committee about the changes that were needed for this reauthorization, and we incorporated those ideas and language from people on the front line. As a result, this bill, this bipartisan reauthorization bill, is strongly supported by law enforcement, victim service providers, and faith groups across the country. I want to talk about some of the ways that this reauthorization bill builds upon the improvement that past reauthorizations made, but first I think it is important to mention the bipartisan bill does not ignore the current budget climate. It consolidates 13 programs in only 4. So when I hear about the old bill, to keep it going, this bill is actually better from an efficiency standpoint. It consolidates 13 programs into 4 in an effort to reduce duplication and bureaucratic redtape. It also cuts the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year. That is a 17-percent decrease from the 2006 reauthorization. So this was a clear acknowledgement that our country is going to have to make some changes in our fiscal situation as we go into this next year. That was one of the reasons this new bill, this reauthorization, was so important. We are doing more with less. No existing grant program receives an increase in authorization levels in this bill, and the legislation creates only one new program, at $5 million a year. That new program will support travel efforts to combat domestic violence on reservations. In terms of policy, one of the biggest changes in this year's violence against women reauthorization is a greater focus on preventing and responding to sexual assault. We still have a lot of work to do in reducing sexual assault in America where nearly one in five women has been raped at some point in their lives, and over 42 percent were raped before the age of 18. As a former prosecutor, I am all too aware of the fact that prosecution and conviction rates for sexual assault are among the lowest for any violent crime. So in an effort to solve that problem, this year's reauthorization opens funding to programs that are more directly responsive to the needs of sexual assault survivors. I woke up this morning and read my town newspaper in the Twin Cities and saw that a 30-year-old rape-murder case was solved--30 years old. You think of the new technology that is available. It was solved because they kept the DNA from the scene. They were able to match it to someone in another State who had been imprisoned. They were able to charge that case. Think of the justice for those family members and also for the rest of the country where, hopefully, this conviction will be made. They will be able to make sure that person is behind bars forever. Those are the kinds of things that happen in this day with the new technology, but unless we have people trained to use that technology, unless we have people who are able to work with victims, unless we have victims who feel comfortable coming forward when they are sexually assaulted or a victim of domestic assault, none of it means anything to this system. That is why the VAWA bill is so important. Another area of improvement in this bill is the effort to more effectively provide services to victims from traditionally underserved communities. This bill adds new definitions that will help make sure VAWA-funded programs provide a variety of services that address the needs of racial and ethnic minorities. As Chairman Leahy's committee report points out, studies indicated that women of color are reluctant to turn to traditional domestic violence programs, and culturally specific programming may be more effective in meeting their needs. Our recent National Institute of Justice study found that women of color may be less likely to receive all the services they need. Domestic violence and sexual assault are problems that affect everyone in this country, and this new bill, this reauthorization bill, recognizes that fact. The Senate version of the VAWA reauthorization also includes a number of improvements that specifically address the needs of women living in tribal areas. It is a sad reality that Native American women experience rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that are significantly higher than the national average. So the VAWA reauthorization strengthens existing efforts to confront the ongoing epidemic of violence on tribal lands by expanding the tools available to Federal law enforcement. The Judiciary Committee worked closely with the Indian Affairs Committee to craft the most effective responses to the frighteningly high levels of domestic violence and sexual assault in tribal areas. One important provision gives tribal courts jurisdiction over a non- Native American who has committed acts of domestic violence against Native American women in a small subset of cases that meet three specific criteria: No. 1, the crime must have occurred on a reservation; No. 2, the crime must be domestic violence; and No. 3, the defendant must live on a reservation. Why did we do this? Because we know a lot of these cases weren't being reported. These cases weren't being prosecuted. It is very difficult sometimes for State and Federal authorities, with their limited resources, to come in and handle these cases. It was simply a pragmatic response to a legal issue, and it is something which, as I said, in the Senate got broad bipartisan support. We have a significant Native American population in my State, so this change and several others will be very helpful in cracking down on these crimes. Finally, I will briefly mention one part of this reauthorization on which I worked hard. And I see Senator Hutchison of Texas in the Chamber, and it is good to see her because I am going to be talking about the amendment she and I worked on together, and that is an updating of our stalking laws. Current law focuses on what the victim knows and requires prosecutors to show that the victim experienced a certain level of fear in order to secure a conviction. But sometimes the victims of stalkers, particularly high- tech stalkers--stalkers who are putting camera equipment and little peepholes in hotel rooms, stalkers who are using the Internet--aren't even aware of what the stalker is doing until later, until suddenly they see a picture of themselves undressing or a picture of themselves without clothes on the Internet being distributed across the entire country, across the entire world, which is a real case that happened in this country with a sports reporter. Those are the kinds of things we are now seeing. So while they are experiencing it, they do not have that level of fear because it happens later. What we have done--Senator Hutchison and I and others--is to update the stalking law she was involved in before I even came to the Senate. We have updated that law to make it as sophisticated as the people who are committing these crimes. This is just a sampling of some of the important changes in this reauthorization bill. It is basically about making the Violence Against Women Act, which has been so important to our country and to women in this country, making it more efficient and updating it for where the real needs are. Things change over time. We learn new law enforcement techniques, and we have to be able to put those into action. That is what this is about. For me, this is about Officer Shawn Schneider, an officer in Lake City, MN, who got called to a scene to respond to a domestic violence crime. He went up to the front door, the door opened, and there was a 17-year-old victim with a clearly agitated, mentally ill perpetrator, her boyfriend, who ends up shooting Officer Schneider. He died a few days later, leaving behind a widow and three little kids, and his funeral was right around the holidays. The last time his family had been in church was for the church pageant for Christmas. The next time his family walked down the aisle of that church was for his funeral-- the funeral of a little girl's father. She was wearing a blue dress covered in stars. That is what I remember--a little girl walking down the aisle of that church at her father's funeral. When I see that kind of thing, I know one thing: Domestic violence just doesn't have one victim; domestic violence makes an entire family a victim, an entire community and an entire nation. And when that officer was called to that scene, he didn't ask: Oh, is the victim an American Indian? Is the victim gay? Is the victim a woman or a man? He did his job. He showed up at the scene. Now it is time for us to do our job. The House of Representatives should pass this bill, and we should get this done. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the important Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012 that is on the floor of the Senate. But I did wish to first express my thoughts, as so many of my colleagues have done on both sides of the aisle, that I strongly condemn the attacks in Egypt and Libya. I have been deeply saddened by the death of our Ambassador there as well as several other American citizens, and I join all Americas in not only condemning these attacks but also in sending my prayers and thoughts to the families of those killed by those senseless and horrific acts of violence. On to the Veterans Corps Job Act. As we all know, as we have seen by this horrific violence and by what we have seen overseas and in the Mideast, our troops face that every single day when they are there, as do our diplomats. They face that kind of threat. When they come home to this country, we must treat them with great dignity and respect. I have always believed that when we ask our young men and women to fight in defense of our Nation, we make a promise that we will give them the resources they need to complete their mission. We also promise to take care of them when they come home to this country. When they signed up to serve, there was no waiting line, and when they come home to the United States of America and they need a job or they need health care or need an education, there should never be a waiting line. As a Senator from Minnesota, fighting for our veterans has been a major focus. While we do not have an Active-Duty base, we have the fifth largest National Guard in the country. Given that our population is only 22nd in the country, we can see we have a lot of people who want to serve our country and sign up to serve on the frontline. We have worked to cut through the redtape and streamline credentialing to help servicemembers transition their military skills into good-paying jobs at home. To give just one example, right now returning paramedics are too often unable to count the medical training they receive in the military toward receiving a license to become a civilian emergency medical technician. That is why I introduced the Veterans to Paramedics Act to fix that problem by encouraging States to give paramedics credit for the medical training they have already received in the military. Not only does this help our veterans, it also helps relieve the shortage of emergency medical personnel, especially in our rural areas, where we have seen those shortages. With commonsense solutions such as these, we cannot only fulfill our commitment to our veterans but we can also help lift our economy and make sure people who have the skills fill the jobs we have available. This is what the Veterans Job Corps Act is all about, fulfilling our promise to our veterans, ensuring training and the opportunities they need to find good-paying jobs and strengthening our Nation in the process. To list just a few of the important provisions in this bill, first, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act gives veterans a new opportunity to serve and protect America by granting them prioritized placement in first responder positions such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Second, this bill would create conservation and resource management jobs for veterans, enlisting their help in building a stronger and more beautiful America through the restoration of our forests, parks, coasts, and public lands. Third, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act would establish a pilot program to provide veterans with access to the Internet and computers to assist in job searches, a key bipartisan provision first introduced by my colleagues across the aisle. Fourth, the Veterans Jobs Corps Act would especially help rural veterans find employment by granting them greater access to career specialists who can help them write resumes, prepare for interviews, and find jobs. We know all too often the amazing experience and leadership experience they have had overseas fighting for our country does not always translate the terms and the words and the ways described by the resume into truly explaining what it is to a potential employer. That is why this skill training is so important. This would also allow eligible veterans and spouses to enroll in the military's innovative Transition Assistance Program at sites outside military installations so they can relocate or return home in pursuit of job opportunities. This is a key benefit in my State of Minnesota, as I noted, which is very rural and also has no military bases. The fact is, our returning veterans have battle-tested skills that are available to employers in all kinds of fields. This is something companies in my State have recognized. In fact, our business community, small and large, is already leading the way in reaching out to servicemembers before they have even begun the process of transitioning home. In April of this year, when Minnesota's 34th Infantry Division, known as the Red Bulls, was still deployed in Kuwait, representatives from several major companies in Minnesota actually flew into Kuwait to help the soldiers spruce up their resumes and prepare them for job interviews. All across Minnesota, large and small companies are targeting their recruitment efforts on returning servicemembers. This is the type of initiative we need. In recent months, the unemployment rate for Minnesota veterans who have served since 9/11 has hit nearly 23 percent, almost double the national average for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war. An unemployment rate that high among the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our Nation is unacceptable, especially when our State's unemployment rate is, in fact, at 5.8 percent. I truly believe that with initiatives such as those launched by private sector companies in our State, with training programs such as those created by this critical legislation, we are going to turn this situation around. That is why I am calling on all my colleagues to support the Veterans Jobs Corps Act. This important bill, which is fully paid for, goes a long way in providing our returning veterans the leg up they need in transitioning to the civilian workforce. Minnesota has always been a State that understands the debt we owe to men and women who have served and sacrificed for us. I call on all my colleagues to vote for this bill and to take a step toward fulfilling that debt. This is the least we can do for the people who have fought and died to protect our values, freedoms, democracy, and human rights. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for women and families affected by ovarian cancer. In 2012, it is estimated that approximately 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and 15,500 will die of the disease. In my State of Minnesota, an estimated 260 women will die from ovarian cancer this year. Too many American women--sisters, daughters, nieces, wives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers--are losing their lives to this disease. Because no ovarian cancer screening or early detection test exists, organizations such as the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance stress that ``until there's a test, awareness is best.'' I commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance for its steadfast commitment to make women aware of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of ovarian cancer and for its advocacy on behalf of women and families touched by this devastating disease. I also would like to commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance's Partner Member groups in my State, including the Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance, which is one of the largest funders of research for ovarian cancer in the country. Experts recommend that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of the often subtle symptoms of ovarian cancer daily for more than a few weeks. Four major symptoms of ovarian cancer include bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, and frequent or urgent need to urinate. I ask all of my colleagues to become familiar with these symptoms and to share the information with their friends, family, staff, and constituents. Ovarian cancer is the ninth most common cancer among women and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, making it the deadliest of gynecologic cancers. If ovarian cancer is treated before it has spread outside the ovary, the 5-year survival rate is 93 percent. Currently, only 15 percent of ovarian cancers are found at such an early stage and overall the relative 5-year survival rate is 46 percent. I urge my colleagues to help make women aware of the potential warning signs to prevent future deaths. Experts acknowledge that symptoms can be vague and may be associated with other medical conditions. However, as the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry. September is National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month--an important time during which ovarian cancer organizations, advocates, and others will be helping to raise awareness about the disease and its symptoms. I urge my colleagues and their staff to join me in recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month and to join with us in wearing teal throughout September to increase public knowledge about this deadly disease.