Floor Statements

Madam President, Monday's confirmation of Judge Beverly O'Connell marked the 150th confirmation of a Federal trial court nomination by President Obama. Thanks to Senate Republicans' concerted effort to filibuster, obstruct and delay his moderate judicial nominees, it took almost 1 year longer to reach this milestone than it did when his Republican predecessor was serving as President, 10 months in fact. I have repeatedly asked Senate Republicans to abandon their destructive tactics. Their unwillingness to do so shows that Senate Republicans are still focused on obstructing this President, rather than helping meet the needs of the American people and our judiciary.

The ability of hardworking Americans to get their day in court and have their rights protected should not be subject to this kind of wrongheaded, partisan obstructionism. Today, the Senate is being allowed to vote on just 2 of the 15 judicial nominees ready for confirmation. Ten of the judicial nominees confirmed this year could and should have been confirmed last year. There are still four judicial nominees in that category, who are part of the backlog on which Senate Republicans insist on maintaining. And like so many of President Obama's district court nominees, Analisa Torres and Derrick Watson have had to wait more than 60 days after being voted on by the Judiciary Committee to be considered by the Senate. These systematic delays help explain why we remain more than 20 confirmations behind the pace we set with President Bush's nominees. We can make up much of that ground if Senate Republicans would just agree to a vote on all 15 nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. All of them received bipartisan support in committee, and all but one were unanimously approved by the committee. There is no good reason for further delay, especially at a time when judicial vacancies remain at 85.

Let us clear the backlog of judicial nominees ready for confirmation. Republicans have recently started pointing to 2004. In 1 month in 2004, a presidential election year, we were able to clear a backlog of consensus nominees by confirming 20. This insistence on delay and holding over consensus nominees from 1 year to the next has been constant. Seventeen of the confirmations for which Senate Republicans now seek credit over the past 2 years should have been confirmed more than 2 years ago in the preceding Congress. That is when they allowed only 60 judicial confirmations to take place during President Obama's first 2 years in office, the lowest total for a President in over 30 years. Indeed, during President Obama's first year in office, Senate Republicans stalled all but 12 of his circuit and district nominees. That was the lowest 1-year confirmation total since the Eisenhower administration, when the Federal bench was barely \1/3\ the size it is today.

The fact is that we have these 15 nominees waiting for a vote. We have 15 judgeships that can be filled so that hardworking Americans in New York, Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming can have better access to justice. All Senate Democrats are prepared to vote on all of these nominees today.

Judge Analisa Torres is nominated to serve on the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. She currently serves as a New York State Supreme Court Justice. Previously, she served as an acting New York State Supreme Court Justice, a judge for the Civil Court of the City of New York, and as a judge for the Criminal Court of the City of New York. She received her A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School. Judge Torres has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand.

Derrick Kahala Watson is nominated to the US District Court for the District of Hawaii. He currently serves as the chief of the Civil Division in the US attorney's office in the District of Hawaii. Prior to that, he was an assistant United States attorney in the same office. From 1995 to 2000, he served as an assistant United States attorney in the Northern District of California and served as deputy chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000. In addition to his service at the US attorney's office, he was in private practice for more than a decade. Derrick Watson received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his A.B., cum laude, from Harvard College. He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Hirono and Senator Schatz.

Both nominees were unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by voice vote 2 months ago.

Like almost all of the other nominees pending on the Executive Calendar, these are the kind of mainstream and consensus nominees who should be confirmed quickly. For nearly 4 years vacancies have been at or above 80, putting an unnecessary strain on our Federal courts. Sequestration cuts have added to the pressure on our justice system. Let us vote on the remaining nominees so that they can get to work for the American people.

Madam President, my home State of Vermont does not require its citizens to obtain a permit to carry a firearm in a concealed manner, and the people of Vermont have exercised these privileges carefully and respectfully. Citizens respect the wishes of private property owners and restrictions in government buildings, and this is a regulatory framework that has worked in Vermont, and it is a set of rules that have been considered and adopted by the people and elected officials of Vermont, without interference from those who do not know Vermont or its citizens.

These are judgments made by State elected officials with the advice of State law enforcement leaders. These are not judgments made for the States by Federal legislators who think they know better and want to second guess the best judgments of State and local officials.

In matters of State police power, the Congress has traditionally not meddled in State affairs. That is how it has always been and that is how it should remain. That is what the 10th Amendment provides. What might work in Vermont might not work in Chicago. And it is not up to me as a Senator from Vermont to tell the elected and law enforcement officials in Illinois what their public safety laws should be.

The amendment we now consider would nullify the laws of all 50 States

that govern who from out of State may or may not carry a concealed weapon in that State. In fact, this amendment would permit a citizen of a rural Western State to bring his guns to the District of Columbia or Boston or other urban cities and override their public safety determinations. This is not a well-considered approach, and it is an immense imposition on law enforcement officials in a host State who will be commandeered by the Federal Government to police the concealed carry laws of 49 other States. I voted against an early version of the Brady bill because it imposed unconstitutional burdens on State and local law enforcement. The Supreme Court agreed with my view and ruled that unconstitutional.

In addition, this amendment would force a jurisdiction that is located within a State that may issue concealed carry permits but which does not allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in that political jurisdiction to favor out-of-state residents by requiring that they be allowed to carry a gun even though the instate resident is prohibited from doing so. This amendment should offend everyone's sense of State sovereignty and self-government.

This amendment is not about correcting some existing restriction of the Second Amendment right. That right is secure. Nor can it be about acting where the States have refused to act. The States are doing an exceptional job of entering reciprocity agreements with each other, based upon discussions and agreements between State officials and without meddling by the Federal Government. Thirty-seven States have reciprocity agreements with at least one other State; some have agreements with many other States. This amendment would unnecessarily trample on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It places an ideology over the rights reserved to the sovereign States.

I would hope that those who claim to believe in the principles of federalism would recognize the dangers associated with legislating a one-size-fits-all approach in matters of public safety and local concern. And what of the practical concerns, which Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey laid out in testimony in the House Judiciary Committee in September of 2011?

The Federal preemption of State laws represents a serious encroachment on State sovereignty. It is a subject we have examined thoroughly in the Judiciary Committee during the years of the previous administration and in relation to efforts then to strip the citizens of Vermont and other States of their rights to seek justice in the courts.

In a case called Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court rejected efforts by a pharmaceutical company to shield itself from accountability under State law with Federal bureaucratic regulations when it grievously harmed a Vermonter. The Federal preemption of State laws is a very serious matter and one that the Congress should not consider lightly.

Yet, despite the fact that the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and four executive business meetings to debate and consider legislative proposals, not once did the measure we now debate come up for discussion. Now, without having any regular order, the proponents demand that this amendment be made law.

This amendment, which would federalize the concealed carry laws of every State, is a slippery slope. If we vote to enact such precedent, then a future Congress with different views for a different era would have firm ground to preempt the laws of all 50 States to restrict or condition the ability of citizens to carry a concealed firearm.

We, as Senators, ought to be very careful about the path we are asked to take with this amendment.

This is not a measured approach. It is blanket preemption. It is not like the measured approach I took with the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which permits highly qualified active and retired law enforcement officials to carry firearms across State lines. In that law, we have rigorous requirements. We have law enforcement officials who have training, who are sworn to uphold the law, and who have dedicated their careers to protecting the public. That is a measured approach, and it is far different from the amendment we debate now.

Many in this Chamber talk reverently about the importance of State sovereignty and the 10th Amendment. Many in this Chamber decry the presence of ``big government'' in the lives of Americans. Well, nothing reeks of big government like trampling the judgment of 50 State legislatures that are in a far better position than we are to set local public safety policy.

This amendment comes at the behest of special interests. As I have said repeatedly, we should not be taking orders from special interests. We are the Senators elected to represent the best interests of 314 million Americans.

I urge Senators to have the courage to oppose this amendment. It is unwise and unnecessary. For those who appreciate the ability of citizens to carry concealed firearms, opposing this amendment will help preserve those abilities.

Let's respect the virtues of federalism and let the States act in their own best judgment about who may or may not carry a concealed firearm in their State. Let's be cautious in our approach in matters of State police power and respect the values enshrined in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Madam President, today the Senate is scheduled to vote on an amendment proposed as a partisan Republican alternative to the bipartisan legislation that was reported by the Judiciary Committee and that has been the business before the Senate for the last 2 weeks. The committee held three hearings and four markups starting in January and concluding in the middle of March. Republican members of the Committee participated but did not offer this substitute at any juncture. When Majority Leader Reid introduced the Safe Communities, Safe Schools bill on March 21 and then was forced to end a filibuster to proceed to it last week, the sponsors of this measure were among those filibustering. They justified their filibuster on the fiction that the bill before the Senate somehow violated the Second Amendment. Of course it does not. If further proof were needed, the fact that they have now reversed themselves to offer a substitute that steals large portions of the bipartisan underlying bill provisions would be it.

The amendment the Senate is now being forced to vote on contains 81 pages of legislative text, and was filed just this morning, so I am not even sure of the amendment number. This last-minute alternative is apparently being offered so that Republicans who fear crossing the Washington gun lobby can go home and say that they voted for something. I invited all members of the Judiciary Committee to work with us and to bring forward their best ideas to reduce gun violence in our society and to have them be fully heard in the Judiciary Committee, in regular order. When Senator Grassley and others came forward, we worked with them to incorporate changes in the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking bill and the Boxer school safety bill to accommodate them. This is our reward. No good deed goes unpunished apparently. I am disappointed that after the tremendous effort so many Senators on the Judiciary Committee made to carefully consider and debate legislation, to reach across the aisle to build consensus, and to work with a seriousness of purpose that would honor the victims of Newtown, Connecticut and all of those whose lives have been affected by gun violence, that this is their response.

The Republican amendment was never proposed during the months of Judiciary Committee consideration. It has not been the subject of hearings. No Senator who supports this effort will have any standing to demand regular order on any other matter, least of all on consideration of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that will next be considered by the Judiciary Committee.

I oppose the Republican alternative and encourage other Senators who are serious about making progress in the effort to reduce gun violence to do the same. This amendment is not a serious effort to fulfill the extraordinarily important obligation we took on as Senators after the tragedy in Connecticut.

The Senators from Connecticut have spoken eloquently over hours and days on the Senate floor. Senators Kaine and Warner from Virginia gave moving remarks on the anniversary of the tragedy at Virginia Tech. They have helped to celebrate the memory of those who lost their lives in Connecticut, in Virginia, and in other terrible events. They have carried to the Senate the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding that we take meaningful action. I commend them for their work. There are measures on which we will vote today that will carry out our responsibility. The alternative that Republicans put forward for a cover vote is, in my view, not one of them.

I am especially disappointed that after working so closely with the Ranking Member on the legislation to combat straw purchasing and firearms trafficking that Senator Collins, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Kirk and I introduced, and after earning his support on that measure in the Judiciary Committee, that his amendment contains a proposal that will take us backward, not forward, when it comes to dealing with these serious problems. Anyone serious about the problems on the Southwest border involving straw purchasing and gun trafficking should be determined to give law enforcement the tools they desperately need. The Leahy-Collins bill does that. The watered-down version shoehorned into this Republican alternative does not.

The legislation that Senator Collins and I introduced was drafted with input from law enforcement. It provides the tools law enforcement needs to combat straw purchasing and gun trafficking, and it has the support of numerous major law enforcement organizations. We did not just work with law enforcement, however. We consulted with other Senators from both sides of the aisle, including Senator Grassley, and incorporated their suggestions. We even worked with the National Rifle Association to address all of its substantive concerns.

In contrast, the junior Senator from Texas, a self-proclaimed leader of the filibuster against considering any gun violence legislation, introduced his watered-down version of our bill on straw purchasing and gun trafficking just this week. He did not offer amendments when the Judiciary Committee, a Committee on which he is a member, met to consider and report the Leahy-Collins-Gillibrand bill. His bill takes the serious proposal Senator Collins, Senator Gillibrand and I developed and strips out almost all of the important tools that law enforcement requested and needs. As far as I can tell, his bill has not been endorsed by any law enforcement groups. Ours is endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the FBI Agents Association, the National District Attorney's Association, and all nine of the members of the National

Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and others.

There is no wonder as to why. The trafficking provisions suggested by the Republican alternative essentially give straw purchasers a road map to avoid prosecution. As long as straw purchasers ask no questions and bury their heads in the sand, they cannot be held accountable. The Republican substitute requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a straw purchaser knew for certain that he was buying for a prohibited person. A straw purchaser could have every suspicion in the world that the actual buyer is a dangerous criminal, but as long as he deliberately shields himself from getting confirmation of that fact, he is untouchable. Willful ignorance will be their shield.

The substitute also gives gun traffickers the same road map. The bill Senator Collins and I have proposed prohibits an individual from buying a gun and giving it to someone you know will then give it to a criminal. The Republican proposal inexplicably removes this provision. So as long as the organizer of a firearms trafficking ring uses a middle-man between the straw purchaser and the ultimate recipient, it is simple to avoid prosecution for providing guns to dangerous criminals.

The proposal from the junior Senator from Texas also takes out the provision in the Leahy-Collins bill that allows law enforcement to use wire taps to investigate straw purchasers and gun traffickers. And it also takes away the ability to prosecute gun traffickers for money laundering and racketeering and to seize their ill-gotten proceeds. How does this make us safer? What is the rationale for weakening these law enforcement tools?

Not content to undermine the straw purchasing and gun trafficking measures Senator Collins and I have proposed, the Republican substitute aids the Mexican drug cartels by eliminating an existing tool that the Justice Department needs to combat violence on the Southwest border. The ability of cartels to purchase firearms in the Southwest has led to terrible violence. In order to investigate and stem the flow of dangerous weapons to the cartels, the Justice Department requires licensed gun dealers in that area to report sales of multiple long guns such as assault rifles to the ATF. This practice has provided law enforcement with major investigative leads, yet the Republican proposal prohibits it.

The Republican substitute also interferes with state prosecutions of gun crimes. Under existing law, a person who is traveling through a state with a gun he is not allowed to possess in that state can assert as a defense that he was merely traveling between two states in which his possession would be legal. This is fair. But the Republican proposal takes this defense and places the burden on the state prosecutor to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases, even if the defendant has offered no evidence at all to support his claim. If the state prosecutor fails to meet this high burden, the Republican proposal requires the state to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. This is a clear intrusion on the longstanding police powers of states.

I previously have spoken about the amendment proposed by Senators Manchin and Toomey. That amendment contains a number of important provisions. One aspect of the amendment that has not received enough attention is the additional due process it affords to veterans who have been deemed mentally incompetent by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The amendment provides that before veterans who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent lose their right to a firearm, they can go before a board or a court to evaluate whether they can safely use a firearm. The amendment requires that veterans be notified of this opportunity. This adds to existing law that allows veterans who are no longer mentally incompetent to regain their right to a firearm. These laws are important and I support them.

I cannot support the Republican proposal, however, because it rolls back the existing laws that prohibit mentally ill people from possessing and using guns. It rolls back these laws not only for veterans, but for many civilians deemed mentally incompetent. It would force the FBI to purge existing records from the background check system for those mentally incompetent people. This is dangerous. It is unwise, and it makes us less safe.

What this Republican alternative proposes is weak and unworkable and will be of little use to law enforcement. I urge all Senators to reject this proposal. We have heard much criticism and blame directed at the Justice Department for not adequately enforcing existing laws. But when Congress passes toothless laws it is Congress and not law enforcement that is to blame. The Republican alternative is not a serious solution to the plague of gun violence.

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

Mr. President, in watching this debate, at times I see a Senator who actually wants to stand up

and be the conscience of the Nation. Unfortunately, some quickly want to step back from that precipice and be the conscience of a lobby on one side or the other.

As far as being the conscience, we saw that last Thursday when the Senate rejected the ill-conceived filibuster against considering the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. The vast majority of American people did not want it filibustered. They wanted us to have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no, not vote maybe, which is what a filibuster is.

After considering the bipartisan efforts of Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey to plug loopholes in the background check system, the Senate will consider a partisan alternative offered by Senator Grassley, and I will speak about that in a moment.

Before I do that, I would like to talk about what Senator Collins and I have done. I have a bipartisan amendment that will prevent criminals from circumventing the existing background check system.

Amendment No. 713

(Purpose: To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms

trafficking)

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 713, the Leahy-Collins amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment makes some minor changes to the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our act is designed to give law enforcement the necessary tools to combat the practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. An example of that is when somebody legally buys a handgun for $500 and then turns around and sells it for $1,500 to a drug cartel or somebody who could not buy it themselves. Usually they buy a lot more than one weapon; they buy a whole lot. They will buy them legally and then sell them to people who could never legally buy them. We have seen what that has done in Mexico with its drug cartels. We have seen what it has done with the drug cartels and gangs in some of our major cities.

I commend Senator Collins for her work in developing this amendment and for her strong support of the law enforcement officials who requested this legislation to help them keep our communities safe.

Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasers put guns into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. And it was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long.

We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, New York, this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September.

We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

This Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act--originally introduced as S. 54--will make important changes and better equip law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. As I said, these are people who are not prohibited by Federal law from purchasing a gun. They purchase a firearm on behalf of a person or at the direction of a drug trafficker, criminal, or organization, and that is how these large criminal organizations are supported. That is how these illegally obtained guns are often sold and resold across State lines. Of course, this results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities.

Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe. We recently saw a case where a woman was arrested as a straw purchaser after she bought a weapon for a man who then, it appears from the evidence, used that weapon to kill the head of the Colorado prison system. That man was blocked from buying a weapon. Somebody else bought it for him.

Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as misrepresentations on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity.

Our bill and this amendment would change that. They will add two new provisions to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms and trafficking in firearms. The bill establishes tough penalties for these offenses in an effort to punish and, importantly, deter this conduct. I was accused at the Committee markup on this bill of being too tough on these crimes. I believe we need a meaningful solution to these serious problems.

Another key provision of our bipartisan bill is that it complements existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States. In light of what we know is occurring, particularly on our Southwest border, this is an important improvement to current law and another tool that was needed but missing over the last few years.

The provisions in our legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problems of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. Our bill does not affect lawful purchases from Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. We listened to concerns about family members who give firearms as gifts and other transfers that are not designed to get around the existing background check system. As a result, the bill contains important exemptions for the innocent transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest.

In an effort to encourage even broader support for our bill, Senator Collins and I have made changes to our bipartisan bill to emphasize that this legislation will have no adverse effect that would impact law-abiding gun owners. We have consulted a lot of people on this matter, including law enforcement officials, prosecutors, victims, and the National Rifle Association. We have consulted gun owners and others. We have brought together some very diverse views, which is what that legislation is supposed to do. We want to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. I am pleased that our discussions with all of these groups resulted in legislation that reflects diverse views yet is a focused approach to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking, while protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

The amendment has all of the important provisions of the measure that was debated and voted on by the Judiciary Committee and passed with a bipartisan majority. These include two new Federal criminal statutes that will help law enforcement go after straw purchasers and firearms traffickers.

After the bill was reported out of Committee, a Committee report was filed in relation to it that made our intent plain in the meaning of the bill. The clarifying language likewise ensures that lawful gun purchasers can buy firearms from licensed dealers as bona fide gifts or raffles or as contest prizes and so on. This amendment should also eliminate any concern about imposing potential liability on the original purchaser of a firearm for the criminal acts of the ultimate recipient of the firearm after it is conveyed by that purchaser and reconveyed a number of times. The amendment also includes other technical changes to conform the bill to existing law regarding the forfeiture of firearms and ammunition.

Throughout our committee process and discussions, no one was questioning the constitutionality of these provisions, and they have all accepted the fact that they will help law enforcement. In fact, the required nexus to interstate commerce in the bill is identical to that already in existing law. Our bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers.

I worked with Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, and others to provide a real world, common sense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. There is wide agreement that straw purchasing and illegal gun trafficking have to be stopped, and that is why law enforcement so strongly supports our amendment. In fact, this measure was introduced at the request of law enforcement officials who have said for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities.

Like our original bill, the amendment we now offer has the support of numerous law enforcement organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police; the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association; the FBI Agents Association, the National District Attorneys Association--an organization on which I was privileged to serve as vice president; and all nine member organizations of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence.

I mention all these things because we took months doing this. We met with everybody. We worked. We listened to opposing views and supporting views. Then we had hearings and then we had a markup. But all of a sudden, late this morning, with no hearings, no markup, no chance to debate it, we have a partisan alternative led by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In contrast to the broad law enforcement support we have earned for our attempt to combat gun trafficking and strawpurchasing, there is suddenly a Republican alternative which would gut the protections and tools that our law enforcement community needs. That partisan alternative was released late this morning and surprisingly the effort is led by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of their provisions was considered through regular order or even offered and debated in committee.

People always speak about regular order, but none of these provisions were considered through regular order. None of them were offered or debated in committee. All of a sudden, wait, wait. We can't have this thing that law enforcement wants. We can't have this thing that might actually stop drug cartels and organized crime from getting these guns. We have suddenly come up with a new idea this morning. Sorry we don't have time to talk about it. Sorry we don't have time to have hearings. Sorry we can't go through the committee. Sorry we can't have votes. Trust us.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I took my responsibility seriously when the committee considered gun violence legislation. We held three hearings. We had four lengthy markups. There were many amendments circulated and we debated them. The distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. He was there for all those hearings. He was there for all that debate. They went on sometimes for a long time, but we voted up or down, and we worked to broker bipartisan compromises.

The results: Some of those same members who serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee circulated this lengthy substitute--just hours before the scheduled vote on their half-baked alternative. It is a weak and counterproductive alternative. The substitute is a weak and counterproductive alternative, and this weak and counterproductive alternative, this partisan substitute, has not been the subject of one single hearing or any committee debate or vote.

The lengthy partisan substitute does several things to make our communities less safe. One of its provisions directly undermines what Senator Collins and I wish to accomplish. We want to stop trafficking. We want to stop drug cartels and organized crime and bank robbers and those who would murder government officials. We want to stop them from being able to get these guns through straw purchases. The Republican substitute requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a straw purchaser knew for certain that he was buying for a prohibited person. A straw purchaser could have every suspicion in the world that the actual buyer is a dangerous criminal, but as long as he deliberately shields himself from getting confirmation of that fact, he is untouchable. Willful ignorance will be their shield.

What this alternative Republican amendment does--the one that was suddenly sprung on us with no hearings, no votes late today--is it actually has a roadmap of how to avoid prosecution, how to do the things the drug cartels want and organized crime wants, and to make sure they will never be prosecuted. As long as straw purchasers ask no questions, bury their heads in the sand, they can't be held accountable. They can buy these guns. They can meet somebody in a back alley who is trying to hide his face and say: I could have bought this legally. Give it to me. Here is your money. Besides that, I will pay a 300-percent profit and then get away with it.

The Republican substitute will help the Mexican drug cartels by eliminating an existing tool that the Justice Department needs to combat violence on the Southwest border. The Republican substitute also interferes with state prosecutions of gun crimes. Under existing law, a person who is traveling through a state with a gun he is not allowed to possess in that state can assert as a defense that he was merely traveling between two states in which his possession would be legal. This is fair. But the Republican proposal takes this defense and places the burden on the state prosecutor to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt in all cases, even if the defendant has offered no evidence at all to support his claim. If the state prosecutor fails to meet this high burden, the Republican proposal requires the state to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. This is a clear intrusion on the longstanding police powers of states.

I urge everyone who cares about helping law enforcement and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to oppose the Republican substitute, number 725, and to support the bipartisan, Leahy-Collins amendment, number 713.

I appreciate that. I hope we will not pass this. I hope we will not strip State and Federal law enforcement in their effort of trying to protect us.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator suggested this went through the process, went through the Judiciary Committee. I have been on the committee for 36 years. I have been chairman for a number of years. I don't recall when this happened. Would the Senator from Texas tell me when it was ever voted on. Did we ever have a markup? Did we ever have a hearing?

Mr. President our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families of yesterday's cowardly attack. I appreciate the updates I have received from the FBI about the matter and await the outcome of their investigation. The President is right to emphasize that Americans will not be terrorized.

In the aftermath of the explosions in Boston we were reminded once again how Americans come to each other's aid in a crisis. We witnessed citizens and first responders selflessly helping others. Just as first responders in Newtown responded in minutes and went headlong into a situation without knowing what they would encounter, in Boston we saw similar heroism.

First responders risk their lives to protect the public. That is what they do over and over again across the country. I believe that as a result of the bravery and speedy response of first responders in Connecticut, lives may have been saved on December 14. And we remember today that 6 years ago the Nation was stunned by the rampage at Virginia Tech.

Our law enforcement officials deserve our respect and support. Law enforcement officers and first responders risk their lives to protect the public. That is why I find it so disappointing to hear some blame law enforcement for not preventing these tragedies.

The legislation before the Senate today to improve the Nation's background checks system and prosecute gun trafficking would significantly assist law enforcement in their efforts to keep the public safe. I spoke yesterday about the pending amendment, the bipartisan Manchin-Toomey amendment to close the gun show and other loopholes in the background check system while respecting and protecting the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners. The Senate has had this amendment before it since last Thursday. I trust the Senate will vote on it today, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.

We have had background checks for decades. These checks are an accepted part of the process of buying a gun. Like millions of other responsible gun owners, I understand that this check is necessary to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are dangerous to themselves and others due to mental illness.

Since 1998, more than 2 million sales to prohibited people have been prevented thanks to background checks. That is 2 million times a potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun was denied a gun. Is that a good thing, a positive thing, in the interest of safer communities? Of course it is. Who can credibly argue otherwise?

What we are now trying to do is improve the background check system. We all know there is a huge loophole in our background check system. Criminals and others prohibited from buying guns at gun stores can get around the background check requirement by going to gun shows. I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. This loophole needs to be closed.

The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way that does not infringe upon Second Amendment rights. Sales at gun shows and sales using online or print advertising will now be governed by the same requirements as gun stores in Vermont and elsewhere. This will make us safer. It is focused on gun shows and commercial sales, not family gifts or transfers between friends and neighbors. The bill does not require background checks for temporary transfers of guns for hunting or target shooting. Instead, the bill requires background checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who intend to do harm.

Why would we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow dangerous criminals to buy guns without background checks? This is a simple matter of common sense. The NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for ``every sale at every gun show.''

This is about plugging loopholes in background checks. No court has held that background checks, which have been with us for decades, violate the Second Amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held that the Second Amendment provide an individual right in the Heller case, it also said that ``longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill'' do not violate the Second Amendment. No one should oppose this amendment on Second Amendments grounds because it does not undermine the Second Amendment.

Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under existing gun laws, and some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a valid excuse for Congress to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive, those efforts complement each other.

I have noted that Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. This is something we can come together to accomplish. No one can or will take our Second Amendment rights or our guns away. They are not at risk. But lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit crimes of violence. This is something we can come together and do to make America safer and more secure.

I have also been encouraging the Senator from West Virginia in his efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity, and perseverance. I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in this legislative effort. Together, they have done the Senate and the country a great service.

Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense. Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution.

Amendment No. 714

Several opponents to the gun violence measure pending have tried to justify their opposition to legislation designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by claiming that these measures would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown or any other mass killings. I think that argument makes no sense.

We should be responding to protect our communities with a broad approach to help law enforcement go after gun traffickers and straw purchasers who arm drug cartels and plug loopholes in our background check system.

In addition to those important steps, the pending amendment to limit ammunition clip size directly addresses some of our most recent gun violence tragedies. It is clear that several victims of gun violence would be alive today if the gunman had been required to pause momentarily to change his ammunition clip. When I decided to call for hearings on gun violence before the first Judiciary Committee several months ago, I wanted the public to hear directly from victims of gun violence. We began our first of three hearings with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She called on us to act in the wake of too many American tragedies and her battle to recover from gun violence is an inspiration to all of us fighting for legislation today.

At that same hearing, her husband, CAPT Mark Kelly, testified about the day his wife was gunned down. He said:

The shooter in Tucson showed up with two 33-round

magazines, one of which was in his 9 millimeter. He unloaded

the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. Very quickly. It

all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into

Gabby's head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9-year-old girl

named Christina-Taylor Green, who was very interested in

democracy and our Government and really deserved a full life

committed to advancing those ideas. If he had a 10-round

magazine--well, let me back up. When he tried to reload one

33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped

it. And a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed it, and it gave

bystanders a time to tackle him. I contend if that same thing

happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine

with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not have

access to a high-capacity magazine, and the same thing

happened, Christina-Taylor Green would be alive today.

That was a direct quote from CAPT Mark Kelly's testimony. It is chilling to think that something we could pass today could save the next Christina-Taylor Green.

The Judiciary Committee also heard from Neil Heslin, whose son was murdered at Sandy Hook. He testified in support of limiting high- capacity magazines. We cannot forget his son Jesse or the 19 other precious children who were gunned down in December or the brave educators who sacrificed their lives trying to protect children.

A reasonable limit on the size of ammunition clips is a modest step going forward. This amendment would not apply retroactively. No lawful gun owner will have to turn over anything.

It is a cruel irony that in some States we are more protective of the

deer being hunted than our children. In Vermont, we have very few laws affecting the right to bear arms, but we do limit the ammunition clips used in hunting. It is not a threat to the Second Amendment to limit clip size in hunting, so why is it a threat to limit them when the potential targets are people? The reality is that the Second Amendment is not under threat, but our children are.

I am a responsible gun owner. I have owned and shot weapons with many different styles of ammunition clips, so I understand the issue we are considering. Requiring a gun owner to change clips more often is not too much to ask when we see the human costs of high-capacity magazines in mass shootings. The law enforcement organizations that work on the frontlines in our cities and towns support this amendment. The grieving families are right to raise this issue because even if we save one or two lives with this change, it is worth it.

Just as I said in 1993 when I voted for the Feinstein-DeConcini bill, this amendment is not going to solve all violent crime, but it will make people safer. I believe that limiting the size of ammunition clips going forward could save lives in the next mass shooting. I do not want to wonder if we could have done more when another son or daughter is killed. I will support this amendment. It is the right thing to do for public safety and to honor the young lives lost in Newtown, in Aurora, and in Tucson.

Mr. President, the argument we just heard is absolutely upside-down of what that amendment is. This amendment guts the bill, it guts the straw purchasing provisions, it guts the gun trafficking provisions. It totally undermines law enforcement.

Law enforcement strongly supports the next amendment we have--the Leahy-Collins--but all this does, this substitute amendment, is aid Mexican drug cartels, eliminates the tools being used to get law enforcement investigatory leads. It undermines rather than strengthens the current background check.

We talk about do we enforce our laws. If you want to gut our laws, which this one does, don't argue they are not being enforced. This handcuffs law enforcement, helps drug cartels, helps drug syndicates. It is a bad amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 713

Mr. President, Senator Collins and I, as well as other Senators in both parties, worked with law enforcement, worked with the NRA, worked with a whole lot of others to craft this amendment. It gives law enforcement officials the tools they need to stop the all- too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This gives us the tools to go after drug cartels that use straw purchasers to get their guns and gangs in big cities that use straw purchasers to get their guns.

It is an important law enforcement measure. Across the political spectrum, law enforcement supports it. Let's stand with law enforcement and vote aye.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, Today I would like to pay tribute to Anthony Lewis who passed away on March 25. As a reporter covering the Supreme Court and through his books, including ``Gideon's Trumpet,'' Mr. Lewis shaped the way millions of Americans understand the role of the judiciary in safeguarding our democracy. He was truly an iconic figure in American journalism and he will be greatly missed.

Reading Anthony Lewis changed the way so many of us thought about justice in this country. He brought legal decisions to life and made clear the impact the law has on our lives. He made us aware of the humanity behind the technical legal arguments. Nowhere did he do this better than in ``Gideon's

Trumpet,'' his 1964 book about the Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. That landmark case affirmed a fundamental principle of our democratic society: that no person, regardless of economic status, should face prosecution without the assistance of a lawyer.

I have spoken countless times over the years about the importance of that decision. And each time, whether it was here on the floor of the Senate, in the Judiciary Committee questioning nominees to the Supreme Court, or in conversations with young law students, I have thought about ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and the powerful impact that book had on me.

In fact, on the 50th anniversary of the Gideon decision, which was just days before Mr. Lewis's death, I introduced the Gideon's Promise Act, a bill intended to breathe new life into that seminal case and ensure the fairness of our criminal justice system for all participants. Much of what I said about the anniversary of Gideon, and the work that remains, finds its roots in my days as a young attorney when I read ``Gideon's Trumpet'' and was moved both by the unfairness it revealed of a system that allowed poor people to be jailed without a lawyer, and the powerful equalizing impact a courageous Supreme Court can have when it is willing to stand up for those who are marginalized.

When I was a young law student, my wife and I had an opportunity to have lunch with Justice Hugo Black shortly after he wrote the majority decision in that case. It was a powerful experience. He recognized that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee to counsel in a criminal case was fundamental to a fair trial. He called it an obvious truth. And I know from my days as a prosecutor how right he was.

Now, as we pause to remember Anthony Lewis and his contributions to our understanding of the right to counsel and so many other fundamental principles of American democracy, it is also fitting that we acknowledge that the promise made in Gideon remains unfulfilled. In too many courtrooms it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent. The rich will have competent counsel, but those who have little often find their lives placed in the hands of woefully overburdened public defenders or underpaid court-appointed lawyers who are inexperienced, overworked, inept, uninterested, or worse.

And now our Federal public defender system, long held out as the gold standard of indigent defense, is being hobbled by sequestration. In New York, the Federal Defenders Office is being forced to furlough each of its 30 lawyers for 5\1/2\ weeks by the end of September, resulting in delays in even the most significant terrorism cases. Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York called these cuts ``devastating.'' The head of the Federal Defenders Office stated: ``On a good day, we're stretched thin. . . . Sequestration takes us well beyond the breaking point. You simply can't sequester the Sixth Amendment.'' He is right.

I am hardly alone in my concern over this fundamental American right. Last month, four leading advocates for fairness in the criminal justice system, including former Vice President Walter Mondale, sent a letter to President Obama urging him to create a bipartisan commission on the fair administration of justice for the indigent accused. I applaud their efforts and I believe Anthony Lewis would have too.

Through his reporting on the Supreme Court and our Nation's civil rights challenges, Anthony Lewis opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the power of law and judges to change lives. He helped shape my thinking as a young lawyer, and I hope his work will continue to be an inspiration for the generations to come. Our democracy will be stronger for it.

I ask that a copy of an article dated April 8 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. President, Vermont is known for many of its great businesses and products. Among those successful companies is Darn Tough Vermont, whose brand represents the commitment to quality and excellence that defines Vermont. For nearly a decade, Darn Tough Vermont has been making the type of quality products our Nation has grown to expect from Vermonters.

Darn Tough was launched in 2004 by Ric Cabot, whose family founded Darn Tough's parent company in Vermont 35 years ago. For three generations, the Cabot family has stayed true to their roots and committed to the Northfield community. While other clothing manufacturers have outsourced their labor, the Cabots carry on where they began--manufacturing in New England, keeping faith with their customers and their 120 employees.

Darn Tough has a local feel to those who visit its factory and know its operators, but the company's name brand is known across the country and around the world wherever people appreciate a high-quality wool hiking and athletic sock, and its products are even worn overseas by our troops in combat. And as with other Vermont companies that equip and outfit our military, taxpayers can rest assured our troops are in good hands when their feet are in quality goods made by Darn Tough.

The Burlington Free Press recently paid tribute to Ric Cabot and all of the employees at Darn Tough for their hard work that continues to benefit our troops and the Vermont economy. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the recent Free Press article entitled ``Rebuilding American textiles, one sock at a time: Darn Tough measures success,'' be printed into the Record.

Mr. President, I tell the Senator from Nevada, we have been working very hard on that. It has bipartisan support. It had a bipartisan vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We had been working on it with the National Rifle Association and a lot of others because this trafficking allows somebody who can legitimately buy weapons to go in and buy them and then sell them to people who are from a drug cartel in this country or others or to a gang member--people who could not have bought them legitimately. It is a huge loophole.

We saw the same loophole in the murder of the head of the Colorado prison system. The man who we understand shot him would have been prohibited from buying a weapon, but somebody who could buy one bought it and passed it on to him.

I want to thank Senators Manchin and Toomey for coming forward with their bipartisan amendment to close the gun show loophole and prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, while at the same time respecting and protecting the second amendment rights of responsible gun owners. These Senators have worked long and hard. They have studied the issue. They have compromised, and they have reached an agreement that I intend to support and I hope the Senate will adopt.

The Senator from Nevada certainly hopes Senators will vote and not filibuster. The American people I think would consider it a disgrace if Senators were unwilling to stand and vote either yes or no. A filibuster means you vote maybe. I would hope, with only 100 of us to represent 314 million Americans, we would at least have the courage to vote yes or vote no. It may not be a popular vote either way you vote, but voting maybe--which is what a filibuster is--shows no respect for the Senate and shows no courage.

We have had background checks for decades. They are an accepted part of the process of buying a gun. I am among millions of responsible gun owners who have undergone a background check as part of this process. And as I tell our gun dealers in Vermont when I buy a gun there, I am like millions of responsible gun owners. I understand this check is necessary and I have no problem going through it. But I expect everybody else to go through it because it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are a danger to themselves and others due to mental illness.

Background checks work. Since 1998, over 2 million sales to prohibited people have been prevented thanks to background checks. That is 2 million times a potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun was denied a gun.

Now some argue that background checks do not work because not enough people who fail the background check are later prosecuted. Failing a background check is not in itself a crime. Indeed, the main purpose of the background check is to prevent a prohibited person from getting the desired gun. Although not foolproof, the background check system we have had in place has succeeded in preventing dangerous people from getting guns over 2 million times. What we are now trying to do is improve the background check system. That is what the Manchin-Toomey amendment is trying to do. We all know there is a huge, huge loophole in that background check system. Criminals and other prohibited people who could not go in to a legitimate gun store in the Presiding Officer's State or my State can get around this by going to nonlicensed dealers at gun shows.

I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same rules. I agree with these responsible business owners. Just as I go through a background check when I buy a gun, I want everybody to have to go through it and not be able to use the loophole.

I have been voting to close this loophole for years. In 1999, when the Senate adopted an amendment to close the gun show loophole, we passed that provision after the tragedy at Columbine. Regrettably, the House would not pass the bill. Republican leadership at the time let the matter drop. I hope this time the House will join us to close the loophole once and for all.

The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way that does not infringe upon second amendment rights. Sales at gun shows, sales using online or print advertising will be governed by the same kind of requirements that a gun store owner in Vermont or Virginia or anywhere else has to follow. It is going to make us safer. It will not confiscate anyone's guns. It will not create a government registry. It does not undermine the second amendment. No court has held that background checks, which have been with us for decades, violate the second amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held that the second amendment provides an individual right in the Heller case, it also said that ``longstanding provisions on the possession of firearms by felons and

the mentally ill'' do not violate the second amendment.

The compromise these Senators have presented to us is focused on gun shows and commercial sales. It does not require background checks for sales between spouses or siblings or parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins. It does not require background checks for a transfer between friends and neighbors who talk to each other and decide to sell or give each other a firearm.

The bill does not require background checks for temporary transfers of guns for hunting or target shooting. But it does require background checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who intend to do harm: sales at gun shows and through online and print advertisement.

I would hope Senators would agree with 90 percent of the people in this country: We need a strong background check system in order to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Why not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow dangerous criminals to buy guns without background checks? It is a matter of common sense. If we agree that the background check system makes sense, why not make it more effective? What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background check system?

I come from a State with a lot of gun owners, myself included. I have not heard a single gun owner say, we should not have a background check apply to everybody just as it applies to them.

At the first of our Judiciary Committee hearings of the year, the first of three hearings on gun violence proposals, I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. He emphasized at that time the NRA supported closing loopholes in the background system by saying, ``No loopholes anywhere for anyone.''

It is common sense. That is what we voted to do in 1999 and we should again, and this time we should get it enacted. I have said over and over again, do not filibuster or sloganeer. Vote. Vote yes; vote no. Do not vote maybe. No one is going to take away our second amendment rights. They are not at risk. But lives are at risk where responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit crimes of violence.

This is something we can come together and do to make America safer and more secure. Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under existing gun laws. And some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a valid excuse for us to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive; those efforts complement each other. A recent article in the Washington Times, certainly not considered a liberal paper, documented the gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration. They suggested having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement. We need to get such a director. But let's not be distracted from what we can do to keep Americans safe by partisan attacks on this administration or the last administration.

I also want to thank Senator Schumer for all his efforts to bring us to this point. I worked with him to make sure the legislation considered and voted on in the Judiciary Committee included a provision to improve the background checks system. He introduced a number of background check proposals. He reached across the aisle to try very hard to come to an agreement with Senator Coburn. His efforts helped pave the way for the agreement that Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey were able to reach.

I have also been encouraging the junior Senator from West Virginia in his efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity and perseverance. I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in this legislative effort. Together they have done the Senate and the country a great service. At the outset of the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this issue, I encouraged Senators to bring forward their ideas, to debate that which they thought could make a difference, not just obstruct that which they opposed. I hope those who oppose the measure put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey will seek to be part of this debate rather than simply try to silence it.

Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense. Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution.

Now, will everybody agree on this legislation? Perhaps not. But at least have the courage to vote yes or no. Vote yes or no. If you are going to vote maybe, that is voting for a filibuster. The American people want a little bit of courage on the part of 100 Senators.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the comments by the distinguished Senator from Utah, I be recognized.

Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a quorum for about 1 minute and ask unanimous consent that upon coming out of the quorum, I be recognized.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke about the need for the Senate to consider legislation to help increase Americans' safety by reducing gun violence. I came to the floor of the Senate and I urged my fellow Senators to abandon efforts to filibuster proceeding to this bill. The Senate should not have to overcome a filibuster to respond to the call for action in response to the violence they are experiencing.

I have the privilege of being the longest serving Member of this body. I have watched debate on so many issues. If there were ever an issue where all 100 of us should vote yes or no it is here.

I was encouraged by the comments of a number of Senate Republicans that they are prepared to debate this matter and will not support this wrongheaded filibuster. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized against this filibuster yesterday in a lead editorial entitled ``The GOP's Gun Control Misfire.'' I do not agree with much of that editorial, but I would quote this:

If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona

fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on

the floor.

Senators should understand what is in this bill that a small minority of Republicans are seeking to prevent the Senate from even considering. The bill has three parts. None of them threaten the second amendment rights, none of them call for gun confiscation or a government registry. In fact, two of the three parts have always had bipartisan support. With regard to the third component--the provisions closing loopholes in our current background check system--Senators Manchin and Toomey yesterday announced they are going to have a bipartisan amendment for this component as well.

Since the beginning of the 113th Congress, in the months since the tragedy in Newtown, the Judiciary Committee held three hearings and four mark ups focused on the issue of gun violence. The Committee voted in favor of the Leahy-Collins gun trafficking proposal that is now part of the legislative package the Majority Leader created to allow for Senate consideration. I described our legislation in some detail on Monday. I thanked our Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting our gun trafficking bill. I commended Senator Collins, who has been my partner as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen and King. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act.

Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. We need to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs and other criminals have exploited for too long.

Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases.

It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, New York this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, last September.

We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the

Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

Yesterday, Senator Collins, the senior Senator from Maine, and I were able to announce another step toward consensus. We had previously been engaged in discussions with law enforcement and victims groups. More recently we have been engaged in discussions with the National Rifle Association. We have agreed on modifications to the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. They address all of its substantive concerns while doing as we have always wanted to do--providing law enforcement officials with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasing.

Senator Collins and I are both strong supporters and advocates of second amendment rights for law-abiding Americans. We also agree that our law enforcement officials deserve our support in their efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. We worked with the NRA and are confident that nothing in our bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners and purchasers, while still providing a strong new set of tools for law enforcement officials.

We protect legitimate sales and do not place unnecessary burdens on lawful transactions. We are pleased that the NRA agrees with us that this legislation is a focused approach to combat the destructive practices of straw purchasing and firearms trafficking while protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Having now worked out differences with the NRA on our bipartisan legislation that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals and individuals with severe mental illnesses, and give law enforcement the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes more effectively, it seems absurd that some Senators nonetheless persist in filibustering consideration of our bill.

The American people expect us to stand and face our responsibilities. Whether we like having to vote or not, we have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, to uphold our laws. Congress has to confront the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes. It is not enough to stand on the floor of the Senate and say you are pro law enforcement. Let's take as a given everybody is pro law enforcement, but then give law enforcement the tools they need. The bipartisan Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will create specific Federal criminal statutes prohibiting the trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms, and also strengthens other law enforcement tools to assist those investigating these crimes. This is a common sense response to help in the fight against gun violence.

This is a commonsense response to help in the fight against gun violence, and it will help law enforcement. That is why law enforcement strongly supports our bill. Yet some are seeking to filibuster it. Let them go to law enforcement groups and say they are trying to block them and take away the tools they need to keep every one of us safe.

Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement. Yet that is what some are seeking to filibuster. Congress should be confronting the serious role that straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue.

Senators are filibustering a bipartisan proposal that received bipartisan backing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide some Federal assistance to schools to create safer environments for children and young people. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. We should proceed to consider it and I would hope pass it so that more school resource officers can be hired and more can be done to help and protect our young people who are in schools around the country, where there are supposed to be.

Finally, it is hard to understand how improving our background check system and plugging some of the loopholes in it that allow those who are by law prohibited from purchasing guns because they are dangerous criminals or dangerous to themselves and others because of mental illness justifies a filibuster. We have had background requirements for gun purchases for decades. We have had a background check system for decades. We have improved it repeatedly over time.

I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct background checks to block the conveyance of guns to those who should not have them. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same protective rules. I agree with these responsible business owners.

As I said, Congress should be confronting the serious role straw purchasing and gun trafficking play in supplying criminals with firearms for illegal purposes, not ducking the issue. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. Don't give speeches saying you are in favor of law enforcement but we are going to take away tools law enforcement needs. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted. If we can all agree that criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill should not buy firearms, why should we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow them to buy guns without background checks?

If we agree the background check system is worthwhile, should we not try to reform its content so it can be more effective? What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background check system? Stand up and be counted.

At our January hearing I pointed out that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory criminal background checks for, as he put it, ``every sale at every gun show.'' He went on to emphasize the NRA's support for closing the loophole in the background check system by saying--in what has become an oft-quoted remark--``no loopholes anywhere for anyone.''

Well, of course, it is common sense to close the gun show loophole. The Senate voted to do so in 1999. We should vote to do so again. This time we should get it enacted. One of the ways to do so is with the bipartisan proposal from Senators Manchin and Toomey to improve the law, if we are able to stop this ill-conceived filibuster and get to the bill.

Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action, not filibustering or sloganeering. Americans are saying: Stand up and be counted. I opened our first hearing on these issues in January, asking Senators on both sides of the aisle to join in the discussion as part of a collective effort to find solutions to help assure that no family, no school, no community ever has to endure the kind of tragedy the families at Newtown and Aurora and Oak Creek, Tucson, Blacksburg or Columbine had to suffer.

As I emphasized throughout the committee process, the second amendment is secure. It is going to remain secure and protected as part of my oath of office as a Senator. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the second amendment, as the other aspects of our Bill of Rights, secures that fundamental individual right. Americans have the right to self-defense. They have the right to have guns in their homes to protect their families. No one is going to take away these rights or these guns. That second amendment right is the foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk. But we cannot close our eyes to what is at risk: lives are at risk when responsible people fail to set up the laws to keep the guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit mass murder.

So I ask my fellow Senators to focus our discussion and debate on these proposed statutory measures intended to better protect our children and all Americans. Ours is a free society, an open society, a wonderful society. We should be coming together as elected representatives of all of the American people to consider how to become a safer and more secure society. I would have hoped all Senators from both parties would join together in good faith to strengthen our law enforcement efforts against gun violence and to protect public safety. Let's focus on our

responsibilities to the American people.

We are the 100 Senators elected to represent more than 314 million Americans. That is an awesome responsibility. Let's stand up to that responsibility. We are accountable to those people. We are not accountable to special interest groups on either the right or the left. We are accountable to the more than 300 million Americans. Special interest lobbies on either the left or right should not dictate what we do. We do not need a lobby's permission to pass laws to improve public safety. That is our responsibility.

I urge Senators to be less concerned with special interest scorecards and more focused on fulfilling our oath to faithfully discharge the duties of our office as Senators.

I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I am also someone who cherishes all of our constitutional rights. As a Senator who has sworn an oath to uphold those rights, as a father and a grandfather, and as a former prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence firsthand, I have been working to build consensus around commonsense solutions. I am prepared to debate and vote on the measures before us. I challenge other Senators to do the same. Do the same. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and be counted.

A filibuster says you are not willing to take a stand; that you vote maybe. Stand up and be counted. Have the courage. Stand up and be counted. Then let us work together to make all Americans safer.

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

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

Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system, which was recently updated and strengthened for the 21st century by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago--that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development-- continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large.

These limited rights can also be applied to incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. In my time in the Senate, I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Coons in reintroducing the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to again advance such policies.

This legislation improves on a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, last year. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who apply their technology to a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes.

This year, the innovations that received awards touched on critical areas that will help improve the quality of life for people throughout the world. Award winners worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people in the developing world and elsewhere.

Following a Judiciary Committee hearing last year, I asked PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes these acceleration certificates transferrable. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this useful program.

When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the American intellectual property system is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent system, which was recently updated and strengthened for the 21st century by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 200 years ago--that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize research and development-- continues to benefit consumers and the American economy at large.

These limited rights can also be applied to incentivize research and discoveries that advance humanitarian needs. In my time in the Senate, I have worked to promote policies that encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address global humanitarian challenges. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Coons in reintroducing the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to again advance such policies.

This legislation improves on a program created by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, last year. The PTO's Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent holders who apply their technology to a humanitarian issue that significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes.

This year, the innovations that received awards touched on critical areas that will help improve the quality of life for people throughout the world. Award winners worked to improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real difference in the lives of people in the developing world and elsewhere.

Following a Judiciary Committee hearing last year, I asked PTO Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act makes these acceleration certificates transferrable. It is a straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this useful program.

When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Nomination of Gina McCarthy to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy Toward Syria.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A New, Open Marketplace: The Effect of Guaranteed Issue and New Rating Rules'' on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 11, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Outsourcing Accountability--Examining the Role of Independent Consultants.''

Mr. President, the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont is a special place. In a State that abounds in natural beauty, the Kingdom, as many Vermonters affectionately call the State's northeast corner, is heralded for its rural splendor. While the rural character and unspoiled landscape is what defines the Kingdom to many, it is also home to an academic institution that has educated Vermonters for more than 100 years.

Since its founding in 1911, Lyndon State College has served as an economic engine for the region, educating students in a diverse range of academic pursuits. Lyndon has distinguished itself by developing academic programs that mirror the emerging economic needs of the community, such as its first-of-its-kind Mountain Recreation Management program. At the same time, Lyndon remains committed to a liberal arts education and educating students to be well-rounded professionals.

On Friday, April 19, Lyndon State will inaugurate its fifteenth president, Joe Bertolino. Joe comes to Vermont from Hunter College in New York, where he served as vice president for enrollment management and academic affairs. Joe's passion for working with students is evident in his easygoing manner and in how he has engaged students since arriving on campus last summer. At a college of only 1,400 students, Joe's personal touch sets the clear tone that under his leadership Lyndon will be a student-centered institution. Joe has undertaken a number of creative initiatives to build community spirit among Lyndon students and alumni, including an informal policy called ``Go Green, Go Gold,'' that encourages the Lyndon State community to wear the school colors on Wednesdays.

Beyond this personal approach, Joe has laid out an ambitious plan for the college's future. I have had the opportunity to meet Joe during a recent visit to Washington and am encouraged to welcome his energy and creative thinking to Vermont. Lyndon State College is a vital part of Vermont's higher education community, and I wish Joe the best as he is officially inaugurated as the college's next president.

I request unanimous consent that an article from Lyndon State about President Bertolino be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, last month Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on the D.C. Circuit that arose when Chief Justice Roberts left the D.C. Circuit to join the Supreme Court 8 years ago. Caitlin Halligan is a woman who is extraordinarily well-qualified and amongst the most qualified judicial nominees I have seen from any administration. It is a shame that narrow special interests hold such influence that Senate Republicans blocked an up-or-down vote on her confirmation with multiple filibusters of her nomination and procedural objections that required her to be nominated five times over the last 3 years.

Had she received an up-or-down vote, I am certain she would have been confirmed and been an outstanding judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Instead, all Senate Republicans but one supported the filibuster and refused to vote up or down on this highly-qualified woman to fill a needed judgeship on the D.C. Circuit. Senate Republicans attacked her for legal advocacy on behalf of her client, the State of New York. It is wrong to attribute the legal positions a lawyer takes when advocating for a client with what that person would do as an impartial judge. That is not the American tradition. That is not what Republicans insisted was the standard for nominees of Republican Presidents but that is what they did to derail the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.

Also disconcerting were the comments by Republicans after their filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is wrong. It does our Nation and our Federal judiciary no good when they place their desire to engage in partisan tit-for-tat over the needs of the American people. I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.

The filibuster of the nomination of Miguel Estrada was different. It was to obtain access to information about his work and whether he acted ideologically as his supervisor at the Office of Solicitor General had alleged. Had we gotten access to those materials, there would have been a vote on the Estrada nomination. Republican Senators now demand access to all sorts of materials while filibustering for the first time in our history the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, as well as the nominee to head the CIA and judicial nominees. They cannot do that and still complain about the Estrada nomination.

Now that Senate Republicans have during the last 4 years filibustered more of President Obama's moderate judicial nominees than were filibustered during President Bush's entire 8 years--67 percent more, in fact--I urge them to abandon their misjudged efforts that sacrifice outstanding judges for purposes of partisan payback.

Today the Senate will finally consider another circuit court nomination that has been delayed for no good reason. The nomination of Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey to the Third Circuit has been needlessly stalled for 13 months since being favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee. This is another of the many judicial nominees who could have been confirmed last year. She is another qualified nominee who is supported by her home state Senators and by the Republican Governor of New Jersey. After this prolonged and unnecessary delay, I am pleased that she will finally be allowed to join the Third Circuit to serve the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.

In 10 years as a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of New Jersey, Judge Shwartz has handled more than 4,000 civil and criminal cases and presided over 14 cases that have gone to verdict or final judgment, including 11 jury trials. Before becoming a judge, Judge Shwartz spent 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of New Jersey, where she ultimately rose to become chief of the Criminal Division. During her time as an assistant U.S. attorney, Judge Shwartz tried more than 15 jury cases to verdict, all as sole or chief counsel. It was while serving in the U.S. attorneys Office that Chris Cristie, then U.S. attorney and current Governor of New Jersey, became acquainted with her and her work.

Governor Christie has written to the committee in support of Judge Shwartz's nomination. He said that she ``was an impressive Criminal Chief; hard working, bright, articulate, great with people and conversant with the law.'' He added: ``As a Magistrate Judge, she also performed admirably and garnered the respect of the entire legal community. Again, her hard work, amiable personality, patience, intelligence, and knowledge of the law were lauded by all who appeared before her.'' I ask unanimous consent that his full letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Shwartz unanimously well qualified, the highest possible rating from its nonpartisan peer review. She has the support of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.

By any objective measure, Judge Shwartz is a nominee with solid legal credentials and qualifications. Rather than evaluating her on her record, some have tried to claim there is an issue because Senator Menendez met with her before supporting her. They infer, despite denials by the nominee and Senator Menendez, that she must have made him some untoward commitment on how she would rule on some matter. There is no basis for that claim.

It is past time for the Senate to consider her nomination on the merits of her record and to confirm her. Her nomination has been stalled on the Senate floor for 13 months. This is just one example of the unnecessary delays that prompted a New York Times editorial about the delays in filling judicial vacancies. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that editorial be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Judged on her qualifications and her record, Judge Patty Shwartz should be confirmed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. She should not have been delayed for more than a year. Sadly, this is not an isolated case but one in a steady pattern of obstruction. This is especially harmful at a time when judicial vacancies remain above 80. Filibusters and delays based on fictions do not help Americans seeking justice in our

Federal courts. Instead, they cause delays, overcrowded dockets, overburdened courts and have gone on too long.

When confirmed, Judge Shwartz will be one of just three women serving as active judges on the Third Circuit. It is time to move forward in a bipartisan fashion to vote to confirm this qualified nominee so that she may better serve the American people as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, 4 months after the horrific day in Newtown where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered, the Senate is posed to make further progress toward the goal of reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of political party or philosophy, should share. I don't know how any parent, any grandparent, or any relative ever gets over the horrific disaster of Newtown.

I thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley. He worked with us, and he favorably supported two of the measures reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. Senator Grassley helped make sure we had hearings that were substantive and that we had a schedule so we could vote.

I commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms legally but then provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and King.

Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54. It has provisions that are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, S. 649, which Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed.

Straw purchasers get around the purpose of the background check system. Straw purchasing of firearms is undertaken for just one reason: to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one.

We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, NY, this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, last September. Is it any wonder that law enforcement across this country says: Stop the straw purchasing. We are losing too many brave men and women in law enforcement, to say nothing about all the others who have been killed by drug and criminal cartels.

We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We have included suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation to help combat a serious problem. We are doing it in a way that protects the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

It was an ATF whistleblower who testified in the last Congress that the existing firearm laws are ``toothless.'' We can create better law enforcement tools, and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. I urge all Senators to join with us and close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs, and other criminals throughout our country have exploited for too long.

I wish to recognize the dedication and leadership of Senator Collins of Maine to confront the issue of gun violence. She is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, but she has been

committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problems of gun violence. She has been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the second amendment. We also agree our laws can be improved to give law enforcement officials the tools they need, and she has been a steadfast partner.

Our bill protects second amendment rights of lawful gun owners, but at the same time it cracks down on criminals. It also cracks down on the people who assist criminals. It doesn't create a national firearms registry, it doesn't place additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers, but it does send a very clear message that those who buy a gun on behalf of a criminal or member of a drug cartel or domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why law enforcement says: Pass this bill. Give those of us in law enforcement who are on the frontlines the tools we need.

Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecution under existing gun laws. Some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but it is not a valid excuse to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive. Those are efforts that complement each other.

A recent article in the Washington Times documented that gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration and suggests that having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

As I said in January, America is looking to us for solutions, for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship. That is why it is disappointing to hear that some Senators pledge to prevent Senate consideration of these proposals by a filibuster. It is especially disappointing that some who claim to support regular order and a transparent legislative process accord that process no deference.

Mr. President, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to serve at any given time in this wonderful body. We represent 325 million Americans. How can we talk to those Americans and say: We won't even vote. We won't even let it come to a vote. We don't have the guts to stand up and vote yes or no.

Tell that to the families in Newtown, CT. Tell that to the families in Aurora, CO. Tell that to the people of the United States, that the Senate is not willing to stand up and vote either yes or no; they want to vote maybe.

I am a gun owner. I live in a State with a lot of gun owners. I have the courage to stand here and vote. I want to vote. Some will agree with my votes, some will disagree, but this Senator feels it is part of his sworn duty to vote--vote yes, vote no, but vote.

In the Judiciary Committee, we held three public hearings and four public markups on this legislation. We gave them full and fair consideration. We debated and considered amendments--

Democratic and Republican amendments. The distinguished Presiding Officer is a member of that committee. He knows the debate we had and the votes we held. What a filibuster would do now is obstruct the open process of the Senate consideration of gun violence prevention legislation, and it is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. It demeans the Senate, and it turns our backs on 325 million Americans who expect better.

I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real-world and commonsense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. Let's go forward and vote. Vote yes, vote no, but vote. Have the courage to vote. Don't turn our backs on the families who have suffered so much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, four months after that horrific day in Newtown, where 20 children and 6 educators were senselessly murdered, the Senate is poised to make further progress toward the goal of reducing gun violence. It is a goal that all Americans, regardless of political party, should share.

I want to thank our ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, for working with us and supporting two of the measures favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee last month. I commend Senator Collins, who has been my partner, as we have moved forward with legislation to combat illegal gun trafficking and straw purchasers who obtain firearms to provide them to criminals and gangs. We have been joined in that bipartisan effort by Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Kirk, Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Shaheen, and King.

Our bill is intended to give law enforcement better and more effective tools. A bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee voted for the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, S. 54, and its provisions are included in the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act, S. 649, that Majority Leader Reid placed on the Senate calendar just before the last recess and on which he has now moved to proceed.

Straw purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system. Straw purchasing firearms is undertaken for one reason--to get a gun into the hands of someone who is legally prohibited from having one. We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases. It was a straw purchaser who enabled the brutal murders of two brave firefighters in Webster, NY this past Christmas Eve, and it was a straw purchaser who provided firearms to an individual who murdered a police officer in Plymouth Township, PA, last September.

We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. We also include suggestions from Senator Gillibrand to go after those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms. We worked hard to develop effective, targeted legislation that will help combat a serious problem and that will do no harm to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

It was an ATF whistleblower who testified last Congress that the existing firearms laws are ``toothless''. We can create better law enforcement tools and that is what we are doing with the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. I urge all Senators to join with us to close this dangerous loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels, gangs, and other criminals have exploited for too long.

I especially want to recognize the dedication and leadership of Senator Collins to confront the issue of gun violence. Although not a member of the Judiciary Committee, she has been committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problem of gun violence. Senator Collins has been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other Senators. She and I share a deep respect for the Second Amendment, but we also agree that our laws can be improved to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to help curtail gun violence. She has been a steadfast partner.

Our bill protects Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners, while cracking down on criminals and those who would assist them. The bill does not create a national firearms registry, nor does it place any additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. It sends a clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal, a member of a drug cartel, or a domestic abuser will be held accountable. That is why our bill is strongly supported by law enforcement.

Some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecutions under existing gun laws. And some have suggested that instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I do not agree it is a valid excuse for us to do nothing. Improvements in the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive, those efforts complement each other.

A recent article in The Washington Times documented that gun prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration, and suggests that having a Senate-confirmed director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives would significantly help law enforcement.

As I said in January, Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, or partisanship. That is why it is particularly disappointing to hear that some Senators are pledging to prevent Senate consideration of these legislative proposals by filibustering. It is especially disappointing that some who claim to support regular order and a transparent legislative process accord that process no deference. The Judiciary Committee held three public hearings and four public markups on this legislation. It gave them full and fair consideration. We debated and considered amendments. What a filibuster would do now is obstruct the open process of Senate consideration of gun violence prevention legislation. That is wrong.

I have worked with Senator Collins and others to provide a real world, common sense solution to the problem of gun trafficking and straw purchasing. That is the course I urge the Senate to take. We need to proceed to the bill and do what is best for the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 9, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate April 9, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``State of Rural Communications.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate April 9, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Current Issues in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement.''