Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the past several weeks the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. In addition to the three hearings the Committee held this year on the need for comprehensive immigration reform, the Committee held an additional three hearings specifically on this legislative proposal after it was introduced. In those legislative hearings we received testimony from 26 witnesses, including the Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Napolitano, who spoke at length about the bill would make our country safer and help address the current problems in our immigration system.

The Judiciary Committee has benefited from more process and transparency than any previous Committee consideration of immigration reform. In 1985, the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration held three hearings on the Immigration Control and Reform Act and heard testimony from 14 witnesses. In 2006 and 2007, the last two times the Senate tried to enact comprehensive immigration reform, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee held no hearings on his legislative proposal or the McCain-Kennedy proposal or the Kyl-Kennedy formulation.

In 2006, the Republican chairman circulated his legislative proposal just one week before the Committee met to make opening statements. He then revised his legislation and circulated it barely 2 days before the Committee met to begin debate and consider amendments. This year, the Judiciary Committee received the bill text on April 17, and after a period of more than 3 weeks to consider it and draft amendments we began our consideration of amendments to the bill on May 9.

During the Committees consideration of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986 the Committee met four times. We are holding our fourth day of markup today. It is my hope that the Committee will complete our consideration of the bill on Wednesday after 6, extended days of consideration. In 1985, the Committee debated only 11 amendments, adopting 7. The Committee sent the bill to the Senate on as 12-5 vote.

In 2006, the Committee met five times to consider amendments to the Chairman's Securing America's Borders bill, conducted 60 votes and adopted 54 amendments. The bill was then reported to the Senate on a vote of 12 to 6. In 2007, the bill was not considered by the Judiciary Committee at all before floor consideration.

Already this year the Committee has met for 4 days to consider amendments to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. During just the first three executive sessions, the Committee has considered 99 amendments. Of those 50--more than half--were offered by the Republican minority. During those first 3 days, the Committee debated and voted to accept 67 amendments to the bill. That is already more amendments than were debated in 2006 and 6 times as many amendments as were debated in 1986. Of those accepted, 20 were offered by Republican members. That includes several amendments sponsored by Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn and a few sponsored by Senator Sessions. The Committee has acted in a bipartisan way to accept amendments authored by Senators from both sides of the aisle and by Senators who are proponents of the bill and some by Senators who can fairly be considered opponents of the bill.

The Committee will continue its consideration of the legislation after tonight's votes. As of 4:30 today, we have considered an additional 45 amendments, including 22 offered by Republicans, and 23 offered by Democrats.

One example of the Committee's bipartisan efforts to improve this legislation was offered by Senators Hatch, Coons and Klobuchar, which will increase certain immigration fees and provide 70 percent of the funds collected to the states to improve and enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States by improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and training in the United States. Senator Schumer offered a second degree amendment which would direct some of this funding to promote STEM education in groups that are underrepresented in the sciences, such as women and racial minorities. Both amendments were accepted by the Committee by unanimous consent.

The Committee also unanimously approved my amendment to permanently authorize and further strengthen the EB-5 Regional Center Program which will benefit the economy. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services--USCIS--estimates that the EB-5 Regional Center Program has created tens of thousands of American jobs and has attracted more than $1 billion in investment in communities all across the United States since 2006.

These amendments are just a few of the many offered to promote jobs and innovation in the non-immigration visa provisions in Title IV of the bill. Other bipartisan proposals to provide assistance for American workers to apply for jobs in the technology sector and establish employee reporting requirements to address potential abuse of the visa system have also been adopted.

The Committee has voted to accept amendments offered by nearly every member of the minority on the Judiciary Committee. Senators Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, and Flake have all offered amendments adopted by the Committee to improve the bill. Senators Feinstein, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal and Hirono have also contributed important amendments to improve the legislation. With the adoption of these amendments, the Committee demonstrated its ability to act in a bipartisan manner to improve this historic legislation.

In an unprecedented effort to achieve transparency during the Judiciary Committee's public proceedings, and to ensure the American people could follow the Committee's consideration of the bill, I made public all 301 amendments filed on Tuesday, May 7, by posting them on the Judiciary Committee's website. In real time, as the Committee accepts or rejects amendments, the Committee's website is updated to reflect which amendments are modified, accepted or fail.

The Judiciary Committee's mark up of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act is not yet finished but we have completed work on two of the four titles of the bill as well as the important ``trigger'' provisions. We have been able to focus our extensive consideration of this complex bill for three weeks and still achieve a fair and transparent process for Committee consideration. With the help of the Senators who serve so diligently on the Judiciary Committee from both sides of aisle, I hope by the end of this week

that the Committee will have completed its consideration of the legislation and that we will report a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the Senate with the recommendation that it be considered and passed. I look forward to bringing this legislation before the full Senate at the beginning of our next work period.

I note, I hope we will finish that this week. We will go very late tonight, very late tomorrow night, very late Wednesday night, all day Thursday, and all day Friday, if necessary, until we get it finished.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate Agriculture Committee once again reported to the full Senate a bipartisan farm bill, and I am pleased the Senate has turned to its consideration this week. I compliment the distinguished chair, Senator Stabenow, who has done Herculean duties. The bill before us represents nearly 2 years of hard work to satisfy the widely varied agricultural interests of this country, while supporting food assistance programs for those in need. The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act will save $23 billion over 10 years, which is remarkable given the fiscal restraints we face, and was overwhelmingly supported by the members of the agriculture committee by a vote of 15-5.

Unfortunately, due to the House's inaction on the Senate-passed bill last year, many farm bill programs expired, while others were temporarily extended at the end of the year, making it all the more imperative that we work together now to ensure we move ahead with a bill in the next few months. I was glad that in December we were able to delay and prevent the ``dairy cliff'' from roiling markets worldwide and inflating dairy prices, which would have wreaked havoc in the marketplace and on our farms. But the short-term extension of the Farm Bill is no rational way to legislate, and the last-minute extension left dozens of critical agriculture programs stranded without funding. We must not repeat that process.

The bill before us contains many of the same improvements included in the 2012 Senate-passed bill, while making important updates to reflect new fiscal realities and maintaining the integrity of the policies we worked so hard to pass last year. The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act makes an investment in American agriculture that will benefit our producers, our dairy farmers, our rural communities, our Main Street businesses, taxpayers, and consumers, all while reducing the deficit by $23 billion.

Every Farm Bill is important to the Green Mountain State and to all the states of our nation as a matter of national security. Very few countries can boast that they can feed themselves. We have the ability to nourish 320-plus million Americans. This represents an important part of our national security.

Agriculture is a pillar of Vermont's economy and of our Nation's economy. So it is with this farm bill that we have produced in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. One of many key components of this bill, in terms of Vermont and Vermont's economy, is a significant dairy reform proposal that offers the best hope in decades of helping producers and consumers step off the dangerous rollercoaster of wild price swings in the markets in which dairy farmers must sell their time-sensitive products. I believe this is key to our consideration of a farm bill, and I know it is what farmers in Vermont are watching closely; I have been hearing from them regularly in strong support of stabilization and margin insurance working in tandem. We simply must protect our dairy farmers from the volatility of turbulent price swings with a financially sound risk management program to help farmers manage risk and margin volatility, and do so without driving up the cost to the government.

As the author of the Organic Foods Production Act, I am extremely pleased this bill continues to make strong improvements for organic agriculture. I am also pleased that the bill once again includes a policy to give the National Organic Program much-needed authority to effectively protect and enforce organic integrity. In addition to enforcing the integrity of the organic brand, I am committed to seeing that this bill treats all farmers fairly. We made great strides last year in making improvements to crop insurance so that it will adequately compensate organic producers for their losses. Similar changes are needed in the Environmental Quality Incentive Program to eliminate the unfair lower payment limit applied solely to organic farmers seeking to enroll in the program's Organic Initiative.

Another important compromise in this bill is found in the trade title, where the proposal expands the success of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement pilot program from the 2008 farm bill, and also increases the funds available to support strategic prepositioning, which brings food aid commodities to at-risk regions before food emergencies strike. I look forward to working with Senators to find further improvements in how we can best provide emergency food aid and international development programs that have the flexibility to react quickly in times of emergency, avoid disrupting local markets, and increase efficiency so we can save money and feed more people.

This legislation also includes support for vital anti-hunger programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Unfortunately, with so many Americans still struggling to put food on the table, nutrition assistance and emergency feeding programs have become even more crucial. The bill also contains initiatives to encourage better health, increased access to local foods, nutrition for children and seniors, and to support self-sufficiency and food security in our Nation's low- income communities while tackling the difficult problem of ``food deserts.'' I am also pleased that Chairwoman Stabenow included language I offered as an amendment in committee last year to make it easier for SNAP participants to buy local foods through a Community Supported Agriculture Share, CSA, membership.

But at a time when more Americans than ever before are at risk of going hungry and food pantry shelves across the country are bare, these programs could be made even stronger by dedicating more resources to help the neediest among us. I hope during our consideration of this bill we can work to increase support for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, SNAP employment and training programs, and community food projects to the level included in last year's farm bill. These programs are essential in our communities, and I hope we can invest as much in these programs this year as we did last year.

I am disappointed, however, that the bill before the Senate today once again includes $4 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, which will predominately come from northeastern States. I understand this cut is part of a larger compromise on behalf of Chairwoman Stabenow, who has been a strong supporter of these nutrition assistance programs. Ensuring these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all Americans in need is a key part to enacting a strong farm bill for this country.

This is why I am particularly concerned about the bill the House will consider which includes five times the cuts to nutrition assistance as the Senate bill, and $4 billion more than the House included in their committee bill last year. These cuts will needlessly eliminate millions of low-income Americans from this program. The House bill would mean that several thousand children would lose eligibility for free school lunches. In Vermont, one in five children lives in food insecure homes and I know that number is even higher in some other States. It is shameful for any child in this country to go hungry and I hope the Senate will continue to oppose these draconian cuts to nutrition assistance.

The Senate agriculture committee's chairwoman and ranking member, and both of their staffs, should be applauded for the great work they have done to swiftly move this bipartisan bill through committee and now onto the Senate floor in record speed. I hope the Senate can once again move forward in a bipartisan way to pass the farm bill this week, and I hope the

House moves forward as well so we might reconcile our differences before the expiration in September of the current short-term extension.

Madam President, all we are saying is that if you are going to be getting relief from the Federal Government but you have a better way to rebuild your culverts, you can do it that way rather than to have the ones that failed before.

I am sure there are a whole lot of States here that will be affected by this amendment, and I hope it will be approved.

Mr. President, Vermonters are fiercely proud of those who serve in our National Guard. For decades--and never more so than in the last decade--when the Nation sounded the call to service, the Vermont National Guard has answered. Today, I would like to pay tribute to Ed and Karen Matayka, two Vermont National Guard soldiers whose perseverance in the face of huge odds is an inspiration to all.

The Army brought Ed and Karen together--they met at combat medic training in Texas--and they have been an Army family ever since. The Mataykas deployed twice together, once to Kuwait immediately following their wedding, and a second time to Afghanistan with Vermont's 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in 2010. It was during that second deployment when tragedy struck.

While running a convoy mission in Afghanistan, Ed's vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device, leaving him with multiple injuries, including the amputation of his legs. Some doctors questioned whether Ed would survive.

Yet he never gave up. With Karen's support and the assistance of skilled Army doctors, Ed is well on the road to recovery. Not only is Ed making great strides in his personal health, with newly authorized assistance for in

vitro fertilization for service members, Ed and Karen recently welcomed the arrival of twins: Ryan David and Alana Marie. They are the first Army family to have used the technique after Congress passed a law authorizing TRICARE coverage of reproductive therapies for military families dealing with the consequences of catastrophic injury.

As a Vermonter, I am proud of Ed and Karen. Ryan and Alana are surely lucky to have them as parents.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent U.S. Army article entitled ``Double amputee gets another chance of starting family'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, each and every day, thousands of men and women in law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect our cities and towns, enforce our laws, and keep us safe. Just last month, we witnessed the superb investigative efforts of the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who helped bring the Boston Marathon bombing suspect to face justice. Yet the senseless murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier was a reminder of the danger that our law enforcement professionals routinely face. This week, which has come to be known as National Police Week, provides us with the opportunity not only to remember those law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, but also to honor their memories by better equipping those officers who continue to serve our communities. Today I am proud to introduce two measures that will do just that.

More than 50 years ago, President Kennedy designated May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, to recognize the sacrifices of law enforcement officers who had died in the course of their duties. Despite the progress that has been made in improving officer safety, there is still much work to be done. Last year, 120 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers tragically lost their lives in the line of duty.

As they do every year, law enforcement officers and their families from across the United States will come to Washington this week to pay tribute to their fallen colleagues. And as I do each year, I will stand with them. Once again I am proud to submit a resolution officially recognizing the designation of May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring this resolution by Senator Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee.

We can also honor the memories of the officers who lost their lives by taking concrete action to help protect and equip those officers who continue to serve. That is why I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feinstein and Senator Klobuchar have joined me in introducing today the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act Reauthorization of 2013. Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers, by helping to provide them with vital bulletproof vests and body armor.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program has had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities. Since 1999, the program has assisted state and local jurisdictions with the purchase of over one million bulletproof vests, and since 1987 body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones.

As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. The men and women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the ultimate sacrifice. These are the men and women who we ask to keep our streets safe and to protect our communities. These are the men and women who approach a car at 3 a.m. during a traffic stop, not knowing who is behind the wheel or what might happen next. And these are the men and women who are the first ones to respond when there is a shooting at a school, or an attack in our community. As citizens and as Senators, the least we can do is to equip these officers with the protection they need to give them a better sense of security--a better chance of survival. Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it is something I hope all Senators will support.

Every additional officer who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this program is one more officer who has a far better chance of surviving a violent attack. Protecting the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the continuation of this program.

I hope all Senators will join me. The safety of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree.

I look forward to the enactment of these two important measures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, each and every day, thousands of men and women in law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect our cities and towns, enforce our laws, and keep us safe. Just last month, we witnessed the superb investigative efforts of the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who helped bring the Boston Marathon bombing suspect to face justice. Yet the senseless murder of MIT police officer Sean Collier was a reminder of the danger that our law enforcement professionals routinely face. This week, which has come to be known as National Police Week, provides us with the opportunity not only to remember those law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, but also to honor their memories by better equipping those officers who continue to serve our communities. Today I am proud to introduce two measures that will do just that.

More than 50 years ago, President Kennedy designated May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, to recognize the sacrifices of law enforcement officers who had died in the course of their duties. Despite the progress that has been made in improving officer safety, there is still much work to be done. Last year, 120 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers tragically lost their lives in the line of duty.

As they do every year, law enforcement officers and their families from across the United States will come to Washington this week to pay tribute to their fallen colleagues. And as I do each year, I will stand with them. Once again I am proud to submit a resolution officially recognizing the designation of May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and I am pleased to be joined in sponsoring this resolution by Senator Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee.

We can also honor the memories of the officers who lost their lives by taking concrete action to help protect and equip those officers who continue to serve. That is why I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Durbin, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feinstein and Senator Klobuchar have joined me in introducing today the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act Reauthorization of 2013. Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers, by helping to provide them with vital bulletproof vests and body armor.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program has had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities. Since 1999, the program has assisted state and local jurisdictions with the purchase of over one million bulletproof vests, and since 1987 body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones.

As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. The men and women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the ultimate sacrifice. These are the men and women who we ask to keep our streets safe and to protect our communities. These are the men and women who approach a car at 3 a.m. during a traffic stop, not knowing who is behind the wheel or what might happen next. And these are the men and women who are the first ones to respond when there is a shooting at a school, or an attack in our community. As citizens and as Senators, the least we can do is to equip these officers with the protection they need to give them a better sense of security--a better chance of survival. Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it is something I hope all Senators will support.

Every additional officer who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this program is one more officer who has a far better chance of surviving a violent attack. Protecting the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the continuation of this program.

I hope all Senators will join me. The safety of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree.

I look forward to the enactment of these two important measures.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the last month, Senate Republicans have failed to refute the facts of what they have done to President Obama's judicial nominations. The Senate's work on judicial nominations should not be about partisan point-scoring; it should be about ensuring the American people have access to justice. I rejected that partisan tit-for-tat approach while moving to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.

The question for the Senate is, Are we doing enough to ensure that hard working Americans have access to justice so that they can have their rights protected? At a time when 10 percent of the Federal bench remains vacant, I do not think that we are. The standard we set during the Bush administration for quickly moving to confirm noncontroversial nominees is not being met.

Senate Republicans who take such pride in the number of nominees being confirmed this year ignore how many were needlessly delayed from confirmation last year and what they have done during the last 4 years. That is why after the 14 confirmations this year, we remain more than 20 confirmations behind the pace we set for President Bush's circuit and district nominees, and vacancies remain nearly twice as high as they were at this point during President Bush's second term. For all their self-congratulatory statements, they cannot refute the following: We are not even keeping up with attrition. Vacancies have increased, not decreased, since the start of this year. President Obama's judicial nominees have faced unprecedented delays and obstruction by Senate Republicans. We have yet to finish the work that could and should have been completed last year. There are still a dozen judicial nominees with bipartisan support being denied confirmation.

A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service compares the whole of President Obama's first term to the whole of President Bush's first term, and the contrast could not be more clear. The median Senate floor wait time for President Obama's district nominees was five times longer than for President Bush's. President Obama's circuit nominees faced even longer delays, and their median wait time was 7.3 times longer than for President Bush's circuit nominees. The comparison is even worse if we look just at nominees who were reported and confirmed unanimously. President Bush's unanimously confirmed circuit nominees had a median wait time of just 14 days. Compare that to the 130.5 days for President Obama's unanimous nominees. That is more than nine times longer. Even the nonpartisan CRS calls this a ``notable change.'' There is no good reason for such unprecedented delays, but those are the facts.

The confirmations in the last few months does not change the reality of what has happened over the last 4 years. If a baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1- for-10 and not a very good hitter.

So while I welcome the confirmations this year, I note both that 10 of the 14 could and should have been confirmed last year and that there are another dozen nominees pending before the Senate, including four who also could have been confirmed last year. We can and must do more for Americans who look to our courts for justice. They deserve better than long delays and empty courtrooms. With 10 percent of our Federal bench vacant and a backlog of nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar, it is clear that the Senate is not working up to its full capacity on nominations.

It is true that some vacancies do not have nominees. I wish Republican home State Senators would work with President Obama to fill these vacancies. Nor do those vacancies excuse their unwillingness to complete action on the consensus judicial nominees who are ready to be confirmed but whose confirmations are being delayed. Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly, Shelly Dick, William Orrick, Nelson Roman, Sheri Chappell, Michael McShane, Nitza Quinones Alejandro, Luis Restrepo, Jeffrey Schmehl, Kenneth Gonzales, and Gregory Phillips are awaiting confirmation and Sri Srinivasan, Ray Chen, and Jennifer Dorsey can be reported to the Senate today, without further delay. So long as there is a backlog of nominees before the Senate, the fault for failing to confirm these nominees lies solely with Senate Republicans.

The Judicial Conference recently released their judgeship recommendations. Based upon the caseloads of our Federal courts, the conference recommended the creation of 91 new judgeships. That is in addition to the 86 judgeships that are currently vacant. This means that the effective vacancy rate on the Federal bench is over 18 percent. A vacancy rate this high is harmful to the individuals and businesses that depend on our courts for speedy justice. The damage is even more acute in the busiest district courts, such as those in border States that have heavy immigration-related caseloads. In a Washington Post article about the CRS report, Jonathan Bernstein wrote: ``Ordinary people who just want to get their legal matters taken care of promptly have suffered because of all the vacancies on federal courts.'' I ask unanimous consent to have the article entitled ``New report confirms GOP obstructionism is unprecedented'' printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Unneccessarily prolonged vacancies are not the only way that partisanship in Washington is hurting our courts. Sequestration continues to affect our justice system. The chief judge of the Fourth Circuit, William B. Traxler, Jr., has written: ``The impact of sequestration on the Judiciary is particularly harsh because the courts have no control over their workload. They must respond to all cases that are filed . . . .'' He went on to say:

[A] significant problem arises when budget cuts impact our

responsibilities under the Constitution. This happens when we

cannot afford to fulfill the Sixth Amendment right to

representation for indigents charged with crimes. The

predictable result is that criminal prosecutions will slow

and our legal system will not operate as efficiently. This

will cost us all in many different ways.

I share Chief Judge Traxler's concern, and I ask unanimous consent to have his statement printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Our Federal judiciary provides justice to 310 million Americans and gives full effect to the laws that we pass here in the Senate. We have a constitutional responsibility to those 310 million Americans to make sure that they can count on our Federal courts to provide justice. Federal courts should not be held hostage to partisan obstruction, and we need to keep our courts fully funded so that they can continue to meet the promise of timely justice that is embedded in our Constitution.

Shelly Dick is nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Since 1994, she has been in private practice at the Law Offices of Shelly D. Dick, LLC, in Baton Rouge and was previously an associate with the law firm of Gary Field Landry and Dornier. Additionally, since 2008, she has served as an ad hoc hearing officer for the Louisiana Workforce Commission. Shelly Dick has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Vitter, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 2

months ago. She is one of the pending nominees who could have been expedited and confirmed last year. When confirmed, Shelly Dick will be the first woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

Nelson Roman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He currently serves as an associate justice for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. He previously served as a justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Civil Term, Bronx County, as a judge for the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County, and as a judge of the housing part of the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County. Prior to becoming a judge, he was an assistant district attorney in Kings County, NY, as well as a special narcotics assistant district attorney in New York City. From 1995 to 1998, Justice Roman served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jose A. Padilla, Jr. of the New York County Civil Court. He has the support of his home State Senators, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago.

Senate Republicans have a long way to go to match the record of cooperation on consensus nominees that Senate Democrats established during the Bush administration, but I hope that the confirmations so far this year indicate that they are finally reconsidering their wholesale obstruction of President Obama's nominees. After today's votes, 10 more judicial nominees remain pending, and all were reported with bipartisan support. All Senate Democrats are ready to vote on each of them to allow them to get to work for the American people. We can make real progress if Senate Republicans are willing to join us.

I ask unanimous consent that the article and statement to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, to many Vermonters, Joel Najman is part of rock-and-roll radio history. Taking the reins of the Vermont Public Radio show ``My Place'' 30 years ago this spring, he captivated rock- and-roll enthusiasts from around the region and staked his claim in Vermont radio history.

Marcelle and I have known Joel for many years and have followed his career with great interest. Starting in radio at Vermont's own Middlebury College, Joel went on to WJOY in South Burlington and continues to work WDEV in Waterbury, in addition to hosting ``My Place'' on Vermont Public Radio.

Joel first joined ``My Place'' as a substitute host in 1982. After taking over full time in 1983, he took the show far beyond an ``oldies rock radio hour'' and made it his mission to apply cultural and historical context to rock music for his listeners. In each hour-long episode, he examines rock-and-roll history, providing his listeners with details that often take years to accumulate. He has even been known to spend his entire radio hour picking apart a single song.

In 2004, he was inducted into the Vermont Broadcaster's Hall of Fame, and the Vermont State Legislature recently passed a resolution honoring him as a ``rock and roll impresario.'' Today, I would like to congratulate Joel for his 30 years as host of ``My Place.'' I ask unanimous consent an article from the Vermont publication, Seven Days, entitled, ``Vermont Legislature Honors `My Place' Host Joel Najman'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am glad the Senate is finally confirming David Medine as Chairman of the bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, PCLOB. The confirmation of this nominee is a significant victory for all Americans who care about safeguarding our privacy rights and civil liberties. The American people now have a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that is at full strength. This Board should help ensure that we honor our fundamental values as we implement a strategy to keep our Nation safe. Today's victory is also a reminder of the challenges we face, and the commitment we must keep, to protect personal privacy as new technologies emerge. Last month, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported bipartisan legislation that Senator Lee and I authored to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. I hope that the Senate will promptly consider and pass this good privacy bill, as well.

The Judiciary Committee favorably reported this nomination last May along with a bipartisan group of nominees to serve as members of the Board. This nomination should not have taken a year to be considered and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate finally confirmed all of the other individuals, those nominated to serve as members of the Board, last August. Republican Senators refused to vote on the chairman's nomination. This was a needless delay and prevented the Board from functioning at full strength. This is reminiscent of how they have obstructed this President's nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as so many of his judicial nominees. Now, after a year of obstruction, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board we in Congress worked so hard to establish will finally be able to begin to carry out its important work on behalf of the American people.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is a guardian of Americans'

privacy rights and civil liberties as well as an essential part of our national security strategy. When we worked to create this Board in the wake of the Nation's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, we did so to ensure that our fundamental rights and liberties would be preserved as government takes steps to better secure our Nation. In the digital age, we must do more to protect our Nation from cyber attacks. But we must do so in a way that protects privacy and respects our fundamental freedoms.

Protecting national security and protecting Americans' fundamental rights are not in conflict. We can--and must--do both. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should help ensure that we do now that the Senate has finally been allowed to act on the nomination of Chairman Medine.

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

Madam President, this Friday, April 26, is ``World IP Day,'' when countries around the world celebrate the role of intellectual property in encouraging innovation and creativity. It is an opportunity for us to acknowledge the authors, artists, and musicians who enrich our lives; the inventors whose work is transforming our digital economy; and creators around the world.

Whether you are an inventor, a creative artist, or a small business owner protecting your brand, you deserve the benefit of your work. By protecting those works, we incentivize future developments that benefit us all. As lawmakers, our goal must be to provide strong and effective protections for creators, while ensuring that their creations can be appreciated, used, and enjoyed. This policy is central to the American economy, where 35 percent of our GDP is generated by IP-related industries. A vibrant intellectual property system fosters growth not only in our country, but also around the world.

Earlier this month, I introduced legislation that would strengthen an innovation program created by the Patent and Trademark Office, the Patents for Humanity Program. The Patents for Humanity Program rewards a select number of exceptional innovators who apply their intellectual property to address global humanitarian needs. At the first Patents for Humanity Awards ceremony 2 weeks ago, I was proud to honor inventors who had worked to improve the diagnosis of devastating diseases, supply access to clean water, and

combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. Our patent system protects that life-changing work and, in the case of the Patents for Humanity Program, helps promote its use for the global good.

As we find ways to incentivize and promote widespread innovation, we must uphold the vital protections that allow innovators to grow and thrive. We must work to deter and prevent the theft of intellectual property, which hurts creators, costs jobs, and impedes economic growth. In our interconnected age, no country, or even group of countries, can address that problem alone. More than ever, we need to work together to recognize the value of intellectual property so that inventors and creators around the world may receive the benefit of their work and continue to create it.

We must also come together to streamline processes that will help innovators to fuel growth in the future. Eighteen months ago, Congress took an important step with passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which modernized our patent system for the 21st century and helped harmonize our laws with systems around the world. Last December, I was pleased to expand on those improvements with passage of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act, which will help American inventors by simplifying and expediting the process for obtaining patent protections overseas.

There is more Congress can do to improve the patent system and address the problem of patent trolling, by increasing transparency and accountability. I intend to work in a bipartisan and bicameral manner on legislation that will ensure the real party in interest of a patent is disclosed, protect unknowing and innocent purchasers of allegedly infringing products from unwarranted suits, and continue to improve patent quality, and we will explore other means to make trolling activity unprofitable.

Our intellectual property system supports the creative and inventive talents of our citizens and provides the vital fuel of our economy. I hope others will join me in celebrating World IP Day.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. I am pleased to be joined this year by Senator Cornyn as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I know that Senator Cornyn shares my commitment to ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system.

It is fitting that we introduce this bill now, during Crime Victims' Rights week, as we honor the victims of crime across the country, and reaffirm our commitment to seeking justice on their behalf. That commitment feels particularly important now, in light of this year's horrific events in Boston and Newtown. Nothing can eliminate the pain inflicted by those tragedies, but we can work together to ensure that the needs of those families are met so that they can find healing and begin to rebuild their lives.

This legislation takes important steps to strengthen rights for victims of crime. For example, it establishes an affirmative right to be informed of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert those rights in court.

In addition to being Crime Victims' Rights Week, today is National DNA Day and it is appropriate to acknowledge the power DNA testing has had in improving our criminal justice system. One example of that impact has been in the testing of rape kits. This legislation reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause.

The legislation also includes significant measures to improve the administration of justice in our courts, including the use of post- conviction DNA testing. The bill is built on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing

necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong.

The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform.

The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, it is clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them.

In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail. A California man, Brian Banks, was exonerated after spending five years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He recently signed with the Atlanta Falcons and will realize his dream of playing professional football. Brian's story had a happy ending, but too many wrongly convicted people are not as lucky. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong.

To that end, this legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence.

This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and is having an impact. The legislation we introduce today clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are given further guidance about how to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more states to participate.

This legislation takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States in developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. Fifty years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, it is past time to ensure that all criminal defendants have effective representation before government authority takes away their liberty.

The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need.

The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators.

In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements while responsibly reducing the total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term.

I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed.

Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Justice for All Act, originally enacted in 2004, was an unprecedented bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation. It was the most significant step Congress had taken in many years to improve the quality of justice in this country. I am pleased to be joined this year by Senator Cornyn as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I know that Senator Cornyn shares my commitment to ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system.

It is fitting that we introduce this bill now, during Crime Victims' Rights week, as we honor the victims of crime across the country, and reaffirm our commitment to seeking justice on their behalf. That commitment feels particularly important now, in light of this year's horrific events in Boston and Newtown. Nothing can eliminate the pain inflicted by those tragedies, but we can work together to ensure that the needs of those families are met so that they can find healing and begin to rebuild their lives.

This legislation takes important steps to strengthen rights for victims of crime. For example, it establishes an affirmative right to be informed of their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and other key laws, and it takes several steps to make it easier for crime victims to assert those rights in court.

In addition to being Crime Victims' Rights Week, today is National DNA Day and it is appropriate to acknowledge the power DNA testing has had in improving our criminal justice system. One example of that impact has been in the testing of rape kits. This legislation reauthorizes the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Reduction Act, which has provided significant funding to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits so that victims need not live in fear while kits languish in storage. That program is named after Debbie Smith who waited years after being attacked before her rape kit was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She and her husband Rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others will not experience the ordeal she went through. I thank Debbie and Rob for their continuing help on this extremely important cause.

The legislation also includes significant measures to improve the administration of justice in our courts, including the use of post- conviction DNA testing. The bill is built on the work I began in 2000, when I introduced the Innocence Protection Act, which sought to ensure that defendants in the most serious cases receive competent representation and, where appropriate, access to post-conviction DNA testing

necessary to prove their innocence in those cases where the system got it grievously wrong.

The Innocence Protection Act became a key component of the Justice for All Act. The act also included vital provisions to ensure that crime victims would have the rights and protections they need and deserve and that States and communities would take major steps to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and ensure prompt justice for victims of sexual assault. These and other important criminal justice provisions made the Justice for All Act a groundbreaking achievement in criminal justice reform.

The programs created by the Justice for All Act have had an enormous impact, and it is crucial that we reauthorize them. Unfortunately, it is clear that simply reauthorizing the existing law is not enough. Significant problems remain, and we must work together to address them.

In the years since the Justice for All Act passed, we have seen too many cases of people found to be innocent after spending years in jail. A California man, Brian Banks, was exonerated after spending five years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He recently signed with the Atlanta Falcons and will realize his dream of playing professional football. Brian's story had a happy ending, but too many wrongly convicted people are not as lucky. It is an outrage when an innocent person is punished, and this injustice is compounded when the true perpetrator remains on the streets, able to commit more crimes. We are all less safe when the system gets it wrong.

To that end, this legislation strengthens the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing Grant Program, one of the key programs created in the Innocence Protection Act. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA evidence.

This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program put into place. Now, money has gone out to a number of States, and is having an impact. The legislation we introduce today clarifies the conditions set for this program so that participating States are required to preserve key evidence, which is crucial, but are given further guidance about how to do so in a way that is attainable and will allow more states to participate.

This legislation takes important steps to ensure that all criminal defendants, including those who cannot afford a lawyer, receive effective representation. It requires the Department of Justice to assist States in developing an effective and efficient system of indigent defense. I know as a former prosecutor, that the system only works as it should when each side is well represented by competent and well-trained counsel. Fifty years after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, it is past time to ensure that all criminal defendants have effective representation before government authority takes away their liberty.

The bill also asks States to produce comprehensive plans for their criminal justice systems, which will help to ensure that criminal justice systems operate effectively as a whole and that all parts of the system work together and receive the resources they need.

The bill reauthorizes and improves key grant programs in a variety of areas throughout the criminal justice system. Importantly, it increases authorized funding for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant program, which is a vital program to assist forensic laboratories in performing the many forensic tests that are essential to solving crimes and prosecuting perpetrators.

In these times of tight budgets, it is important to note that this bill would make all of these improvements while responsibly reducing the total authorized funding under the Justice For All Act and that many of these changes will help States, communities, and the Federal Government save money in the long term.

I thank the many law enforcement and criminal justice organizations that have helped to pinpoint the needed improvements that this law attempts to solve and I appreciate their ongoing support in seeing it passed.

Today, we rededicate ourselves to building a criminal justice system in which the innocent remain free, the guilty are punished, and all sides have the tools, resources, and knowledge they need to advance the cause of justice. Americans need and deserve a criminal justice system which keeps us safe, ensures fairness and accuracy, and fulfills the promise of our constitution. This bill will take important steps to bring us closer to that goal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, what is in the parliamentary situation?

Madam President, I will be speaking shortly on matters of immigration. I just wanted to report to the Senate that since February the Senate Judiciary Committee has held six hearings on immigration. We concluded the last one yesterday with the testimony of Secretary Janet Napolitano.

In all, we have had dozens of hearings on immigration in the last couple of years, but these six were especially important for the Senate and for our work in the Judiciary Committee. Tomorrow we will put the immigration bill on the Judiciary Committee's agenda.

Under our normal practice, I have consulted with the ranking member. We both agree. The bill would be held over until the first Thursday we come back from our early May recess. This actually works well because it will give all members of the committee, and those Senators not on the committee, more time to read it.

Once we start marking up the bill and voting on it in committee, it would be my intention to not go Thursday to Thursday, which is normal committee procedure, but to hold markups several days a week. I am told that people do not intend to delay this immigration bill for the sake of delay, and I hope that is so. This is too important an issue.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, to go back, earlier this morning I spoke of the immigration hearings we have held in the Judiciary Committee and how important they are, not only to the Senate but to the country.

It was an extraordinary series of hearings. Forty-two witnesses spoke about the need for meaningful immigration reform. I believe there is a chance to have real immigration reform this year, the kind of reform that our great and wonderful country deserves. This is a country where every one of us is a child, grandchild, or great grandchild of immigrants; a country where a large percentage of the major Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants.

We heard from ``Dreamers'' and farmers, business people, religious leaders, economists, government officials, practitioners, law enforcement advocates, and others. We heard from those opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, and we heard from those who support it.

Since the bipartisan legislation was introduced a week ago, we held 3 days of hearings with live testimony from 26 witnesses. I have accommodated many member requests. I worked with ranking member Chuck Grassley to ensure that all viewpoints were heard. In fact, no witness he suggested was denied the opportunity to appear and testify. I think we all realize--whether Republican or Democrat--no matter how we may vote, we should have a clear record.

I asked Secretary Napolitano to return to testify, again, even though she just did so in February. She was scheduled last week. But with the horrific circumstances in Boston, of course we all understood why she had to cancel that appearance. She came yesterday and answered every single question asked of her.

As I said earlier, when we meet tomorrow the right will be exercised under our committee rules to hold over the immigration reform bill for a week. I have discussed this with Senator Grassley, and I think we both agree that this is a wise thing to do, to hold it over and give people that extra time to read the bill. Next week is a recess week, so we will be able to turn to marking up the legislation in May. By that point, the bill will have been publicly available for three weeks before we vote on any aspect of it or consider any amendments offered to it. Everybody will have had a chance to see it. We live-streamed all the hearings. All of this is on the Judiciary Committee Web site.

The legislative proposal we are examining is a result of the significant work on a bipartisan compromise. I do not want to see comprehensive immigration reform fall victim to entrenched or partisan opposition even though it may well exist. In the course of my hearings I quoted my dear friend of many years, Ted Kennedy, one of the lions in this body. In the summer of 2007, he and I had worked very closely with former President George W. Bush to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. But that immigration reform was being blocked in the Senate. He spoke of our disappointment. He said:

But we are in this struggle for the long haul. Today's

defeat will not stand. As we continue the battle, we will

have ample inspiration in the lives of the immigrants all

around us.

From Jamestown, to the Pilgrims, to the Irish, to today's

workers, people have come to this country in search of

opportunity. They have sought nothing more than a chance to

work hard and bring a better life to themselves and their

families. They come to our country with their hearts and

minds full of hope.

I urge all Senators to consider the recent testimony of Jose Antonio Vargas, Gaby Pacheco, and the families who can be made more secure by enacting comprehensive immigration reform.

The dysfunction in our current immigration system affects all of us. I hope that our history and our decency can inspire us finally to take action to reform our immigration laws. I know this is something my maternal grandparents, who were so proud to come to this country, speaking a different language, beginning a business, raising a family, seeing their grandson become a Member of the Senate, I know that is the way they would feel.

I know my wife's parents, who came to this country speaking a different language, having their children here in the United States and having stood with Marcelle and me and my parents when I was sworn into the Senate, and then watching these children and grandchildren, understand what a wonderful country this is.

We are a great and good country. But we are also a country that becomes greater and better because of the diversity brought to our shores. That is true from the beginning of this country to today. Let's make it possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Bob and Christine Stiller and their Stiller Family Foundation for receiving the Most Outstanding Foundation Award of 2013 from the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

The Most Outstanding Foundation award is given annually to honor a foundation that demonstrates outstanding commitment through financial support, innovation, encouragement, and motivation of others to take leadership roles in philanthropy and community involvement.

Previous recipients of this prestigious award include the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, among many others.

The Stiller Family Foundation has benefited youth centers, arts organizations, urban renewal projects, and education institutions throughout Vermont. The foundation recently announced a major grant to create the Robert P. Stiller School of Business at the Champlain College of Vermont and established a permanent endowment for the study of appreciative inquiry at the school.

My wife Marcelle and I have known Bob and Christine a long time. As lifelong philanthropists, they have made a positive impact in communities around the globe through their pointed leadership, innovative ideas, and generous funding. It is hard to mention all of their many achievements. As founder of the highly successful Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Bob continues to promote sustainable business practices through environmental and fair trade initiatives all over the world. And Christine has been a strong advocate for Champlain College's Single Parents Program, which offers single parents the opportunity to break generational cycles of poverty by helping them fund a college education. Vermont is a better place because of all the work done by Bob and Christine Stiller.

I request unanimous consent that this article from the Burlington Free Press be printed at this point in the Record.

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

Mr. President, this is a case of Washington being Big Brother and telling each one of the States--whether it is Wyoming, Vermont, or Connecticut--what they must do. We have no idea how it will affect them. We do know it is going to cut off a lot of money to law enforcement because it is telling States, even though the State legislators have gone out for the year, they need to have a one-size- fits-all. There has not been a hearing on it. It is a feel-good amendment. It will hurt our States but, most importantly, it will hurt law enforcement.

If you wish to have a discussion on this subject, that is fine. Let's have a hearing. Let's find out what it is. To do this feel-good amendment and inform every one of our 50 States there is 2 minutes of debate, inform our 50 States we know better than they do and this is what they should do, makes no sense.

I oppose the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.