Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his words. We both are from States that have a lot of jobs involved in medical devices, and, in fact, this bill is something we worked on very hard. I am the cochair of the medical device caucus in the Senate. This has been our top priority, to try to move those FDA rules along, and this bill does that. It is an agreement--a rare agreement--between government and industry, which is something both parties want. We would like to move those approvals along for the patients, long-suffering patients who should have access to medical devices, and then also for the industry, where we have seen way too much venture capital money go to places such as Europe simply because that process moves faster. So this is a very good bill, and I am so pleased we have bipartisan support. I see that the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, has come into the Chamber, and both he and Senator Harkin deserve a lot of praise. I wish to focus today on one piece of this bill, something I have worked very hard on, and it really came out of things I heard in my State, things I heard from pharmacists literally 2 years ago, things I have heard from patients. I got together with our staff. I see that our legislative director, Rose Baumann, and Andrew Hu, who did a lot of work on this bill, are here today. We went and talked to all kinds of people involved. We talked to pharmaceutical companies to try to figure out what was going wrong with drug shortages; we talked to the people who were suffering the most--the patients; we talked to the pharmacists, and we said: What would work here? And the FDA told us that, in fact, when they did get early notification from pharmaceutical companies that there was going to be some kind of shortage, it helped. They were able to avert that shortage. They have done it successfully over 100 times, and they have done it many times with some key drugs. And the earlier notice they have, the better it is for everyone because they can, in fact, then avert the drug shortage, and that is what this is about. I will tell you that, for me, this whole bill and this whole provision really comes down to a little boy named Axel Zirbes, a young boy with bright eyes and a big smile. Because of leukemia, this little boy, when I saw him, had no hair on his head. He and his family were thrown into a panic about 1 year ago when they learned that an essential drug--cytarabine--was in short supply and might not be available for their son, who they had just found out was diagnosed with leukemia and was supposed to start treatment, and the doctor says: You know what, we don't know if you should start it--you should start it immediately, but we don't have this critical cancer drug, this critical leukemia drug. They decided they would take Axel to Canada, where the drug was readily available, and just when they were making those plans to go there, they found out that some of the drug had been located and that Axel could come in for his treatments. Well, that should never have happened, not in the United States of America, not to a family of a little 4-year-old boy, both parents working hard to make sure their child could have health care and then this happens. It makes no sense. There is the story of Mary McHugh Morrison, who joined me at a forum I held on this topic in Edina, MN. Mary is a woman whose cancer had, unfortunately, returned after a shortage of Doxil. That is a chemotherapy drug that had kept her ovarian cancer at bay. In fact, this shortage interrupted her chemotherapy regimen. Mary struggled to find remaining vials of Doxil and then struggled with the ethical dilemmas of using the drug she found when others would not be able to use it. She literally talked at the forum about how she had personally called people, used connections, tried to find those vials, and she realized that when she got those drugs, other people wouldn't have them. Again, this shouldn't be happening in the United States of America. She shared her experience with us. And because of a few delays in treatment, Mary's doctor told her that her tumor had, unfortunately, returned and that she was then no longer responding to that drug. This past February, CT scans, unfortunately, showed that Mary's tumor size had doubled. She was immediately accepted into a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic and began treatment. Fortunately, she is so far responding well and her health is improving. These shortages are happening all over this country. Every single Senator in this Chamber has heard about one of them. You heard Senator Coats from Indiana talking about what he had heard. So the fact that we heard this first in Minnesota I don't think is any surprise. We have an active State. We have people who believe you can still make a difference. We have pharmacists who are on the front line every day, and they came to us to get this bill introduced. We heard from emergency medical responders, who have told me that shortages have made it difficult to stock lifesaving drugs in their ambulances. I have listened to stories from parents whose children rely on drugs to help maintain their focus at school. I have seen firsthand how doctors and pharmacists have had to struggle to keep their patients alive as they look for these drugs. These shortages have had significant impact on these patients' quality of life, oftentimes forcing them to pay hundreds more for expensive alternatives or risking their professional careers to adjust for their diseases and spending hours and days just trying to find a way to fill a prescription. When we are dealing with so many costs and resource issues with health care, the last we want is for doctors and nurses and pharmacists to be wasting away hours trying to find drugs and then ultimately, in most cases, finding them, but this is no way to run a railroad. Across the country, hospitals, physicians, and pharmacists are confronting unprecedented shortages of these drugs. So those are the stories, but here are the numbers. The number of drug shortages has more than tripled over the last 6 years, jumping from 61 drug products--remember, there are thousands of shortages, but this is 61 different drug products in 2005 to more than 200 drug product shortages in 2011. A survey by the American Hospital Association found that virtually every hospital in the United States has experienced shortages of critical drugs in the past 6 months. More than 80 percent reported delays in patient treatment due to shortages. For some of these drugs, no substitutes are available or, if they are, they are less effective and may involve greater risk of adverse side effects. The chance of medical errors also rises as providers are forced to use second- or third-tier drugs that they are less familiar with using. A survey conducted by the American Hospital Association showed that nearly 100 percent of their hospitals experienced a shortage--100 percent. Another survey conducted by Premier Health System showed that 89 percent of its hospitals and pharmacists experienced shortages that may have caused a medication safety issue or an error in patient care. It is clear that there are a large number of overlapping factors that have resulted in these unprecedented shortages. Experts cite a number of factors: market consolidation, poor business incentives, manufacturing problems, production delays, unexpected increases in demand for a drug, inability to procure raw materials, and even the influence of the gray market. Literally, people are trying to make money off of this now. They hear there is a shortage, and they buy up the supply and then sell it at a higher price. Financial decisions in the pharmaceutical industry are also a major factor. Many of these medications are in short supply because the companies have simply stopped production. They decided it didn't work for their profits to keep producing them. Mergers in the drug industry have narrowed the focus of product lines. As a result, some products are discontinued or production is moved to different sites, leading to delays. When drugs are made by only a few companies, a decision by any one drug company can have a large impact. That would make sense. To help correct a poor market environment or to prevent gray market drugs from contaminating our medication supply chain, we must address the drug shortage problem at its root. Last year I introduced the Preserving Access to Life-Saving Medications Act with Senator Bob Casey. We also have the support of Senator Collins and others. This is a bipartisan bill that would require drug manufacturers to provide early notification to the FDA whenever there is a factor that may lead to a shortage. We also had support from the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut and many other people from across the Senate. This bill will help the FDA take the lead in working with pharmacy groups, drug manufacturers, and health care providers to better prepare for impending shortages, more effectively manage shortages when they occur, and minimize their impact on patient care. And that is why I am pleased that the early notification provision from my bill is included in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, the one that Senator Coats and I were just discussing and that we are debating today. I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi for their leadership on the HELP Committee in bringing this legislation forward and including my provision. In a bipartisan manner, the HELP Committee brought together several working groups to address a wide range of issues, from medical device innovation to drug shortages. In the drug shortage working group, we spoke with experts from patient groups, providers, drug manufacturers, and the FDA to try to find an appropriate solution. Ultimately, the legislation now includes many policies that I believe will help address shortages. In addition to the early-notification requirement, again, the FDA is going to be able to look in our own country, and if they can't find something in our own country they can look at safe locations overseas. You simply can't keep these patients waiting for their treatment. In addition, the bill directs the FDA to improve communications inside and outside its walls, requires more robust record-keeping and reporting, and asks for studies on how pricing factors impact drug shortages. I believe this bill represents a step forward in our ability to prevent these shortages--a strong step forward. With manufacturers providing early notification, the FDA's drug shortage team can then appropriately use their tools to prevent shortages from happening. As I mentioned, in the last 2 years, the FDA, with more information, has successfully prevented nearly 200 drug shortages. Imagine the hundreds of thousands and millions of patients that has helped. So we need to extend it. That is what this bill does. One such example is the recent shortage of methotrexate. This is a very common drug used in chemotherapy to treat cancers such as leukemia. For me, the most devastating part about the shortage is that I heard about it from the Zirbes family--the family of this little 4-year-old boy who had to suffer through the shortage of cytarabine earlier. Only this time, the FDA took quick action once it learned of this potential shortage and worked with other manufacturers to boost production and helped stop the bleeding before this became a major crisis. That is an example of what can happen with early notification. They are allowed to then go to other manufacturers and find the people who can make the drug to get it to the hospitals, to get it to the patients. And today, with strong cooperation between the FDA and pharmaceutical manufacturers, methotrexate is available for patients who rely on it just like that little 4-year-old boy Axel Zirbes. Together with Senator Casey, we were able to work with the HELP Committee and in a bipartisan manner come up with a solution that would give the FDA more tools to prevent drug shortages and ensure patients such as Axel or Mary have the drugs they need when they need them. Recent announcements by the FDA have proven that early notification and cooperation with manufacturers have helped reduce the number of drug shortages by over half. There have been 42 newly scarce drugs so far this year, compared to 90 in the same period last year. That is progress. While I applaud the FDA in their efforts to address this crisis, 42 drugs in shortage is still 42 too many for me. That is why it is so important to pass this provision and give the FDA the tools it needs to get the number down to zero. I understand that early notification requirements may be a short-term solution to a long-term problem. That is why I will continue to work with my Senate colleagues to come up with a broad permanent solution, one that includes methods to address the root causes of drug shortages. It has been a long road to get to this point. Nearly 2 years ago I began hearing about this drug shortage issue, and when I first talked about it some of the doctors said: Really? I haven't heard about it. Now, 2 years later, they have all heard about it. That is why we introduced the Preserving Access to Lifesaving Medication Act. That is why we came together to get an agreement in this legislation. That is why the President issued an Executive order that pushed for more voluntary notifications from manufacturers, and the FDA released an interim final rule that broadened the scope of the current notification requirement. That is why it is so important that we pass this legislation. Patients such as Axel or Mary should not have to be burdened with the added stress and worry about whether they are going to have enough medication to get through their next treatment. They have enough on their minds. Let's get this done. It is a great example of people working across the aisle. When they heard something from their constituents, they were willing to listen and to put this bill together. Me, I would like to have gotten it done 2 years ago, but later is better than never. We can get it done this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in passing a critical bill that keeps the faith with the men and women of our Reserve Forces. Representative Kline, a Republican Congressman from Minnesota, has led this effort in the House. I am leading it in the Senate. It affects troops from all over the country, a promise that was made to them that must be kept. My home State of Minnesota has no large Active-Duty bases, but we have a long and proud tradition of military service in our National Guard and our Reserves. Throughout every military engagement since the Civil War--including the two wars we have fought over the past decade--Minnesota's National Guard members and reservists have served with courage and honor to defend our Nation overseas. In fact, it was a ragtag group of workers and farmers who signed up for the precursor of the National Guard during the Civil War, who went to the Battle of Gettysburg and had the highest percentage of casualties of any unit in the Civil War. There is a big monument for them honoring the fact that they had that high rate of casualties. In fact, they held the line for troops to come in in the Civil War. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the importance of our brave citizen soldiers across the country and the unprecedented sacrifice they have been called upon to make. The National Guard and Reserves were not built to serve as an active-duty force for prolonged periods. Yet at times as many as 40 percent of the American forces fighting in these wars have been Guard and Reserve troops. I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you know that, being from Vermont, where you have many National Guard troops who have served our country. Just last month, about 3,000 members of Minnesota's National Guard First Brigade Combat Team--our Red Bulls--returned home from a year of service in Kuwait assisting the drawdown in Iraq. Some of these men and women were not serving for their first, second, or third time. I met these soldiers. Some of them were serving for their fourth time, for their fifth time, some even for their sixth time. The repeated mobilizations and overseas deployments of Guard and Reserve units have profoundly affected families and communities in Minnesota and across the Nation. That is part of the reason we pushed so hard to bring those troops home from Iraq. That is also why, in 2007, in recognition of the extraordinary sacrifices our servicemembers and their families have made, the Department of Defense created the Post Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence--or PDMRA, as it is called--Program. The PDMRA Program awards extra leave days to servicemembers who deploy beyond the standard rotation cycle. The motivation is simple: Troops who serve multiple deployments above and beyond the call of duty--who are basically being deployed as Active Duty even though they are not; folks who have raised their hands and stepped forward time and time again to volunteer and support our country--deserve leave time at home with their families as some compensation. When they signed up to serve, there was not a waiting line. When they come home to the United States of America and they need a job or they need health care or they need an education or they want some time with their families, they should have that. Well, one can imagine the concern the Red Bulls felt and I felt too when we learned all of a sudden the leave benefits our troops were promised under the program were being reduced as they were serving overseas. They were promised one thing when they left, and the program changed when they were gone. Here is what happened. Until last fall, members of the Reserve Component who served more than 1 year out of 6 could be awarded up to 4 extra PDMRA leave days for each extra month of service. Then on September 30, 2011, the Defense Department changed the policy, reducing the 4 days down to 1 or 2, depending on the location of service. But here is the problem: Instead of grandfathering in the troops who had been promised the 4 days of leave under the old policy, the Defense Department implemented the change immediately, applying it to all troops on the ground. I can understand having a new policy, I really can. But do not do it to the troops who have already been promised one thing. That meant in the middle of their deployment, 49,000 reservists deployed around the world, who had been promised up to 4 days of leave for their service each month and who had earned that leave, were told, with little warning, that the days they were promised under the PDMRA Program were going to be cut, starting October 1, 2011. Well, as you can imagine, this was a real setback for our troops, and for many reasons. First of all, it means they would get less time at home with their families, whom they have not seen--their kids, their spouses, their parents. Second, it means our troops and their families are forced to cope with unexpected financial challenges as their leave benefits are cut without warning. Finally, the change has meant that our reservists--who, unlike the Active Component, do not necessarily have a job to come back to when they separate from duty--are faced with an increased and unexpected urgency to find employment. Well, our economy is on the mend, it is stable, but we are still seeing, as the Presiding Officer knows, record numbers of unemployment among our veterans of the past two wars. Now is not the time to cut the leave benefits of people who have been promised the leave and push them out to find their own way. When the men and women of our armed services signed up, they did it for the right reasons. They are patriotic. They put their lives on the line for our country. The least we can do is keep the promises we made. That is why my colleague in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Kline--himself a decorated veteran--and I introduced legislation that makes a simple fix to this program. Our bill does not reverse the new policy change that the Department heads made after careful review of the program. Our bill simply grandfathers troops deployed under the old policy so they receive the leave benefits they were promised. I want to take a few moments to share just a few key points about this bill. First, it has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In fact, it passed in the House on Tuesday night with the support of all Representatives. Second, the cost of this bill is fully offset. No new spending is created in this bill. Finally, this bill is now supported by Secretary Panetta himself. It is supported by the Department of Defense, after they realized what the effect of this policy would have if troops were not grandfathered in. This is a country that believes in patriotism, and patriotism means wrapping our arms around those who have served and sacrificed for our country. I think all of my colleagues here today agree that nobody needs and deserves our support more than the men and women who have offered their lives in defense of our Nation. For 10 years, the men and women of our National Guard and Reserves have done their duty. Now I believe it is for us in Congress to do our own duty to make sure our troops receive the benefits they are due. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Today I wish to discuss a series of votes we took yesterday on five different budget resolutions offered by my colleagues. I ultimately voted against the budget resolutions offered by my colleagues because they were simply not in line with what I believe our priorities for this country should be. Like my colleagues, I am very concerned about our long-term fiscal situation. That is why last year I helped pass the Budget Control Act of 2011. This legislation caps spending levels for 2012 and will reduce our deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional congressional budget resolution. Unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the President, the Budget Control Act has the force of law. It also set discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the 1 year normally set in a budget resolution. Believing we should go further, I also voted for a constitutional balanced budget amendment offered by Senator Udall of Colorado and cosponsored bipartisan legislation to give the President line-item veto authority to go after wasteful spending. The key difference between the Budget Control Act and the budget resolutions that were offered yesterday is that the Budget Control Act did not achieve its savings on the backs of the middle class while at the same time giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. In 2010, I worked with 14 Senators to block a statutory increase of our national debt limit until the Senate agreed to set up the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility. While I do not agree with every single recommendation included in the final report, I have made clear through my support for the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to advance this framework and I believe it provides a good starting point for the work we must do to reduce our debt. This framework would put in place a long-term plan to responsibly reduce the deficit by achieving at least $4 trillion in debt reduction through a balance of revenue and spending cuts. This is the balanced approach I hear Minnesotans asking for every day, and it is the approach I will continue to insist we take.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to commemorate the United States Department of Agriculture on its 150th anniversary. Our country has changed dramatically since 1862, when President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill into law creating the Department of Agriculture. Despite all the changes we have seen in the last century and a half, the USDA remains true to its original mission as ``The People's Department,'' administering critical programs that touch the lives of all Americans. So as we celebrate this important milestone for the USDA, I think we should also take a moment to recognize the men and women who are putting its programs to use--the farmers and agriculture leaders who grow our crops, produce our food and power our homegrown energy supply. Sometimes, people forget that food doesn't just magically appear on grocery store shelves. But the truth is that behind every aisle-- whether it's dairy or produce--there is farmer or a rancher who has made it their livelihood to produce nutritious, abundant food. In Minnesota, our economic strength is anchored in the soil of our land and the sweat of our farmers. Agriculture is our State's leading export, accounting for $75 billion in economic activity every year and supporting more than 300,000 jobs. And while we are 21st in the country for population, we are the sixth largest agricultural producer. Minnesota is number one in turkeys, green peas, and oats, number two in spring wheat, number three in hogs and soybeans, and number four in corn. I have spent the last year traveling across our State as part of an economic tour that has taken me to dozens of communities and businesses throughout Minnesota. And no matter where I go, I am always reminded of the critical role that farming plays in our State's economy. For generations, the Department of Agriculture has stood behind our farmers and rural communities and made sure they had the tools and resource to move forward. The USDA may be best known for administering the farm programs that help agricultural producers manage risk and recover from disasters-- everything from floods to market failures. But programs such as crop insurance, which provides a safety net across 254 million acres, are just one component of the USDA's larger portfolio of priorities-- everything from clean energy development and conservation to export promotion. In terms of research, the USDA has helped our farmers and ranchers remain the most productive in the world. It has funded research that not only shields our food supply from pests and dangerous diseases, but also increases the productivity of farmers growing everything from wheat to watermelons. Anyone who has visited a farm using modern precision agriculture can tell you just how far we have come. And in terms of the economic benefits, studies have shown that for every dollar spent on agricultural research, it returns over $20 to our economy. The USDA is also making great headway with conservation programs. By working with hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchers and implementing conservation practices on tens of millions of acres of private land, the USDA is helping reduce soil erosion and ensure clean drinking water. And in preserving our natural resources, USDA is also strengthening key industries like fishing and hunting, which are so much more than just hobbies in my State--in Minnesota, sportsmen put $3.4 billion into our economy each year and support 55,000 jobs. On the energy front, USDA is moving us closer to oil independence by encouraging the development of homegrown sources--like cellulosic biofuels, methane digesters and other renewable and energy efficient solutions. Altogether, those solutions are expected to save enough energy to power nearly 600,000 homes a year. At a time of spiking gas prices and volatility in foreign oil markets, I believe we should be investing in the energy innovators of the Midwest--not the oil cartels of the Mideast. With the right tools, America's farmers can develop the next generation energy sources that will power the world. We are already feeding the world, and the USDA has helped make that possible through its work to lift export barriers and open new markets for agricultural goods. In 2011 farm exports reached a record high of $137 billion, which support 1.5 million jobs here in the U.S. Finally, so much of the USDA's work boils down to strengthening rural communities. That is why programs to help finance everything from broadband to infrastructure for clean drinking water are so important. They are critical to ensuring a kid who grows up in rural American can stay in rural America and doesn't have to move somewhere else to find a job, raise a family or start a business. In this sense, the USDA truly is the ``People's Department.'' This only underscores the importance of the work we're doing in the Senate to craft a strong and successful farm bill--one that builds on the success of existing programs while also making key improvements and accounting for challenges created by the current budget environment. The Agriculture Committee took the first step by passing the farm bill out of committee in April, on a strong bipartisan vote of 16 5, that should pave the way for full Senate action. The legislation strengthens and continues many vital programs that farmers rely on in States across the country. It maintains a robust farm safety net which makes several improvements to the crop insurance program, including changes to ensure the program works better for fruit, vegetable and organic producers. I sponsored an amendment that will give beginning farmers better access to the crop insurance program by making it more affordable for them to purchase coverage. And because I believe we should do more to invest in the future of American agriculture, I worked to make sure the bill included provisions for the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Program and for promoting public-private research opportunities. Importantly, the bill we passed in the Committee also streamlines and strengthens the conservation programs that farmers rely on to keep our soil healthy and our water clean. It preserves the essential nutrition programs that millions of families and children rely on every day. And it includes a strong energy title for encouraging homegrown energy production. Every single American has a direct stake in the success of our farms and food businesses. Through the food we eat, the water we drink, the fuel we put in our cars and the air we breathe, each and every one of us is personally invested in the success of American agriculture, and that is why the USDA is such a critical resources. I congratulate all my friends with the USDA on a remarkable 150 years, and I want to thank my colleagues on the floor today for their great work and dedication to supporting our farmers and rural communities. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate to pass a strong Farm Bill that supports vital services at the USDA and gets the job done for our Nation's farmers.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. I want to first acknowledge my colleague Senator Brown of Ohio for his leadership. They have Ohio State, we have the University of Minnesota, and both of us have met with students from these States who have told us firsthand what they are experiencing every single day. I have talked to students at the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State in Mankato, where my father-in-law taught for many years, and they have told me about their own situations, where they may have five siblings and there is absolutely no way their parents, both of whom are working, can afford to send their kids to college without loans. I have talked to a young woman in Mankato whose mom was helping with the tuition, and then suddenly her mom lost her job and she couldn't help anymore, parents who have gone out on disability who can no longer help anymore. We have to ask ourselves as a country, when those things happen, when you have a student who may be the first in their family to ever go to college, are we going to turn our back on them and say: No, we don't want you to go to college? Well, that is not going to work in our country. That is not going to work, because in Minnesota the numbers just came out, and up to 2018, of all the new jobs created, 70 percent are going to require some kind of postsecondary education. Half of them are going to require 1-year to 2-year degrees, the other half are going to require 4-year degrees or more. We know those facts. We know how we are going to be able to compete in this world, and that is by having educated workers. To do that, we cannot turn our back on the students who may be in a situation where they can work part time. There was one girl I met at the University of Minnesota who was working a 50-hour paid job every week in addition to the classload, in addition to going to school. These students are working hard, and we must make sure they are able to complete their college and complete their degrees. College tuition and fees have been rising more rapidly than household income over the last two decades, and it is becoming more and more difficult for students and their families to afford these costs. We know that student loan debt has reached record levels. College seniors owed an average of $25,000 in student loan debt upon graduating in 2010, with a total loan debt reaching $1 trillion. This is what we are dealing with. I know when I had student loans I paid them off, and, Mr. President, you will be happy to know that I met my husband right after I had paid off my loans and he still owed over $20,000 in student loans, but I married him anyway. I have had firsthand experience in what it is like to pay off these loans but never in these amounts our students today are facing. While it is normally good to be above average, my home State is, unfortunately, above average in student loan debt. We rank fourth in the Nation. The average Minnesota student graduates from college with more than $29,000 in loan debt. As college costs skyrocket and student loan debt climbs, we have to consider what this means for students today and what effect this will have on our future. At a time when our global economy demands more of our workforce, we must focus on the foundation of our future prosperity, and that is education, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and math. To advance in those fields, you need at least a 2-year degree or a 4-year degree. We know that. We must do more to expand higher education opportunities and make college affordable for our students. It is one of the best investments we can make in the long-term success for America. That is because education doesn't just pay off for students, it also pays off for our country in the form of a skilled workforce and a competitive economy. We have seen this in my own State, where we are home to one of the best skilled, most educated workforces in the country. That is the reason we are first per capita for Fortune 500 companies. I can tell you it is not the weather. These companies did not elect to move to Minnesota and to stay in Minnesota because of our winters. They came in large part because of the educated workforce, because we had people who could do the jobs and create the inventions. At 3M, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, they have as many inventions as they have employees. They average one invention for each employee. That is a fact. Look at the numbers. Why is that? Because we have the educated workforce to fill those jobs. We also know that students today, both those in college and those who are considering college, face many unexpected obstacles, including the pressure to pay for higher education. As I mentioned, when I visited students at the University of Minnesota and also Minnesota State at Mankato, I heard firsthand about their experiences and how hard they were working to get those degrees. These students face many hardships and many sacrifices, but they continue to move forward and they are determined to get their education. The reality is that students can work, save money, and be totally responsible about saving for and paying for college, but life can bring unexpected challenges, and students need help through access to low-interest loans. That is all we are talking about here, low-interest loans. Interest rates on Stafford student loans are set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1 of this year. Unless Congress intervenes, 7 million students will see higher interest rates on their student loans--a dramatic increase in the interest rate that does not make sense at a time when the economy is still struggling to recover and students are facing ever higher college costs and young graduates are having a hard time finding jobs. I know how valuable these loans are to students, and that is why I am a cosponsor of the Student Loan Affordability Act, which would prevent the rate hike and ensure college remains affordable. That would affect this doubling of the interest rate for, in my State alone, 200,000 students. Think what we want those 200,000 students to do. We want those students to be out there inventing the next Post-it note for 3M. We want them out there inventing the next pacemaker. We want them out there inventing the next Google. That is what this is about. That is how our economy has run. We are a country that makes and invents products, makes them and exports them to the world. The only way we do that is with affordable education. I have heard from hundreds of Minnesotans who say the costs are putting a strain on their families and making college seem out of reach. This is unacceptable, and we must act now. I know this firsthand, as I explained, not only from what I have seen in my State, what I have seen in the interrelationship between education and business, but in my own life. My grandpa was an iron ore miner. He worked 1,500 feet under the ground in the mines in north Minnesota. He never graduated from college. He never even graduated from high school. He saved money in a coffee can in the basement of their little house, this small house where they literally only had a shower in the basement. He saved money in that coffee can to send my dad and his brother to college. They were the first in that family of Slovenian immigrants--the first to go to college. They went to college. My uncle became an engineer living in Rochester, MN. My dad went to the 2-year junior college, got a degree from what is now Vermilion Community College, then went on to the University of Minnesota, got his journalism degree, joined the AP, and then went on to the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, where he became an award-winning journalist. He traveled the world. He got to interview everyone from Ginger Rogers to Mike Ditka to Ronald Reagan. That is my dad's life, and it all started because his parents believed in education but, most importantly, his country believed in education--the United States of America. That is what this issue is about. It is about progress, it is about families, and it is about moving this country forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to thank so much the Senator from Maryland for showing such a succinct way of describing such an incredibly complex but important bill. We have also been joined by the Senator from California who has been a long-time leader on this issue. She was here in Congress, as was the Senator from Maryland, when the initial Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994. I yield to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we are going to be joined here shortly by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, but I do want to mention one other aspect. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the incredibly important role that then-Senator Biden, now-Vice President Biden played in drafting this first bill in 1994. Well, there was another Senator who played an important role, and he is someone from Minnesota; that is, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, always with his wife Sheila with him at his side working on this important issue. When we lost Paul and Sheila in 2002, Minnesotans lost a tireless champion in Congress; Americans lost what was always called--Paul was called ``the conscience of the Senate''; and women everywhere lost two powerful voices on domestic violence issues. I went back through the transcripts and looked at some of the speeches Senator Wellstone gave, before his tragic plane crash, about domestic violence and some of the things he said. Here are some. Of course, I would never do justice to him as he stood on the floor, but he said things like this. He said: We can no longer stand by and say that it is someone else's problem. What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with their voices and with their lives, and this violence must end. He also said this: Once upon a time we used to say it is nobody's business. We do not believe that any longer. Paul and Sheila passionately believed that domestic violence was not just a law enforcement issue, it was an issue about civil rights, justice, and human dignity. Paul often talked about his brother Stephen, who struggled with mental illness his entire life, and he took up that cause because he knew no one was there for Stephen, no one else would speak for him. And he felt the same way about domestic violence. We honor their memory--Paul and Sheila--by carrying on their work today. I wish to highlight some of the more remarkable efforts to bring this issue out of the shadows which the Wellstones made. Senator Wellstone began work on issues of domestic violence when he was elected to the Senate in 1990. As one can tell from the whole course of his political career, violence against women was always an issue close to his heart. In fact, Senator Wellstone dedicated his own salary increases each year to battered women's shelters in Minnesota and introduced a number of bills strengthening protections for women. To Senator Wellstone, family violence could no longer be dismissed as a ``family issue.'' That is why he made a commitment to read into the Congressional Record the names and stories of all Minnesota women and children killed at the hands of spouses, boyfriends, and fathers. In one 1995 floor speech, he had six stories to tell, some so horrifying that he refused to share the full details in the Chamber. In 1993 Paul and Sheila found an especially impactful way to bring their message to Washington. In collaboration with the Silent Witness Initiative, Paul and Sheila brought 27 life-size silhouettes to the rotunda of the Russell Office Building. Each one of the silhouettes represented one Minnesota woman murdered in an act of domestic violence. You think about this now, and you might be used to seeing these things. You might be used to seeing quilts that have been made with each square to a victim of domestic violence or silhouettes or other things that go around the country. But at that time, back in 1993, that was unique. It was something people were not talking about. The Wellstones felt it was their duty to bring that forward, as did then-Senator Biden and Senator Leahy and other people who were involved in this issue. So many of the women Senators who spoke today--Senator Mikulski, Senator Hutchison, who I see has joined us on the floor--on a bipartisan basis, they all came together and said that we must get this done. Again, Senator Wellstone understood as well as anybody that this was an issue that had too long been ignored and found a way to bring the story to his colleagues in the Senate. Paul and Sheila may no longer be with us, but their legacy lives on. The Sheila Wellstone Institute continues its work by promoting awareness of violence against women and ensuring that ending this problem remains a national priority. The Wellstones' sons Mark and David have also continued the work their parents began through their nonprofit Wellstone Alliance. Among many other things, Wellstone Action and Mark Wellstone in particular worked hard to ensure that the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized in 2006. As we look today for a potential vote on the Violence Against Women Act, I would like my fellow Senators to remember these words Senator Wellstone spoke many years ago. He said: We can no longer stand by and say it is someone else's problem. What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with their voices and their lives, and this violence must end. We all know we can no longer stand by and say it is someone else's problem. We cannot let our own differences, minor though they be, on various provisions get in the way of the fact that this has always been a bipartisan bill, that this bill has 60 cosponsors, that this bill was led by Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo from the very beginning, a Democrat and a Republican working together. This is the time to pass this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington very much. Deborah Parker, whom she referenced, did a beautiful job yesterday of explaining exactly what it meant to be a Native American woman and a victim of domestic violence. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can tell you, we have looked hard at all the issues in reauthorizing this bill. We have had a series of hearings and looked at the fact that domestic violence and sexual assault still remain in America, and many of us have worked to build upon the many important improvements the past two VAWA reauthorizations have made in reducing violence. I would note many things were added--including one of the issues mentioned here today: the U visas--on a bipartisan basis in the 2000 reauthorization. Many of the issues regarding American Indian women were considered in the past. But we are simply building on the past bills. We have worked with our Republican cosponsors to make sure there was a general agreement on any additions that were made to the bill, and they were all made for very good reasons--as we have heard today-- to help women who need the help. But despite these improvements we have seen in the numbers, make no mistake about it, violence against women is still a problem. A recent survey by the National Network to End Domestic Violence helps to illustrate both the progress we have made as well as the work that is still left to be done. On just 1 day last year--look at this as a benchmark; 1 day last year: September 15--in the State of Minnesota, 44 Minnesota domestic violence programs reported serving 735 victims in emergency shelters or transitional housing and 670 adults and children through individual counseling, legal advocacy or children's support groups. That is a total of 1,405 victims in 1 day in one State. On that same day, there were 807 calls to domestic violence hotlines, which provide emergency support, information, safety planning, and resources for victims in danger. That works out to 33 calls per hour in a 24-hour period, and that is in 1 State of the 50 States. Because of the Violence Against Women Act, on just 1 day last year, all these victims were able to get access to services they may not have been able to get before VAWA. But one other number from that survey caught my eye. In just 1 day, 315 requests for services were unmet. Mr. President, 83 percent of those unmet requests were for housing. What is the reason for those unmet requests? The Minnesota organizations reported they did not have enough things such as staff, beds, translators or other specialized services. Think about that: In just 1 day, in 1 State, 315 people were unable to get the help they needed. That means we still have work to do. As I have worked on the reauthorization of VAWA, I have been reminded of how many of my experiences as Hennepin County attorney--that is Minnesota's largest county--are relevant still today. While I was county attorney, I made it a priority of my office to focus on prevention and prosecution of domestic violence cases. As a prosecutor, I saw upfront how devastating these cases can be. One case, a woman in Maple Grove, a suburb of the Twin Cities, told her mother and a friend she planned to end her relationship with her abusive boyfriend. She was finally going to break it off, and if something were to happen to her--she said this; she actually said these words to her mom and to her friend--she said: If something happens to me, ``he did it.'' That was the last day anyone saw her alive. A fisherman discovered the woman's body months later in the Minnesota River. It was a tragic end to a story of escalating abuse that this young woman had to live through, as she tried to break it off, to a tragic end. The woman had earlier filed assault charges against her boyfriend, claiming he had put her in a chokehold and pushed her into a coffee table. Her 3-year-old son told his grandmother he found his mother on the floor and that she was sleeping and he could not wake her. The boyfriend had actually been convicted years earlier for attempted murder in another case with a pattern of domestic abuse. After he got out, he met his new girlfriend--the one who ended up dead in the Minnesota River. In the end, he pleaded guilty to the murder and received a maximum sentence. I remember another case with a woman who was shot to death by her boyfriend who then killed himself. The man's 12-year-old daughter tried to get into the bedroom, and when she could not get in, she went to a neighbor's house for help. His 19-year-old son was also in the house. The police were called to that residence at least five times in the 2 years before the tragedy. These stories are horrifying, and as a prosecutor one never forgets them. For survivors, they stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is stories such as these that make it so obvious that we have more work to do. We need to pass this reauthorization bill and we need to continue to build on the improvements we have made in past reauthorizations. One of the important improvements this reauthorization bill has made comes in the area of stalking. The bill includes a provision I added, along with my cosponsor, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, that will help law enforcement more effectively target high-tech predators because stalking, similar to any of the other crimes recognized in the Violence Against Women Act, is crime that affects victims of every race, age, culture, gender, sexual orientation, and economic status. The numbers are truly alarming. In just 1 year, 3.4 million people in the United States reported they had been victims of stalking, and 75 percent of those victims reported they had been stalked by someone they knew. Overall, around 19 million women in the United States have at some point during their lifetime been stalked. The National Center for Victims of Crime estimates that one out of every four stalking victims is stalked through some form of technology. As the Presiding Officer knows, this is a change. That is why Senator Hutchison and I drafted this amendment that basically says the laws have to be updated because law enforcement has to be as sophisticated as the people who are breaking the laws--as the people who were spying on ESPN reporters, as a recent case showed, through little peepholes in their hotel rooms, while they were undressing. That happened, and that case would have been a lot easier if this bill had been changed and updated with the provisions Senator Hutchison and I are adding. That victim, that reporter, came forward and asked that this be included in the law, and it is. It is another reason why we have to pass the Violence Against Women Act. The bill also includes a number of improvements, as was noted by Senator Cantwell, with respect to a particularly underserved community-- women living in tribal areas. It is a heartbreaking reality that Native American women experience rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that are much higher than the national average. All the bill does in this area--as the Chair knows, representing a State with a high population of Native Americans--is that it simply allows a tribal court to have jurisdiction concurrent with the other courts, with the Federal and State courts. I know changes have been made in the managers' amendment to address the particular concerns of Alaska. This is an incredibly important part of the bill, and I am glad we were able to work with the Republican cosponsors to get this part of the bill updated. The Violence Against Women Act is an important tool for ending violence against women, but this is not just about women. I often mention the case of a very sad situation where a man murdered his wife. They were Russian immigrants. They knew no one in town. He murders his wife, takes her body parts in a bag, dumps them off in a river in Missouri, with his 4-year-old kid in the car the entire time. When they got back to the Twin Cities, he actually confessed to the crime. When they had the funeral for this woman, there were only five people in that Russian church. There was the family who had come over from Russia--the parents and the sister--and there was myself and our domestic violence advocate. That little girl was there too. The story the family told me was this: The sister of the victim--the sister of the woman who was killed--was her identical twin. The little girl had never met her aunt because she lived in Russia. When they got off that plane from Russia, the little girl ran up to her aunt--who was the identical twin of her dead mother--she ran up to her and hugged her and said, ``Mommy, mommy, mommy,'' because she thought it was her mother. It reminds all of us that domestic violence is not just about one victim, it is about a family and it is about a community and it is about a country. That is why we have the opportunity to get this bill done, to put it up for a vote, and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act--something we have done time and time again on a bipartisan basis. So let's do it again. Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the Senator from New York, a member of the Judiciary Committee, who has worked so hard on this bill, Senator Schumer. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from California for those moving remarks and for the very important point that the Violence Against Women Act has never discriminated against people, regardless of who they are, where they live, or how much money they have. I appreciate those remarks, and I think it is at the core of what some of this debate is about. Overall, I still believe when we are ready to have a number of colleagues from across the aisle on this bill, we will get this done. That is why it is so important that with the work of Senator Reid and Senator Leahy, the chairman of our Judiciary Committee, and Senator Crapo, who is the leading Republican on this bill, and Senator Mikulski, who came and spoke earlier, as well as Senator Murkowski, who joined us the last time we had the group of women Senators--and we have been working diligently on it late into the evening--I am very positive we are going to get this done and get this vote done. I see we have been joined by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, who has long been a leader on women's issues and has fought for this bill and has been a Member of Congress in the past when it has been reauthorized. So she knows very well that in the past this has not been a partisan bill; that people have come together and worked out whatever differences they have had, and they have been able to pass this important Violence Against Women Act. So I thank her for being here, and I yield to Senator Cantwell.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, a group of women Senators is here to talk about the Violence Against Women bill, and as my colleague from Arizona was referencing, this is a bill where there has been unity for well over a decade. We have a number of Republican sponsors. We are up to 61 sponsors, men and women, who have come together to say that violence against women is not okay. The first speaker is the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison for their words and their work. I rise to discuss my amendment that would respond to the problems we are seeing with rape kit backlogs, which Senator Cornyn has identified, while also reforming what we know is working well on this issue. This amendment would amend the Debbie Smith Act, which, similar to the Violence Against Women Act, has a history of bipartisan support. The Debbie Smith Act, as you know, was enacted in 2004. It was named after a courageous survivor of sexual assault. What this amendment does is to basically increase the percentage of Debbie Smith grant funds that are available for use in testing the backlog of rape kits. We raise the current percentage of 40 percent up to 70 percent. So it is a significant change. The amendment also asks the National Institute of Justice to develop protocols to help law enforcement with sexual assault cases and to provide technical assistance and training to law enforcement and local governments. The amendment also allows funds to be used for auditing rape kit backlogs, which is one of the important issues Senator Cornyn's amendment addresses. The difference between Senator Cornyn's amendment and my amendment is that mine does not mandate that a minimum percentage of funds be used for audit. Senator Cornyn's amendment also has provisions such as subpoena authority for U.S. marshals who are tracking fugitive sex offenders that I have supported in the past and I will continue to support in the future. I will be glad to work with Senator Cornyn and Chairman Leahy and others to get this done and to look for an appropriate vehicle to address this issue. But today is about passing VAWA without delay. We have worked on the Judiciary Committee for 1 month with every group that wanted to have a say in the reauthorization of VAWA, and we have worked closely with all on the committee. As you know, Senator Crapo has been the long-time Republican coauthor of this bill. We have a number of Republican supporters. I wish to end with the words of Paul Wellstone, who once served in the Senate on behalf of the State of the Minnesota, who was a fierce advocate for the Violence Against Women Act. He said this: What are we waiting for? Too many have spoken with their voices and with their lives, and this violence must end. Let's get the Violence Against Women Act done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2094.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to briefly comment on an issue that has been raised by some with respect to the stalking provisions in the bill. Some outside observers have questioned whether the language in the bill would chill free speech or even criminalize constitutionally protected speech. Obviously, that was not the intent of the language and I do not believe that would be the impact. In fact, a statute cannot criminalize constitutionally protected speech. If it is protected under the Constitution, then it is protected, plain and simple. The stalking provision is intended to make our anti-stalking laws more effective. The problem with current law is that we require a victim to actually suffer from substantial emotional distress in order for the perpetrator to be prosecuted. But sometimes victims are not even aware that they are being stalked, especially if the stalker is using electronic surveillance, video surveillance, or other technology that is specifically designed for spying. So a stalker who is using technology to stalk his victim can escape prosecution simply because he goes undetected by the victim. That does not make sense to me. With the provision in the bill, we allow law enforcement and prosecutors to focus on the stalker's actions, and not just the victim's emotions. This will allow prosecutions if the perpetrator is caught before the victim has suffered the necessary level of emotional distress. Under current law, law enforcement has to wait until that harm has occurred, even though the stalker has already committed terrible invasions of the victim's privacy. But I understand the concerns of those who are worried about free speech. I am willing to work with them to address their concerns as we move forward. I have no desire to inhibit free speech. This is not about speech, it is about video surveillance, tracking devices, and other secretive methods of stalking. It is about truly dangerous and despicable behavior.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to discuss the importance of addressing the financial challenges now facing the U.S. Postal Service and our critical need to ensure that it remains a strong and reliable resource for the people of our country. The American Postal Service was created over two centuries ago as a function of the Federal Government, acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution. In those last 220 years, the way we send mail and exchange correspondence has changed dramatically. We no longer need a stamp or an envelope; we can just shoot an e-mail or sign onto Facebook. But even with all these changes, the fact remains that no matter who you are or where you live, odds are that the post office plays a vital role in your daily life. Seniors rely on the Postal Service to receive their medications, businesses rely on it to ship and receive goods, and countless jobs hinge on its services, both directly and indirectly. No matter how far we have come with technology in this digital age, there are some things that simply cannot be sent by e-mail. That is why reliable timely mail service is something all Americans should be able to count on. I have heard from numerous people in my State about the negative impact the closure of certain post offices or mail processing facilities would have on their communities. I have heard from State and local leaders about the impact of closing the mail processing facilities in Duluth and Bemidji. I have heard from farmers who actually get their goods and ship their products through those mail processing centers. That is why I have worked with Senator Sanders and roughly 25 of my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Durbin--one-fourth of the entire Senate--to negotiate changes to this original bill. I thank Chairman Lieberman and Senators Collins and Carper for their great leadership. I am glad about some of the changes they have made. The substitute amendment would, in fact, keep at a minimum 100 mail processing plants that are currently scheduled to close, and they would remain open for at least 3 years. Overnight delivery standards in regional areas will be protected. A large number of rural post offices that are being studied for closure will remain open. I am a cosponsor of the amendment to the legislation that would provide important safeguards before closing mail processing facilities, and I have also cosponsored the McCaskill-Merkley amendment that would establish a 2-year moratorium on closing rural post offices and recognize the concerns of rural residents. There is no doubt that changes need to be made to the Postal Service to make it more competitive in the digital world. I think a lot of those changes are contained in the substitute amendment. We can even make it stronger. I strongly believe we can reach a balance that makes necessary reforms, while maintaining the quick service on which Americans have come to rely. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, after our work on this important bill to reform the Postal Service is complete, we will be turning to another important bill, one that has a long history of bipartisan support. That bill, the Violence Against Women Act, is a law that has literally changed the way we think about violence against women in the United States. The Violence Against Women Act is one of the great legislative success stories of this generation. Since it was first passed in 1994-- and I will tell you that then-Senator Biden was involved in drafting that legislation and led that effort, he and someone we miss very dearly in Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. He and his wife Sheila were also involved in getting this important bill passed. Since that time, annual domestic violence rates have fallen by 50 percent as communities nationwide have stopped looking at these issues as family issues and started treating domestic violence and sexual assault as the serious crimes they are. Before I came to the Senate I spent 8 years as chief prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county, Hennepin County. During that time, both prevention and the prosecution of domestic violence were one of my top priorities. We were very proud of the Domestic Violence Service Center, which was cutting edge in the Nation, a one-stop shop where people could go when they were victims of domestic violence, a place for their kids; shelters, prosecutors would be able to charge out complaints, police would be there for protective orders. It was a way to help people who were at the point where they thought no one was there for them, for women to be able to come in and find one place that was safe for them. As we all know, there is still a lot of work 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. Approximately one in four women has experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States every year are killed by an intimate partner. Every year close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. These statistics mean domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking are still problems in America. As far as we have come, we can still do better. That is why it is such a good thing that we passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization out of our Judiciary Committee and the bill now has the support of 61 Senators, including 8 Republicans. I am hopeful we will be able to pass this bill quickly after we take it up later this week. It has taken too long. Combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue on which we should all be able to agree. Many of the provisions in the reauthorization bill make important changes to the current law. The bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. It provides greater flexibility in the use of grant money by adding more ``purpose areas'' to the list of allowable uses. It has new training requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims, and it takes important steps to address the disproportionately high domestic violence rates in the Native American communities. The bill also fills some gaps in the system. I am pleased to say it includes legislation I introduced with Senator Hutchison to address high-tech stalking, cases where the stalker uses technology such as the Internet, video surveillance, and bugging to stalk their victims. Sadly, we are seeing more of this. This bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. Just as with physical stalking, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. It is an issue to take seriously, and we in law enforcement must be as sophisticated as those who are breaking the law. That is why we need to update this law. We also should not lose sight of the fact that the VAWA reauthorization has strong support from law enforcement. The Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police support this bill. Recent events in my State have shown me and the entire population of Minnesota in the worst possible way just how closely domestic violence is linked with the safety of our law enforcement officers. I don't think people always think about that. They realize when police officers are out driving on the road, drunk drivers are out driving on the road--that it is risky. Because the police are constantly on the road. What they don't realize is one of the leading causes of death of officers is domestic violence-related incidents. A couple of months ago I attended the funeral of Shawn Schneider, a young police officer from Lake City, MN. Officer Schneider died responding to a domestic violence call--a 17-year-old girl who was being abused by her boyfriend. When Officer Schneider arrived at the scene, he was shot in the head. The girl survived, but Officer Schneider literally gave his life to save another. I attended that funeral, and I will never forget the heartbreaking scene of his two young sons walking down the church aisle with the little girl, his daughter, in a blue dress covered with stars. I think it reminds all of us that domestic violence just doesn't hurt the immediate victim, it hurts entire families, entire communities. This has never been a partisan bill. It is crucial to pass this bill. We have made a lot of progress over the years, and we have been able to work across the aisle to build on VAWA's success. That is something that means a lot to me, and it certainly means a lot to the millions of people who are victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault every single year. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to bring this bill to the floor quickly. We can pass it this week. We can provide desperately needed help to victims of domestic assault, domestic violence, and other such crimes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to stress the critical infrastructure needs across our Nation and urge the House of Representatives to act quickly and pass the surface transportation reauthorization bill that we passed in the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The fact is that we have neglected the roads, bridges, and mass transit that millions of Americans rely on for far too long. I know that. A bridge collapsed just a few blocks from my house. It wasn't just a bridge, it was an 8-lane highway, and 13 people died and dozens of cars were submerged in the river. A bridge just doesn't fall down in America--well, it did that day--and I am committed to passing this highway bill. This bill is important for jobs, and it is important for drivers who sit in congestion. Americans spend a collective 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. So what is the solution? Pass this highway bill. It reduces the number of highway programs from over 100 down to around 30, defines clear national goals for our transportation policy, and it streamlines environmental permitting. I spoke to 75 highway contractors today, and they are ready to go. They want this bill to pass. Companies such as Caterpillar, which employs 750 people at its road-paving equipment facility in Minnesota-- I visited that company in August. Caterpillars' employees are the kinds of people who are out there on the front lines of American industry. They want to build these roads and are the ones who are building the products when we talk about ``Made in America.'' With the short construction season for winter States such as Minnesota--my friend from California may not quite have the same situation--we cannot delay, delay, delay on this highway bill. We cannot stop these construction projects in their tracks. It is time to pass the Senate highway bill. It has bipartisan support, with 74 out of 100 Senators voting for this bill. I ask that the House of Representatives quickly pass this bill and get this done without delay. It means jobs, it means safety, and it means a future for America. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 2 minutes, Senator Boxer for 8 minutes, and then Senator Murkowski for 10 minutes.

Mrs. KLOBUCHAR

Mrs. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to celebrate Barbara Mikulski's service to this country. I had the honor of presiding for the last hour and heard the statements of so many of my colleagues. I heard them talk about how, when she joined this Chamber in 1986, Barbara Mikulski was the first woman elected to the Senate who was not preceded by a husband or a father, the first woman elected to the statewide office to serve the State of Maryland, and only the 16th woman to have served in the Senate ever. Today she is truly the dean of women Senators. She is a mentor and a friend to the rest of us, and she has always set the bar high. This is a woman who took on city hall as a young social worker in Baltimore-- and won. This is a woman who has championed landmark legislation that has touched the lives of millions on issues ranging from health care to education to civil rights. She has shattered glass ceilings, not just in the Senate but in the Congress as a whole. If that is not enough, she has even graced the glossy pages of Vogue magazine. Most of you may not have seen the photos that were taken in front of the Capitol Building with a number of other women leaders, including Meryl Streep, who was in town for a screening of her film ``The Iron Lady.'' So I think it is fitting, to borrow a phrase from the Iron Lady herself, Margaret Thatcher, who famously said, ``In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman.'' I don't think my male colleagues who are here today will take offense at that one since anyone who has ever worked with Barbara Mikulski knows she is a force of nature. She may not be the tallest Member of the Senate, but she is certainly the most tenacious. She is a tireless advocate for the people of her State, and she has a fierce and enduring love for those she represents. She knows where to pick her battles, and we have seen her face some tough debates in the Senate over the past few years. Whether it was working to take C-sections off lists of preexisting conditions at insurance companies or fighting to ensure equal pay for equal work for women or promoting better educational opportunities for children with special needs or ensuring that our troops and families receive the benefits that they have earned and that they deserve, she has never stopped working for fairness, justice, and decency. The daughter of a smalltown grocery store owner, she has made strengthening the middle class the centerpiece of her economic agenda because, as she always puts it, the women in the Senate understand issues not just at the macro level but also at the macaroni-and-cheese level. When Barbara Mikulski came to the Senate 26 years ago, she lit a torch that has brightened the path for so many of us, for the 16 other women Senators who serve today and for all the future generations of women leaders who will lead our country forward. I am humbled to call her a colleague and a friend, and I am honored to celebrate her incredible service to our country today. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. We have now been joined by the Senator from Washington Mrs. Murray, who has spent a long time fighting for domestic violence bills.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I will yield our remaining time to Senators Mikulski and Shaheen.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we have now been joined by Senator Murkowski of Alaska.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am honored to be here today with the women Senators to talk about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act--a law that has a history of passing this Chamber with broad bipartisan support. I would note that there are many authors of this bill--I think up to something like 58 authors currently--and the women who are speaking today include myself and Senators Feinstein, Hagan, Murkowski, Shaheen, Murray, and Boxer. Also sponsoring the bill are Senators Collins, Snowe, McCaskill, Gillibrand, Cantwell, Landrieu, Mikulski, and Stabenow. The bill is led by Senator Leahy and Senator Crapo. So we are here today to pledge our support for this bill and to ask our colleagues to move forward with this bill. The Violence Against Women Act was a landmark bill when it first became law back in 1994. Back then, it started a sea change in attitudes about violence against women, and it sent a strong message to the country saying that sexual assault and domestic violence are serious offenses that will not be tolerated. We heard that message loudly and clearly in my State, and I am proud to say that our State has always had a strong tradition of standing against these crimes. In fact, no conversation in our State about domestic abuse would be complete without mentioning former Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, whom we miss dearly. The Wellstones put so much time and energy into bringing these issues out of the shadows and taking a subject that many people considered at the time a ``family matter'' and saying: You know what, domestic violence is not something we can just sweep under the rug; it is a crime. It hurts families, it hurts children, and we are going to do something about it. While I led the prosecutor's office in Hennepin County, MN, for 8 years, we put a lot of focus on the victims' needs and particularly the children's needs in domestic violence cases because it does not take a bruise or a broken bone for a child to be a victim of domestic violence. Kids who witness domestic violence are victims too. In fact, we had a poster on the wall in our office. It was a poster of a woman with a bandaid on her nose, holding a baby, and it said: Beat your wife and your kid will go to jail. Do you know why? The statistics show that kids who grow up in violent homes are 76 times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence themselves. It is a sobering number, and overall the statistics for these kinds of crimes are staggering. More than one in three women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Every year, close to 17,000 people lose their lives to domestic violence. So, once again, this is not just a family matter, this is a matter of life and death--and not just for the victims but oftentimes for the law enforcement officers who are all too often caught in the line of fire. I have seen this in my own State. In fact, I saw it just a few months ago when I attended the funeral of Shawn Schneider, a young police officer in Lake City, MN. Officer Schneider died after responding to a domestic violence call. A 17-year-old girl was being abused by her boyfriend. When Officer Schneider arrived at the scene, he was shot in the head. He literally gave his life to save another. I attended his funeral, and I still remember those three little children--the two boys and the little girl with the blue dress with stars on it--going down that aisle of the church. When you see that, you realize that the victims of domestic violence are not just the immediate victims, it is an entire family, it is an entire community. We know all too well just how devastating domestic violence and sexual violence can be to victims, as well as to entire communities, which is why it was such a good thing that 6 weeks ago we passed a VAWA reauthorization bill out of the Judiciary Committee and that the bill has the support of 58 Senators, including 6 Republicans. I am glad this bill has continued to attract bipartisan support. I wish it was unanimous. Just 7 years ago, in fact, the reauthorization bill passed the House by a vote of 415 to 4, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent with 18 Republican cosponsors. I know this year some of my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are not supportive of this bill, but it is my hope that while they may disagree with the bill, they will not stop this bipartisan bill from advancing. Combating domestic violence and sexual assault is an issue on which we should all be able to agree. Many of the provisions in the reauthorization bill made important changes to current law. The bill consolidates duplicative programs and streamlines others. It provides greater flexibility in the use of grant money by adding more ``purpose areas'' to the list of allowable uses. It has new training requirements for people, providing legal assistance to victims. And it takes important steps to address the disproportionately high domestic violence rates in Native American communities. The bill also fills some gaps in the system, and I am pleased to say it includes legislation I introduced with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to address high-tech stalking--cases where stalkers use technology such as the Internet, video surveillance, and bugging to stalk their victims. The bill will give law enforcement better tools for cracking down on stalkers. Just as with physical stalking, high-tech stalking may foreshadow more serious behavior down the road. It is an issue we need to take seriously. We need the tools for our law enforcement to be as sophisticated as what is used by those who are breaking the law. I know Senator Feinstein is coming soon, and we have a number of women who are going to be speaking today. I want to remind everyone in this Chamber that domestic violence takes its toll. One of the most memorable cases I had was when our office prosecuted the case of a woman who was killed in Eden Prairie, MN. She was a Russian immigrant. Her husband was a Russian immigrant. They did not have many friends in the community. She was fairly isolated. She was most likely a domestic violence victim for many, many years. Well, one day this man killed his wife. He then took her body parts down to Missouri. He left some of the body parts there. And the entire time, he had their 4-year- old daughter in the car with him. He then drove back to Minnesota and confessed to the crime. When they had the funeral, there was only me, our domestic violence advocate, the grandparents who had come from Russia, and this woman's identical twin sister. What had happened at the airport when they arrived was that this little 4-year-old girl--who had never seen her aunt, who had never seen her mother's identical twin sister--ran down that hallway when she saw her aunt for the first time and hugged her and said: Mommy, mommy, mommy, because she thought her mom was back. It reminds us all that domestic violence is not just about one victim; it is about children, it is about family, and it is about a community. We all know this bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The women of the Senate know it. There are already three Republican women on this bill and many others, I hope, to come. We believe in this bill. We ask our colleagues to support this bill. I see my colleague Senator Feinstein is here. I know as a member of the Judiciary Committee--she and I are the only two women members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--she has taken a lead on this issue for many, many years. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak as in morning business for the next 90 minutes, with the majority controlling the first 45 minutes--with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each--and the Republicans controlling the final 45 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we thank the Senator from Alaska. How much time remains?