Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Robert E. Bacharach, nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Bacharach's nomination was pending before the Senate last year. In accordance with Senate custom and practice, the nomination was placed on hold, along with other circuit judge nominations, pending the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. Unfortunately, the nomination was subjected to some unnecessary political theater when a cloture motion was filed and defeated last July.

It is well-known that the practice and tradition of the Senate is to stop confirming circuit judge nominees in the closing months of a Presidential election year. One has to go back 20 years to find a Presidential election year when the Senate approved a circuit court judge in the latter part of the year. Of course, the rationale has been that whoever wins that election should be the one to pick these lifetime nominees who will run our judiciary system.

A Congressional Research Service report on this subject stated:

The Senator who most frequently has asserted the existence

of a Thurmond rule has been the current chairman of the

Judiciary Committee.

The CRS report noted that on March 7, 2008, the chairman recalled:

When President Reagan was running for President and Senator

Thurmond, then in the Republican minority as ranking member

of the Judiciary Committee, instituted a policy to stall

President Carter's nominations. That policy, known as the

``Thurmond Rule,'' was put in when the Republicans were in

the minority. It is a rule that we still follow, and it will

take effect very soon here.

Again, this was in March of that Presidential election year, not June or July. So that rule was very carefully laid out March 7, 2008--that they didn't intend to approve any more nominees after that point.

CRS went on to note the strong support the majority leader has expressed for the so-called Thurmond rule. According to CRS:

Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has

expressed agreement with Senator Leahy about the existence of

a Thurmond rule. In April 10, 2008, floor remarks, Senator

Reid said, In a Presidential election year, it is always very

tough for judges. That is the way it has been for a long

time, and that is why we have the Thurmond rule and other

such rules.

Five days later, the Majority Leader said:

You know, there is a Thurmond doctrine that says: After

June, we will have to take a real close look at judges in a

Presidential election year.

These quotes indicate not only the expectation, but in fact a support for slowing down and cutting off the confirmation of judges in a Presidential election year.

Even setting aside the so-called Leahy-Thurmond rule, by any objective measure, President Obama has been treated fairly.

For example, with regard to the total number of confirmations, we confirmed 171 district and circuit nominations during President Obama's first term. We also confirmed two Supreme Court nominations during President Obama's first term. When Supreme Court nominations are pending in the committee, all other work on nominations is put on hold.

The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term, and during that term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees.

Let me put it another way. Under similar circumstances when Supreme Court nominees were considered--the Senate confirmed 52 more district and circuit nominees for President Obama than for President Bush.

During the 2008 Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. During the 2012 Presidential election year the Senate greatly exceeded those numbers, having confirmed a total of 49 judges--44 district and 5 circuit. In fact, President Obama's confirmations during the 2012 election year exceed the previous five Presidential election years.

Furthermore, President Obama has the highest percentage of circuit confirmations over the past four Presidential terms. With regard to district confirmations, President Obama had more during the 112th Congress that in any of the previous eight Congresses, going back to 1994.

So those who say that this President is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want to ignore the facts, or both.

With regard to today's nomination, I would like to say a few words about the nominee. I expect he will be approved and congratulate him on his confirmation.

Judge Bacharach graduated from University of Oklahoma with a B.A. in 1981 and earned his J.D. from the Washington University School of Law in 1985. Upon graduation, Judge Bacharach served as a law clerk from 1985 to 1987 to the Honorable William J. Holloway, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After completion of his clerkship, he was hired as an associate at Crowe & Dunlevy, where he became a shareholder in 1994. He remained at the firm until becoming a U.S. magistrate judge in 1999. At Crowe & Dunlevy, he primarily practiced in commercial litigation, focusing on antitrust and franchise litigation. He also handled a considerable number of cases involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, from 1996 to 1998.

From 1997 to 1999, Judge Bacharach served as an adjunct professor of law at the University Of Oklahoma School Of Law. During this period, he was a coinstructor for a class titled ``Civil Pretrial Litigation.''

In 1999, the U.S. district judges for the Western District of Oklahoma appointed Judge Bacharach to be a U.S. magistrate judge. As a magistrate judge, he manages all aspects of the pretrial process in civil and criminal cases: conducting evidentiary hearings, ruling on nondispositive motions, making reports and recommendations regarding dispositive motions, and issuing criminal complaints, search warrants, and arrest warrants.

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

Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Senator Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 281 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I yield back our time.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs.

As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion.

We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate.

One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program.

Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers.

In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture.

As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed.

Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.

For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill.

There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it.

There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net?

These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty.

When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown.

The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net.

In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food.

Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers.

It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food.

For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to

conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S.

Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect.

While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government.

Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments.

There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times.

My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming.

I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help.

It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high.

But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.

Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program.

The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test.

In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program.

Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program.

The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program.

My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress.

I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made.

However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs.

As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion.

We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate.

One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program.

Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers.

In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture.

As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed.

Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.

For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill.

There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it.

There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net?

These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty.

When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown.

The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net.

In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food.

Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers.

It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food.

For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to

conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S.

Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect.

While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government.

Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments.

There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times.

My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming.

I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help.

It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high.

But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.

Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program.

The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test.

In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program.

Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program.

The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program.

My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress.

I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made.

However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Madam President, the Coburn amendment strikes the provisions of the underlying bill that expand the authority of Indian tribal courts to try nonIndians.

As I have stated, there are a number of constitutional questions that the Congressional Research Service has identified with the language that the Coburn amendment would strike. Some arise with respect to the expansion of tribal court jurisdiction. Others are associated with the constitutional rights that would be provided to nonIndian defendants who would face proceedings in Indian tribal courts.

It is not at all clear under the Constitution that Indian tribes possess any inherent authority that the bill purports to recognize. It is also not clear that Congress can constitutionally delegate to tribal courts the authority to try nonIndians. Additionally, tribal courts may not be able to secure basic constitutional rights to criminal defendants.

The jury pool is racially restricted and does not provide the defendant a jury of his peers. Unlike a State, a tribe is not a sovereign entity. Therefore, a tribal proceeding can violate double jeopardy if the Federal government, which would retain concurrent jurisdiction under the bill, also decided to pursue the case.

We recognize that rates of domestic violence are too high in Indian country. The Federal government has a responsibility to address these crimes, whether committed by Indians or by others. It does not follow that the approach taken in this bill is the right one.

We should not engage in a political exercise over tribal sovereignty that has nothing to do with protecting Indian women. We also should not provide an illusion of a remedy that in the end could well be struck down by a court on constitutional grounds.

Instead, we should take clearly constitutional action that will enable the Federal government to better fulfill its responsibilities to women in Indian country given the practical issues that make that difficult currently.

I will support the Coburn amendment.

For 7 or 8 minutes.

If I could have 7 or 8 minutes now.

Mr. President, there has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes even men, has been beneficial to our country.

I support many of the provisions in the majority bill. There are consolidations of grants, cyber stalking, rural programs, assistance for individuals with disabilities, older victims, housing protections, and numerous other provisions I wholeheartedly support. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in

Madam President, I hope to offer an amendment that would be a Republican substitute, so whenever that happens--I don't know exactly when, but I wish to discuss my amendment at this point.

My amendment does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the underlying piece of legislation. There are many ways in which this is so. Under the substitute amendment I will offer, more money goes to the victims and less to bureaucrats. It requires that 10 percent of the grantees be audited every year to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually used to combat domestic violence. It seems to me that when dollars are short, that is a very important point that people ought to take cognizance of.

The Justice Department inspector general conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees between the years 1998 and 2010. Of these 22, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements, ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy record keeping and failure to report in a timely manner. In 2010 one grantee was found by the inspector general to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Department of Justice. A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.

These fiscal irregularities continue. An inspector general audit from last year found that the Violence Against Women Act grant recipient in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 of questionable spending. Also, a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho had about $250,000 in improperly spent funds, including $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position. In Michigan last year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used some of those funds to purchase goods and services for her personal use.

After all of those examples, the point is this: We should make sure Violence Against Women Act money goes to victims. That hasn't been the case under the current situation, and the substitute works toward improving that situation.

The substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. That seems to be pretty common sense.

My amendment will ensure that more money is available for victim services. That is where the money is supposed to go. Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims.

In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to just 7.5 percent. The present underlying bill, S. 47, contains no such limit. If we want the money to go to victims and not to bureaucrats, then those overhead expenses should be capped.

The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of the STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are targeted on sexual assault. The underlying bill sets aside only 20 percent for sexual assault.

The substitute requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization to ensure that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not on ideology. That will result in more effective assistance to the victims. The underlying bill contains no such requirement.

The substitute protects due process rights the majority bill threatens. Now, I am sure the majority writers don't feel their bill threatens due process rights, so let me explain. The majority bill says that college campuses must provide for ``prompt and equitable investigation and resolution'' of charges of violence or stalking. This essentially does nothing but codify a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required the imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge--one that, if proved, rightfully should harm reputation. But if established on a barely-more-probable-than-not standard, reputations can then be ruined unfairly. The substitute eliminates this provision as well as another provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge even under this reduced standard to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy.

The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protective orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have ``minimum contacts'' with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional concerns with this provision. The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.

Tribes could seek protective orders in Federal court. The substitute establishes up to $25 million for Federal prosecutors and magistrates to be placed near tribes for criminal domestic violence and sexual assault cases as well as to hear tribal motions for protective orders.

The grant funds are paid for by reducing the overhead of other Justice Department grant funds. However, there will be no reduction in available grants for law enforcement or victims. These programs are not currently funded to their authorized levels, so the reductions will not reduce services provided.

Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes. The substitute I am referring to creates a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for Federal convictions for forcible rape. The majority bill even eliminates the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for this crime that was in the bill last year and supported last year by the Judiciary Committee.

Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women. Our alternative amendment establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age. I believe the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher and that in light of the systematically lenient sentences that too many Federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions. But the substitute at least is a start. This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography.

Our alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault. This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs and by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious. The underlying bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault. The status quo appears to be fine for the other side.

The Republican substitute establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of a victim. It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life-threatening bodily injury to or the permanent disfigurement of the victim. It increases from 10 to 15 years the mandatory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim is the result. The underlying bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims.

Also included in my substitute are commonsense immigration reforms that put integrity back into the Violence Against Women Act self- petitioning process and the U visa program.

This last Congress, the Judiciary Committee heard the powerful testimony of Julie Poner. She described her personal experience as a victim of immigration marriage fraud and with the fraudulent use of Violence Against Women Act self-petitions. Ms. Poner told us she married her husband in the Czech Republic and moved her husband and kids back to the United States. Within days of receiving notice of an interview with the immigration service to finalize her husband's immigration status, he told her he was divorcing her. He instructed her to file for the divorce and continue to sponsor him for his green card. He then became abusive toward her children. Her husband was a hockey player--6 feet 2 inches tall. However, he knew he risked deportation if the truth came out, so he turned the tables on his wife and claimed he was the one abused--actually being abused by Ms. Poner. Ms. Poner never was allowed to share her side of the story. The immigration service believed his claims and allowed him to remain in the United States.

Our committee also received written statements from more than 20 individuals who maintained they were victims of marriage fraud or were falsely accused as part of the Violence Against Women Act self- petitions. These witnesses told of their firsthand experiences and how foreign nationals prey on U.S. citizens simply to get a green card. The U.S. citizens thought it was all for love, but after saying ``I do,'' the foreign national lodged false allegations, sometimes of physical abuse, in order to get out of the marriage, collect alimony, and secure a green card.

Witnesses have said their side of the story was never--never--heard because under the process used by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the citizen's side of the story is not considered. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services handles all of these green card applications in one service center that relies exclusively on paper, without interviewing either the alleged abused foreign national or the accused citizen.

To this day, I am disappointed that antifraud measures have not been included in the Violence Against Women Act. We cannot allow a law intended to prevent abuse to be manipulated as a pathway to U.S. citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals. If we are truly concerned about helping and protecting the victims of domestic violence, then we should include a provision that allows our immigration agents to hear both sides of the story when a foreign national applies for a green card after alleging domestic violence by a U.S. citizen.

So my amendment, obviously, addresses this fraud. It would require an interview of the applicant and allow the government to gather other evidence and interview other witnesses, including the accused U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

Before adjudicating the self-petition, the government would have to determine whether other investigations or prosecutions are underway for the petitioning alien. If there are other allegations or investigations pending, the immigration adjudication would have to consider all facts.

The second immigration-related section of my amendment would strengthen the requirements of a U visa. Under current law, the requirements for receiving a U visa are generous. My

amendment implements some commonsense requirements to guide law enforcement who help sponsor these individuals.

In addition to confirming that the alien has been helpful, each law enforcement certification will also have to confirm that, one, the alien reported the criminal activity to a law enforcement agency within 120 days of its occurrence; two, the statute of limitations for prosecuting an offense based on the criminal activity has not lapsed; three, the criminal activity is actively under investigation or a prosecution has been commenced; and, four, and last, the alien has information that will assist in identifying the perpetrator of the criminal activity and/or the perpetrator's identity is known.

With these changes, U visas will become a true law enforcement tool. The additional requirements will ensure that the help given is real and significantly advances an actual investigation and prosecution.

Another immigration-related section of my amendment includes a Government Accountability Office report to assess the efficiency and reliability of the process for reviewing applications for U visas and self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act, including whether the process includes adequate safeguards against fraud and abuse.

It will also identify possible improvements in order to reduce fraud and abuse.

The final immigration provision I want to highlight in my substitute would allow the U.S. Government to deport repeat drunk drivers. Section 1005 would add habitual drunk driving to the list of aggravated felonies for which an alien may be deported.

Every day--every day--an innocent life is taken because someone decides to drink and drive. An individual who gets behind the wheel after drinking is not exercising sound judgment.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals are required to be of ``good moral character'' before they are able to adjust status or become citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, habitual drunk driving does not stand in one's way from gaining these benefits. In other words, it is not a deportable offense.

There are numerous stories about individuals who have taken innocent lives because they were driving under the influence of alcohol. In 2011, an undocumented alien in Cook County, IL, killed a man in a drunk driving accident. Unfortunately, he was released by the county, absconded, and remains in the United States. There was also a Virginia man who killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County in 2010. He was an illegal immigrant and repeat offender and never should have been allowed to remain in the country.

There are many more cases, and, unfortunately, the law will allow drunk driving to continue without repercussions for foreign nationals who are on a path to citizenship. It is time that these offenses were classified as an aggravated felony. It is time to get these people off the streets. Residing in the United States is a privilege, not a right.

The Congress has every prerogative to dictate which behavior is acceptable, especially for noncitizens who should be of ``good moral character.'' Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to this bill that would have classified habitual drunk driving offenses as aggravated felonies. But in the bill before us now, the majority has dropped that provision. I cannot understand why we would be so lenient with respect to habitual drunk drivers.

When we get to amendments--the substitute I just talked about--I intend to offer that substitute, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I listened to everything the chairman said. I am not going to rebut point by point. I wish to take a little bit of time to emphasize the key points I have tried to make. In a sense, I might be asking the chairman to think in terms of what we are trying to accomplish just on a couple of points.

First of all, I think this is pointed out with the underlying bill that somehow all victims are not protected. The point is, that for however many years now--I suppose it is 25 years that this legislation has been on the books--all victims are protected under the substitute and, I want to emphasize, under current law.

It was then-Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, writing the current law. His law did not discriminate. As Senator Leahy says, those who provide domestic violence services believe a victim is a victim. They do not discriminate.

On another point about the tribal courts, I made reference to the Congressional Research Service when I gave my longer remarks on this point of questionable constitutional issues. As for the tribal court provisions, the Congressional Research Service has raised serious constitutional problems both with respect to the authority of tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians and the constitutional rights of non- Indians. What is very cruel is to provide tribal women the illusion of a solution that courts may well strike down on constitutional grounds in the future.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Barrett Anderson, a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate and votes concerning S. 47.

Mr. President, I am glad the Senate is now having some discussion among Members not yet on the floor about the issue of immigration because it is a very important problem that we have to deal with. I look forward to the debate that I think is coming up this year on immigration, and I would like to share my thoughts and my past experiences on this issue. I particularly want to share my personal experience from the 1980s amnesty law and what we can learn from that debate.

But before I go into that history, I wish to commend many Senators who are working together to forge a consensus and produce a product on this terribly difficult issue. I commend them for sitting down and agreeing to a set of principles that were put forth in a news conference last week. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I expect to play a role in brokering an even broader consensus with additional Members.

I have read the bipartisan framework for immigration reform this group has written, and the one thing that struck me--in fact, it is the last sentence in the preamble--is this:

We will ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform

to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.

In other words, the group understands we need a long-term solution to the problem. We need a serious fix so future generations don't have to deal with 11 million or 15 million or 30 million people who have come illegally. That sentence is the most important part of that document, and we must not lose sight of the goal expressed by the eight Senators who enunciated that.

But we need to learn from our previous mistakes so we truly don't have to revisit the problem. So let us discuss the 1986 amnesty under President Reagan. There are few of us in the Senate today who were present during that debate. In 1980, President Reagan campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the United States. The President's policies were further shaped by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created in 1978 under President Carter.

President Reagan signed a bill into law on November 6, 1986. So 6 years after he first ran for President, he signed a law. This law was known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The process to finalize the bill was long and arduous. It took years--6 years, to be exact.

In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary Committee and was a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Back then, subcommittees did real work. They actually sat down and wrote legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we

marked up a bill in May 1982--a markup 4 years before the President ever signed it.

Senator Simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included Senators Thurmond, Kennedy, and DeConcini. Senator Thurmond was called to the White House and Senator DeConcini had just been hospitalized, so Senators Simpson, Kennedy, and I brought up amendments and we actually voted on them. Senator Kennedy, on that day, said:.

Immigration reform is one of the most complicated and

difficult issues; it involves human beings, it involves

families, it involves loved ones, children and the separation

of those individuals.

His words would still resonate today.

In 1982, I told my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that I wanted to do the right thing for the United States, and this is what I said at that time:

The real issue here is what is best for United States

citizens. In trying to maintain that perspective, I have come

to the conclusion through the course of attending many

hearings on this issue, that increased border and interior

enforcement along with employer sanctions and a secure worker

eligibility identity system is necessary to regain control of

our borders.

This is a philosophy that continues to guide me on this issue of immigration yet today. But I expressed my concerns with the legalization component at the time. I echoed the recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration. That Commission said a legalization should, No. 1, be consistent with U.S. interests; and, 2, the program should not encourage further undocumented migration. The commission believed that a legalization program should not begin until new enforcement measures had been instituted.

The Commission knew then, as I did and as I know now, that ``without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.'' Those are the words of the Commission. You see, I didn't think permanent residency should be granted until we had a worker eligibility system. I offered an amendment on that point in 1982, but that amendment failed.

The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate passed a bill in 1982, but it did not pass the House of Representatives. We tried again in the next Congress. The Senate passed a bill in 1983, and the House followed in 1984. We convened a conference committee between the House and the Senate, but Walter Mondale came out opposed. So we adjourned for the elections and failed to finalize a bill that year--2 years before President Reagan finally signed a bill.

We returned in 1985 to pass our bill again. That year, Senator Simpson included a provision to trigger the amnesty program only after enforcement measures to curtail illegal immigration were in place. Doesn't that sound familiar? Congress passed a final bill in November 1986. The vote in the Senate was 63 to 24 and the House vote was 238 to 173.

Over the years, many Members have offered amendments to water down the enforcement provision in the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. That was the name of the legislation. Senator Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli were the leaders of that effort in 1986. There was a lot of opposition to employer sanctions, especially by Senator Kennedy. He wanted, in his words, ``criminal penalties to be based only upon injunctive finding of a pattern or practice.'' He tried to sunset the employer sanction. Senator Kennedy also fought hard to move the legalization cutoff date from 1980 to 1982 so more people could benefit from the amnesty.

The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool: control of illegal immigration, the first leg; a legalization program, the second leg; and the third leg, reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the Immigration Reform Act and created a special fund for States to reimburse their costs. The 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories of people: one for individuals who had been present in the United States since 1982; and the second for farm workers who had worked in agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 million people were given amnesty.

We also had enforcement. For the first time ever, we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone here illegally. We set penalties to deter the hiring of people here illegally. We wrote in the bill that ``one essential element of immigration control is an increase in the border patrol and other inspection and enforcement activities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to prevent and deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States and the violation of the terms of their entry.''

So let me again repeat one of the principles the Gang of 8 included in their framework enunciated last week: ``We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.''

Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy doesn't work. Proponents of amnesty today argue we didn't get it right in 1986. I agree the enforcement mechanism in 1986 could have been stronger. That is why they need to be strong this time around. But I am already concerned some will attempt to water down the principles that have been put forth on enforcement measures. President Obama doesn't seem to favor triggers.

The senior Senator from New York said just last week that border security wasn't going to stop legalization. In his words, he said:

We're not using border security as an excuse or block to

the path of citizenship.

Advocacy groups are already talking about ensuring that a border security commission doesn't stand in the way or have veto authority over a legalization program.

One theme from 1986 is shining through today. Some say we need to legalize the millions of people who are already on U.S. soil. They say we need to bring them out of the shadows, know who is here, and give them a chance at U.S. citizenship. They imply that this would be a one- time deal because we would get it right this time--like we thought we got it right in 1986 but didn't.

In the 1980s Senator Simpson was convinced that what we did then would be a permanent solution to our immigration problems. He stated:

We are attempting to assure that this is a one-time only

program. . . . The purpose of legalization is not to award or

reward or include the largest number of persons available. It

is to bring forward into a legal status those most deeply

entrenched in a society they would be least likely to return

home to when the job opportunities no longer are available.

Senator Simpson said that a one-time amnesty would prevent us from a continuing series of amnesties. He said:

The major reason for legalization is to eliminate an

illegal sub-class within our society. This is the legislation

that will eliminate this exploitable group. Some people like

to say that they hope it will clean the slate; that is what

we are trying to do is clean the slate.

Well, those are good intentions by Senator Simpson, but, as I said, they obviously haven't worked. And it is an admonition to those who want to do it right, once and for all, to learn from the mistakes of 1986.

Senator Simpson also said:

The American people, in my mind, will never accept a

legalization program unless they can be assured this is a

one-shot deal and that this is it, this is a one-time

occurrence. And the policymakers in this country are not

going to allow it to happen again and will prevent the

situation which gave rise to it.

Well, as smart as Senator Simpson is--and he is a smart person. I like to see him on television, particularly when he is talking about why the President didn't back the Simpson-Bowles Commission on budget reform and fiscal reform. But here is a person who worked 6 years to get it right so we would never have to visit it again, when we had 3 million people who had come here, illegally violating our laws--get it fixed once and for all and thought he did. But I think now he would admit--and I have to admit because I was on the subcommittee--we didn't get it right. I voted for that.

So now, as I am looking at a group of eight trying to say in the preamble of their working paper: We are going to fix this once and for all, well, you better check that it is not very easy to do that, and you better do it better than we did.

The INS Commissioner at the time in 1986, Alan Nelson, told the committee that the legalization program was ``realistic and humane'' and said further that ``it is clear that this is meant to

be a one-time proposal, and not intended to recur.''

In 1986, the committee report said:

. . . the solution lies in legalizing the status of aliens

who have been present in the United States for several years,

recognizing that past failures to enforce the immigration

laws have allowed them to enter and to settle here.

Also, according to the report, the committee `` . . . strongly believes that a one-time legalization program is a necessary part of an effective enforcement program and that a generous program is an essential part of any immigration reform legislation.''

In 1986 the Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. At the time, President Reagan hailed it as the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. He stated that the legislation was a major step toward meeting the challenge to our sovereignty while at the same time preserving and enhancing the Nation's heritage of legal immigration--a heritage of which we all ought to be proud.

What Congress, the public, and the President did not envision or did not want was another amnesty debate. The American people were told in 1986 that this would be a one-time shot. The incentive to buy in to the argument was the promise of enforcement.

In 1985 Senator Simpson said:

If legalization should occur before more effective

enforcement is available, the illegal population is only

going to grow very swiftly again, and that will create

pressures for additional legalization. And it will not be a

one-time only legalization; it will be a continuing series.

Many believed that employer sanctions were the only way to curtail illegal immigration. One committee report stated that ``unless employer sanctions are enacted, the Committee is concerned that the situation will continue to worsen.''

In 1985 Senator Metzenbaum of Ohio said:

When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way

that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and

that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that

illegal immigrants cannot work in this country.

Knowing what we know now, an immigration reform bill must include tough enforcement measures. We must stop flow at the border. We must expand and enhance legal avenues so that people are not coming here illegally. We must have a strong employment verification program.

Unfortunately, we aren't enforcing the laws we have on the books today. The American people don't trust that we will enforce these laws in the future. We provided amnesty overnight in 1986 and didn't fulfill the other parts of the equation. Border security, enforcement measures, and legal immigration reform need to be the first things on our agenda in 2013.

I chose to talk about this topic today because I believe we can learn from the past. We can learn from our mistakes. This isn't just about our history, it is about our future. Today, people in foreign lands want to be a part of this great Nation. We should feel privileged that people love our country and want to become Americans.

We must make sure the decisions we make with regard to our immigration policies follow our longstanding ideals. We want to welcome new Americans, but we need to live by the rules we have set. We cannot let our welcome mat be trampled on or our system of laws be undermined.

Let me end by echoing the words of President Reagan:

Distance does not discourage illegal immigration to the

United States from all around the globe. The problem of

illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a

problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our

objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly,

and secure system of immigration into this country and not to

discriminate in any way against particular nations or people.

Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our

efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby

preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of

our people: American citizenship.

My hope is that we will preserve the value of American citizenship, as President Reagan said. The path we take today will shape our country for years to come. It is my hope that we can find a solution while learning from our mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit this problem down the road.

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

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as I will do, to support the motion to proceed to the Violence Against Women Act. I expect that many of my Republican colleagues will also vote to proceed to the bill.

There has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes even men, has been beneficial to our country.

There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in S. 47, so I favor proceeding to the bill and offering limited amendments. We can then have a Senate vote, allow the other body to work its will, resolve any differences between the bills, pass a compromised reauthorization bill through both Houses, and get it to the President.

The process on the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress was very disappointing. Previously the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized unanimously. Something similar could have happened again last year, but it didn't. New provisions were brought forth into the bill. Some of the provisions were very controversial. Some provisions even raised serious constitutional concerns, but those on the other side insisted on these provisions without any change and refused to compromise. It appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need.

In the last Congress, both the Republican leader and this Senator offered that the Senate consent to striking a provision which violated the Constitution's origination clause, and then proceed to conference. The majority spurned those efforts on both occasions. Yet today S. 47 has removed the very provision which raised the blue-slip problem with the House of Representatives because, as we all know, under the Constitution all bills raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives. The majority did this only a few months after the majority refused to drop that very same provision and proceed to conference. So this bill could have been to the President last year. The willingness of the majority today to eliminate that very unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill to the President last year. That ought to be a terrible disappointment not only to this Senator but to all the people in the Senate.

It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is various groups will be excluded from protections under the law. Would anyone care to know why? Because the current law protects all victims.

Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every Member of the Senate who was a Member of this body when the Violence Against Women Act was last reauthorized voted for that bill. Neither Vice President Biden nor any other Senator passed a discriminatory bill then. It is not the case that unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists without any compromise whatsoever that any groups will be excluded.

The key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts. That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts. We should focus on providing needed services to Native American women. S. 47 makes political statements and expounds on Native American sovereignty. It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens.

Even the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions with the tribal provisions in this very bill. Negotiations are continuing, and I am quite confident that if we can reach an agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured and would allow the bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. If we are unable to reach agreement in the next couple of days, then I intend to offer a substitute that is much more likely to be accepted by the House and become law.

In the meantime, for this very day, all we are talking about is getting to this bill so we can discuss these issues. I will vote for the motion to proceed, and I ask my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. President, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E- Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, wil1 be a tool for employers who want a legal workforce and it will enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices.

Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents.

Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 bill, Congress looked to create a program to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. We created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires' employment authorization by checking data of employees with records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

Currently, the E-Verify program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. It is a proven tool in combating illegal immigration. Today, I am proposing that the program be a staple in every workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper foreign labor.

My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas.

My bill also addresses identity theft concerns. The Social Security Administration would be required to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. For those who find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person.

While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place for future generations.

Part of the discussion on immigration will be on a reliable employment verification program. People back home want employers to be held accountable. And, employers want to be responsible. People want to see our government do more to reduce the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. We must take this opportunity to make sure that employers are abiding by, and able to abide by, the rules. Let us give them the tools they need to do that. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification and by making E-Verify a permanent program.

Mr. President, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E- Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, wil1 be a tool for employers who want a legal workforce and it will enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices.

Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents.

Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 bill, Congress looked to create a program to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. We created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires' employment authorization by checking data of employees with records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.

Currently, the E-Verify program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. It is a proven tool in combating illegal immigration. Today, I am proposing that the program be a staple in every workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper foreign labor.

My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas.

My bill also addresses identity theft concerns. The Social Security Administration would be required to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. For those who find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person.

While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place for future generations.

Part of the discussion on immigration will be on a reliable employment verification program. People back home want employers to be held accountable. And, employers want to be responsible. People want to see our government do more to reduce the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. We must take this opportunity to make sure that employers are abiding by, and able to abide by, the rules. Let us give them the tools they need to do that. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification and by making E-Verify a permanent program.

Madam President, the Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings soon--and many times--on responding to mass killings such as the recent school shooting in Newtown, CT. Admittedly, that was a terrible tragedy. We are all sympathetic to the families of the victims of that horrendous crime.

President Obama has asked Congress to pass legislation in response to that event. I look forward to the hearings the Judiciary Committee will hold on this very important subject because we need to know more about the problem and potential legislative action.

There will be plenty of occasions to discuss specific gun, mental health, and other legislative responses to Newtown. Today, I would like to address the President's rhetoric when he announced his proposals.

I was surprised at a number of the President's statements. For instance, he is directing the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research into the causes of gun violence. But gun violence is not a disease, and lawful gun ownership is not a disease. It is a constitutionally protected individual right--the famous second amendment right, not only part of the Constitution for 225 years but reinforced by two recent Supreme Court decisions.

The President said we suffer from an ``epidemic of violence.'' Although there is too much violence in America, violent crime rates are at their lowest level in 50 years--not at epidemic levels, at least epidemic when compared to the last 50 years. There is a reason for that.

Police practices and investigative techniques have improved, and we in the Congress have helped with grants to assist local law enforcement, higher incarceration rates for violent criminals, and an end to parole in the Federal system. Notably, crime rates are at their lowest level in 50 years at the very same time more guns are in circulation than ever before. But what has not declined is mass killings, such as we had in Newtown, CT. Of course, this should be our focus.

But what the President said that most surprised me concerned the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Let us consider principles first. The Declaration of Independence listed grievances against British Government action that violated individual natural rights of the colonists at that time.

Even the declaration did not raise grievances against individuals or grant powers to government. The Constitution exists to create a limited federal government. As Madison wrote in Federalist 51:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men

over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first

enable the government to control the governed; and in the

next place oblige it to control itself.

In other words, the Government of the United States under the Constitution is a limited government, and the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, not for the government to give people rights and powers that the government then in turn could take away. On the other hand, the Constitution does give broad powers to the Federal Government, but it separates them among branches and between the State and National Governments.

The Framers believed these structures would adequately control the government so as to protect individual liberty, but the American people disagreed. They believed the Constitution gave the Federal Government so much power that it could be tyrannical and violate individual rights. So as a condition of ratification, they demanded, and received, assurances that a bill of rights would be added to the Constitution. Each of those rights, including the second amendment dealing with guns, was adopted to yet further limit government power and to protect individual rights.

In other words, the people who wrote the Constitution in 1787, in the spirit that they believed at the time, the Constitution, just the way it was originally written, was adequate to protect individual rights. But we were not going to get the Constitution adopted without the promise of a bill of rights. So the Bill of Rights went yet further, but the Bill of Rights is not a limiting factor as evidenced by the ninth amendment, which said none of the previous eight amendments in any way disparages the rights of citizens, all of those natural rights that are too big that we cannot even enumerate.

Then, of course, the tenth amendment went on to say all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the people thereof. Nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the actions of private individuals or granted power to the Federal Government. So how far were the President's remarks from the intent of the Constitution's Framers?

President Obama's remarks turned the Constitution on its head because he said:

The right to worship freely and safely, that right was

denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

The right to assemble peacefully, that right was denied

shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora,

Colorado.

That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and

the pursuit of happiness--[are] fundamental rights that were

denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school

students at Columbine, and elementary school students in

Newtown.

This is incorrect because except for its prohibition on slavery, the Constitution limits only the actions of government, not individuals. When a criminal commits murder, no constitutional right is violated. So, for instance, the right to peacefully assemble is all about protecting individual rights to organize, to protest, or seek to change government action. It is violated, for instance, when government officials hose down civil rights protesters on the sidewalk. That right is trivialized and mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies. Those constitutional rights are not a source of government power to enact legislation, as I think the President has suggested. Quite the opposite. They are designed solely to preserve individual autonomy as against the government.

Protecting individual rights rather than expanding governmental power may be particularly appropriate in addressing mass killings. One of the reasons so many people died in some of the tragedies the President cited was the failure of the Federal Government, the State government, or the local government, but government generally to protect its citizens.

Police not on the scene cannot arrive at a mass shooting such as Newtown in time to stop it. At Columbine the police employed techniques that are no longer used because they did not stop killings that occurred after their arrival. At Virginia Tech, government officials made decisions after the shooting started that some even have argued may well have led to unnecessary deaths.

The President cited constitutional protection of individual rights as a basis for expanding Federal power against private individuals. No wonder millions of Americans fear that Congress may enact legislation that could lead to a tyrannical Federal Government.

I cannot accept the President's claim that ``there will be politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty[,] not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear.''

The President reads the Constitution differently than it has ever been understood: as a source of power against individual rights rather than a check on government power that guarantees those individual rights. This necessarily and understandably leads many citizens to fear that their individual rights will be violated, and that extends well beyond the second amendment.

It should be a matter of deep concern to all of us when the President wants to use the power of government to corral individual rights. For 225 years the

Constitution has established a government that is a servant of the people, not its master. As the Judiciary Committee and all of us consider and debate legislation arising from the tragedy at Newtown, I hope we will proceed with the proper understanding of the relationship that the Constitution establishes between governmental power and individual liberty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.