Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two interns from Senator Hirono's office, Chelsea Rabago and Ryan Mandado, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, last month, I spoke at the Judicial Conference about the damaging effect of sequestration on our Federal courts and our system of justice. These indiscriminate cuts are already causing both Federal prosecutors and Federal public defenders to be furloughed. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts has done its best to address these cuts, but the judicial system can only weather the effects of sequestration for so long before it is irreparably harmed. In a letter dated March 5, 2013, Judge Thomas Hogan, the director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, wrote that the cuts from sequestration could not be ``sustained beyond fiscal year 2013 and will be difficult and painful to implement.'' He went on to note: ``The Judiciary cannot continue to operate at such drastically reduced funding levels without seriously compromising the constitutional mission of the federal courts.'' In that same letter, he wrote that sequestration will mean reduced funding for drug testing and mental health treatment, and fewer probation officers.

Along the same lines, last month Andrew Cohen wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled ``How the Sequester Threatens the U.S. Legal System.'' He suggests that sequestration will threaten defendants' constitutional rights, and law enforcement's ability to effectively fight crime, writing: ``Beyond a reasonable doubt, the sequester is having a profound and pernicious effect on the government's ability to observe its constitutional commands--and to provide justice to its citizens.''

I ask unanimous consent that copies of Judge Hogan's letter and the article from The Atlantic be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy testified before the House Appropriations Committee last month about the impact of sequestration and budget cuts. Justice Kennedy said that funding for programs like drug testing and mental health services is ``[A]bsolutely urgent for the safety of society.'' The Justices also noted the harm that would result from cuts to public defenders, as the government would then have to pay private defense attorneys to provide counsel. Justice Breyer highlighted the additional costs to the government from mistakes being made in trials, including wrongful convictions.

These budget cuts to our courts are also bad for our economy. Fewer court staff will mean further delays for civil and bankruptcy cases. There are already more than 30,000 civil cases that have been pending for more than 3

years. We know that justice delayed is justice denied, and hardworking Americans who look to our courts to protect their rights deserve better.

Even before sequestration went into effect, our Federal courts have spent nearly 4 years burdened by unnecessarily high numbers of judicial vacancies. Judicial vacancies have been near or above 80, and for over 2 years were at ``historically high'' levels, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress.

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have been unwilling to work with President Obama. The Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican member recently expressed concern that not all judicial emergency vacancies have nominees. Of the 35 judicial emergency vacancies, 24 are in States with Republican Senators. In fact, close to half of all judicial emergency vacancies are in just three States, each of which is represented by two Republican Senators. Those Senators should be working with the White House to fill those vacancies. Even for judicial emergency vacancies in those three states that have a nominee, Republican Senators have not supported moving forward. So I encourage Republican Senators to work with the President to find good nominees for those important vacancies and to allow qualified nominees to move forward. I take very seriously our responsibilities of both advise and consent on nominations. Senators should stop pocket filibustering the President's nominees and work with him to fill these judicial vacancies.

Regrettably, qualified, consensus nominees are being delayed, even nominees who are supported by home State Republican Senators. They are subjected to unnecessary and unprecedented delays on the Senate floor. These nominees have been vetted in a lengthy process, and often have the support of all Senators on the Judiciary Committee, so there is no reason we cannot consider them in regular order. For the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have consistently refused to consent to what used to be the routine consideration of consensus judicial nominees. That is why the Majority Leader has been forced to file cloture on 30 of President Obama's nominees, which is already over 65 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during the 8 years of the George W. Bush administration. Many of those nominees are then confirmed unanimously after months or even a year of waiting. There is no good reason the Senate cannot consider them more expeditiously. These deliberate delaying tactics hurt the Senate, our courts, and the American people.

Before the most recent recess, the Senate was finally allowed to vote on the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill a judicial vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She currently serves as Vice Chair and Commissioner of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, to which the Senate previously confirmed her. Previously, Ketanji Jackson was a counsel at Morrison & Foerster LLP and an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in the District of Columbia. After graduating, cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where she served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review, she served as a law clerk to Judge Patti Saris of the District of Massachusetts, Judge Bruce Selya of the First Circuit, and Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court. When confirmed, she will be the first female African-American judge appointed to the court in 32 years and the only one currently serving on the court. She had her hearing last year and her confirmation could have been expedited then. It was not and she is among those who had to be renominated by the President this year. Her nomination was then reported unanimously in February by the Judiciary Committee.

The Senate was finally allowed to consider, as well, the nomination of Troy Nunley to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of California. That court has one of the heaviest caseloads per judge of any in the country. Judge Nunley could and should have been confirmed last year when the Judiciary Committee reported his nomination unanimously. Instead, he was among those Republican Senators refused to consider before adjourning. The President had to renominate him and the Senate Judiciary Committee again voted unanimously to proceed with his confirmation this year more than a month ago. He is currently a judge of the Superior Court of California and he served previously as Deputy Attorney General for the California Department of Justice and as Deputy District Attorney for both the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. He has the support of both his home State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

The Senate will also vote on the nomination of Raymond Moore to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the District of Colorado. He currently serves as the Federal Public Defender in the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming in Denver, CO, where he formerly served as the Acting Federal Public Defender and as an Assistant Federal Public Defender. Raymond Moore has also worked in private practice and served as a Federal prosecutor. He received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating, unanimously ``well qualified,'' and has the support of his home State Senators, Senator Udall and Senator Bennet. He was reported unanimously last February by the Judiciary Committee.

There are still another 15 judicial nominees pending before the Senate. All of these nominees had to be renominated after being returned at the end of the last Congress. It is unusual to have such a backlog so early in a Congress, and this is the result of Senate Republicans' refusal to allow votes on 11 nominees at the end of last year, including Judge Nunley, and their refusal to consider another four, which included the D.C. district court nominee being confirmed today, who had hearings and could have been expedited. We have yet to work our way through the nominees who were available for Senate consideration and confirmation last year. The delayed consideration of those nominees, at this pace, could easily extend into June. I urge Senate Republicans to join with us so that we can clear the calendar and confirm these consensus nominees during the current work period. Let us come together in a bipartisan manner and restore the best traditions of the Senate. The Americans who depend on our courts for justice deserve no less.

On April 5, 2013, under the authority of the order of the Senate of March 23, 2013, the following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 359

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 187

I move to lay that motion on the table

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 225, 329, 293, 527, 153, and 136 En Bloc

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 521

Mr. President, this amendment is very clear, and it anticipates another amendment coming up by another Senator. The United States negotiates treaties, for example, the Arms Trade Treaty. But under the Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 1956, our Constitution trumps any agreement made in a treaty by our government.

So all my amendment does is make clear that the United States should not agree to any arms trade treaty that would violate our second amendment rights. It is straightforward, it respects our constitutional rights, but it also gives our government the flexibility it needs to negotiate treaties.

I would be happy with a voice vote.

Mr. President, we are presently negotiating an arms trade treaty which will help to keep illicit firearms out of the hands of war criminals and terrorists. It is a humanitarian issue. We have people such as Joseph Kony who is out murdering children. He is able to do it because he is taking part in the international arms trade. We are trying to stop those things.

My earlier amendment makes it very clear, we cannot trump our own second-amendment rights, but we can stop these children from being killed because of this, and that is why I oppose the Inhofe amendment. Let our negotiators negotiate. Any treaty still has to come back here to get a two-thirds vote anyway.

Mr. President, three years ago tomorrow, President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act. This landmark law will extend health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans when the reforms are fully implemented next year. Getting to this point has been an arduous process. But in the end, this achievement proved that real reform is possible, and that the voices of so many Americans who over the years have called on their leaders to act have finally been heard.

Since its passage, Americans have seen the immediate benefits of the Affordable Care Act and 3 years later, those improvements continue. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are continuing to receive help when trapped within the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole. The Affordable Care Act completely closes the coverage gap by 2020, and the new law makes it easier for seniors to afford prescription drugs in the meantime. In 2010, more than 7,000 Vermonters received a $250 rebate to help cover the cost of their prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut hole. Last year alone, nearly 6,400 Vermonters with Medicare received a 50-percent discount on their covered brand-name prescriptions, resulting in an average savings of $765 per person. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, more than 5,000 young adults in Vermont have gained health insurance coverage under these reforms, which allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans until their 26th birthdays. The improvements we are seeing in Vermont go on and on: in 2011 and 2012, 71 million Americans and 151,000 Vermonters with private insurance gained access to and received preventative screening coverage with no deductible or copay, including more than 80,000 Medicare beneficiaries. These are just a few of the dozens of consumer protections included in the law that are benefiting Vermonters and all Americans every day, and in many ways.

The law goes into full swing next year as even more consumer protections are implemented and millions more Americans gain access to health insurance coverage. Beginning in January, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to individuals with preexisting health conditions or to charge higher premiums based on health status or gender. Unfortunately, estimates show that 44,000 Vermonters currently do not have health insurance, but with the Medicaid expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act, 84 percent of these Vermonters will qualify for Medicaid or a premium tax credit. Also important to Vermonters, to assist Vermont with our State's work on implementing Vermont's State-based health insurance exchange--or marketplace--Vermont has received more than $125,000,000 in grants for research and for information technology development, as well as almost $3,480,000 for maternal health programs. These tangible initiatives help at-risk families gain the support they need to improve their children's health and ability to learn, and they help prevent child abuse.

I was proud as well to work with Senator Grassley and others to include strong anti-fraud provisions in the law that already have helped prevent and detect fraudulent activities that in the past have cost American taxpayers multiple millions of dollars each year. Thanks in part to these efforts, $4.2 billion was returned to taxpayers last year alone.

In only 3 years, Vermonters across our State have seen the many benefits of health care reform unfold in their lives. I see and hear about these improvements and pocketbook savings in visits to every corner of our State. At home in Middlesex and throughout Vermont, whether I am in the grocery store, at the gas pump, or at church, I am constantly reminded of how important access to quality affordable health care is to individuals and families. I applaud Vermont's efforts to expand the Affordable Care Act's reach even further to help every resident secure health insurance. I am proud that the Affordable Care Act offers Vermont the foundation it needs to reach this goal, and I look forward to working to see that it is met.

Regrettably, opponents of the Affordable Care Act continue to misleadingly attack the law in an attempt to undermine its implementation. The moment President Obama signed this bill into law, opponents sought to continue their political battle by challenging the landmark legislation in the courts. With the legal challenges now nearly resolved, we are now seeing amendments filed to every bill we consider on the floor, aimed at repealing or gutting the Affordable Care Act. In fact, on the budget resolution we are considering today, dozens of amendments have been filed in an effort to block the Affordable Care Act's implementation, to undermine its success in making lives better across the land, or to repeal the law completely. This is unfortunate, it is shortsighted, and it is cynical. Even more shameful is the budget resolution considered and passed by the House this week. The House-passed budget would make drastic changes to the Medicaid Program causing 14 to 20 million Americans to lose health coverage; it would replace Medicare with a voucher scheme costing seniors at least $6000 more per year; and would completely repeal all the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, but in the true interests of the

people we represent we should be working together to ensure its success. We can make improvements where necessary, but we must allow full implementation to continue. Already the Affordable Care Act has changed so many lives for the better, and we must not turn our backs on the millions more who will have access to health care next year because of these reforms.

The Affordable Care Act is a tremendous achievement that will improve the lives of Americans for generations to come. This anniversary is a time to renew our commitment to completing this important work on behalf of the American people, who are counting on us to do the right thing. With each year that we move forward to implement the features of this landmark health care reform law, the stories of families not being able to gain access to affordable coverage are becoming fewer and fewer and are being replaced by stories of the success of these reforms, one family at a time, all across Vermont and all across America. I look forward to continuing to work with Vermont and with the administration as the law moves forward in its fourth year.

Mr. President, in visiting with fellow Vermonters in and around Brattleboro in southern Vermont last weekend, I appreciated the opportunity to be in town during the month The Brattleboro Reformer marked its centennial anniversary. Local newspapers serve their communities in so many vital ways, and we in Vermont are blessed to have so many that have endured and served for so long.

These are challenging times for newspapers, as newsrooms and publishers adapt to rapidly changing technologies and public preferences. The Brattleboro Reformer has been quick on its feet to meet these challenges. I join with all Vermonters in congratulating The Reformer's hard-working staff on this historic anniversary, and we wish them many more.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a recent news article about this milestone.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in reintroducing legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. An almost identical version was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee two years ago, and then last December it was cleared by both sides for passage by unanimous consent but the Senate adjourned shortly before it could be adopted.

This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities.

On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted.

Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity.

Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,100 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again.

Senator Whitehouse and I visited that facility just last month. It currently holds more than 3,700 prisoners of which more than 3,400 are awaiting trial. Thanks to the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a small Florida-based organization, Health Through Walls, a new infirmary and X-ray machine have dramatically reduced the incidence of HIV and tuberculosis. A small Vermont-based organization, the Rural Justice Center, is using USAID funds to chip away at the pretrial detention problem. These are examples of how modest funding can save lives and improve access to justice for prisoners in facilities plagued by abysmal conditions.

I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin,

was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. A year or two ago, more than 1,000 were reportedly confined there.

Last February, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only four of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried.

It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals.

Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common.

Prisoners in many countries die in prison from lack of proper medical care. Inmates suffer from AIDS and other illnesses in facilities with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population.

A New York Times article described how prisoners in one African country were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf-high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how that country's prison service conducted its own audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following:

First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know.

Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water.

Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns.

Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial.

For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act.

The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act.

Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act.

Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life.

In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly.

Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem.

Identical legislation is planned for reintroduction in the House by Representative Chris Smith who cares deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful throughout this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join today with the senior Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, in reintroducing legislation that has already attracted broad support from across the social and political spectrum. An almost identical version was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee two years ago, and then last December it was cleared by both sides for passage by unanimous consent but the Senate adjourned shortly before it could be adopted.

This bill, titled the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013, seeks to address a much neglected, global human rights and humanitarian problem--the inhumane treatment of people in foreign prisons and other detention facilities.

On any given day, millions of people are languishing in foreign prisons, many in pretrial detention having never been brought before a judge or formally charged or proven guilty of anything, deprived of their freedom in abysmal conditions, often for years longer than they could have been sentenced to prison if convicted.

Others are imprisoned after being convicted of offenses, often after woefully unfair trials, including for nothing more than peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs or defending human rights. Regardless of their status they have one thing in common. They are deprived of the most basic rights and necessities--safe water, adequate food, essential medical care, personal safety, and dignity.

Anyone who has been inside one of these facilities, or seen photographs or press reports of what they are like, understands that this is about the mistreatment of human beings in ways that are reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

A few examples illustrate the point. In Haiti's National Penitentiary before the 2010 earthquake, more than 4,100 prisoners were confined in a space built for less than 900. Many did not have room to lie down and had to sleep standing up. Sanitation was practically non-existent. Deadly contagious diseases were rampant. The overwhelming majority of inmates had never been formally charged, never seen a lawyer or a judge. The earthquake damaged the prison and the prison guards fled, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves without food or water. They managed to get out, but the squalid facility filled up again.

Senator Whitehouse and I visited that facility just last month. It currently holds more than 3,700 prisoners of which more than 3,400 are awaiting trial. Thanks to the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a small Florida-based organization, Health Through Walls, a new infirmary and X-ray machine have dramatically reduced the incidence of HIV and tuberculosis. A small Vermont-based organization, the Rural Justice Center, is using USAID funds to chip away at the pretrial detention problem. These are examples of how modest funding can save lives and improve access to justice for prisoners in facilities plagued by abysmal conditions.

I recall a newspaper article about how in Benin, in West Africa, the skin of prisoners was ragged from the extraction of fly larvae, an affliction that is symptomatic of the deplorable conditions. Many inmates suffer from tuberculosis, scabies, parasites, lung infections or other illnesses. The prison in Abomey, located in southern Benin,

was built in 1904 to house a maximum of 150 prisoners. A year or two ago, more than 1,000 were reportedly confined there.

Last February, a fire at the Comayagua Prison in Honduras killed 360 inmates. In one overcrowded cell block only four of 105 prisoners survived. More than half of those who died were waiting to be charged or tried.

It is common in prisons from Latin America to the Middle East, Africa, and Asia for inmates to be severely malnourished and to go for months without being able to wash. Many prisoners depend for survival on food brought to them by relatives. In many countries individuals awaiting trial, young and old, are housed together with convicted, violent criminals.

Prisoners and other detainees in many countries are also routinely victimized by poorly trained, abusive guards who are virtually unsupervised and unaccountable to any higher authority. Sexual abuse of men, women and children is common.

Prisoners in many countries die in prison from lack of proper medical care. Inmates suffer from AIDS and other illnesses in facilities with no medical records, where doctors do not enter. Prisoners intentionally cut or otherwise harm themselves in the hope of receiving medical attention for life-threatening illnesses. If and when they are released they infect the local population.

A New York Times article described how prisoners in one African country were punished by being stripped naked and held in solitary confinement in small, windowless cells, sometimes for days on end, in ankle-to-calf-high water contaminated with their own excrement. It is like something out of The Count of Monte Cristo, only worse because it is happening in the 21st Century. But the article went on to describe how that country's prison service conducted its own audit, appointed a new medical director, and allowed human rights workers access to its facilities. The legislation Senator Inhofe and I are introducing seeks to provide incentives for those kinds of improvements. Our bill would do the following:

First, it calls attention to this long ignored problem. Most people know little if anything about what goes on inside foreign prisons, and many would prefer not to know.

Second, it sets forth primary indicators for the elimination of inhumane conditions in foreign prisons and other detention facilities, such as human waste facilities that are sanitary and accessible, and adequate ventilation, food and safe drinking water.

Third, it requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the conditions in prisons and other detention facilities in at least 30 countries receiving United States assistance or under sanction by the United States, selected by the Secretary's determination that such conditions raise the most serious human rights or humanitarian concerns.

Fourth, it encourages the Secretary and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to furnish assistance for the purpose of eliminating inhumane conditions where such assistance would be appropriate and beneficial.

For countries that are not making significant efforts to eliminate such conditions, the Secretary is to enter into consultations with their government to achieve the purposes of the Act.

The legislation also provides for training of Foreign Service Officers, and directs the Secretary to designate, within the Department of State's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, an official with responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act.

Finally, it authorizes the expenditure of funds to implement the Act.

Once enacted, the Foreign Prison Conditions Improvement Act of 2013 will help foreign governments ensure that prisoners in their countries are treated as any people deprived of their freedom should be--as human beings, with dignity, in safety, and provided the basic necessities of life.

In countries around the world, the United States is helping to reform justice systems and strengthen the rule of law. No justice system can claim to deliver justice if prisoners and other detainees are treated like animals, or worse. By helping to change attitudes, and showing how with relatively little money prison conditions can be significantly improved, we can help advance the cause of justice more broadly.

Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a defender of justice. This legislation will further that goal and it reflects the best instincts of the American people. It has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, including Amnesty International, USA; Baptist World Alliance, Division of Freedom and Justice; Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; International CURE; International Justice Mission; International Prison Chaplains' Association; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Just Detention International; Justice Fellowship/Prison Fellowship Ministries; National Association of Evangelicals; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good; Open Society Policy Center; Penal Reform International; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I want to thank these groups for their support and their efforts to focus attention on this urgent problem.

Identical legislation is planned for reintroduction in the House by Representative Chris Smith who cares deeply about this issue, so this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort.

Finally, I want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has visited many African countries and has witnessed the problems this legislation seeks to address, as well as his staff, who have been very helpful throughout this process. At a time when some people seem to get satisfaction from calling Washington broken, this is another example of how two Senators, of different parties, whose political views often differ, can work together in furtherance of a just cause.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act. The Senate will soon turn to comprehensive immigration reform and the changes to the refugee system contained in this bill are a critical component of fixing our broken immigration system. As we address the

many complex immigration issues facing our country, we must ensure that America upholds its longstanding commitment to refugee protection.

The Refugee Protection Act of 2013 reaffirms the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and will help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This legislation seeks to repeal the most harsh, inefficient, and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world.

During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. I believe this bill is needed more now than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. Ongoing political struggles in the Middle East and North Africa are causing dislocation of significant populations. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in dire need of protection. The Refugee Protection Act helps ensure that America will continue to be a haven for these individuals and their families, just as it has been historically.

Since passage of the landmark Refugee Act of 1980, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. In my home State of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of these refugees and asylum seekers, almost 5,600 in the last 20 years, has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. As they become small business owners, nurses, and soccer coaches, they contribute to the well-being of our communities and their culture enriches my historically Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian state.

Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylum-seekers to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. Despite this generous community support, however, Vermont's resettlement program is not without its challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. To help address these hurdles, the Refugee Protection Act of 2013 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively.

In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill concerns several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office, rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and is able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we have heard from many immigration experts, the immigration courts are overburdened, under-resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads.

The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid provider and a collaborator in the New England Survivor of Torture and Trauma program, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or from applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts that could harm national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States.

Finally, the bill recognizes the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identities and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at great distance, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards to ensure that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. These reforms are humane and fair, but they will also save taxpayer dollars because of the high costs associated with unnecessary detentions.

There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2013.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to reintroduce the Refugee Protection Act. The Senate will soon turn to comprehensive immigration reform and the changes to the refugee system contained in this bill are a critical component of fixing our broken immigration system. As we address the

many complex immigration issues facing our country, we must ensure that America upholds its longstanding commitment to refugee protection.

The Refugee Protection Act of 2013 reaffirms the commitments we made in ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, and will help to restore the United States as a global leader on human rights. This legislation seeks to repeal the most harsh, inefficient, and unnecessary elements of current law, and restore the United States to its rightful role as a safe and welcoming home for those suffering from persecution around the world.

During this challenging economic time, it can be tempting to look inward rather than to fulfill our global humanitarian commitments. I believe this bill is needed more now than ever. Millions of refugees remain displaced and warehoused in refugee camps in Eastern Africa, Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world. Ongoing political struggles in the Middle East and North Africa are causing dislocation of significant populations. We will continue to see genuine refugees who are in dire need of protection. The Refugee Protection Act helps ensure that America will continue to be a haven for these individuals and their families, just as it has been historically.

Since passage of the landmark Refugee Act of 1980, more than 2.6 million refugees and asylum seekers have been granted protection in the United States. In my home State of Vermont, I have seen how the admission of these refugees and asylum seekers, almost 5,600 in the last 20 years, has revitalized and enriched communities, resulting in the creation of new businesses, safer neighborhoods, and stronger schools. We are fortunate to have the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program, with its decades of experience and award-winning volunteer program, leading this effort. Over the last 5 years, many of these new Vermonters have come from Bhutan, Burma, and the Congo. As they become small business owners, nurses, and soccer coaches, they contribute to the well-being of our communities and their culture enriches my historically Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian state.

Vermonters have played a tremendous role in welcoming refugees and asylum-seekers to their communities. Many have hosted refugee families in their homes until suitable housing could be found. Despite this generous community support, however, Vermont's resettlement program is not without its challenges. We experience many of the same hurdles faced by resettlement efforts and receiving communities across the Nation. To help address these hurdles, the Refugee Protection Act of 2013 includes provisions that will help the nationwide resettlement effort operate more effectively.

In addition to support and improvement of the resettlement program, this bill concerns several areas of domestic asylum adjudication that are in need of significant reform. This bill would repeal the one-year filing deadline for asylum seekers, removing an unnecessary barrier to protection. The bill would allow arriving aliens and minors to seek asylum first before the Asylum Office, rather than referring those cases immediately to immigration court. The Asylum Office is well trained to screen for fraud and is able to handle a slight increase in its caseload. Meanwhile, as we have heard from many immigration experts, the immigration courts are overburdened, under-resourced, and facing steady increases in their caseloads.

The Refugee Protection Act ensures that persons who were victims of terrorism or persecution by terrorist groups will not be doubly victimized with a denial of protection in the United States. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, a legal aid provider and a collaborator in the New England Survivor of Torture and Trauma program, continues to see cases where persons granted asylum are later blocked from bringing their families to the United States or from applying for permanent residency by overly broad definitions in current law. This bill would help such persons prove their cases without taking any shortcuts that could harm national security. The bill also gives the President the authority to designate certain particularly vulnerable groups for expedited consideration. All refugees would still have to complete security and background checks prior to entry to the United States.

Finally, the bill recognizes the need to treat genuine asylum seekers as persons in need of protection, not as criminals. It calls for asylum seekers who can prove their identities and who pose no threat to the United States to be released from immigration detention. Vermont Immigration and Asylum Advocates, like other legal aid providers across the Nation, struggle to visit detention facilities located at great distance, or to reach clients who have been transferred to far away locations. I appreciate efforts made by the Obama administration to parole eligible asylum seekers and to improve the conditions of detention overall, but more must be done. The Refugee Protection Act will improve access to counsel so that asylum seekers with genuine claims can gain legal assistance in presenting their claims. It will require the Government to codify detention standards to ensure that reforms are meaningful and enforceable. These reforms are humane and fair, but they will also save taxpayer dollars because of the high costs associated with unnecessary detentions.

There is no question that the United States is a leader among nations in refugee protection, but we can do better. The refugees we welcome to our shores contribute to the fabric of our Nation, and enrich the communities where they settle. I urge all Senators to support the Refugee Protection Act of 2013.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 129, as modified.

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

Mr. President, this is a technical correction amendment. Current law prohibits transfers of U.S. cluster munitions that do not meet certain reliability requirements.

Years ago Japan purchased U.S. cluster munitions that do not meet such requirements, and that Japan now wants to dispose of. Japan has contracted with a company in Germany to do this. But transferring the cluster munitions to Germany violates the law.

Section 1706(c) of the continuing resolution provides an exception to the prohibition on transfers if the purpose is to dispose of the cluster munitions.

The Leahy amendment #129, which is supported by Senator Graham, fixes a minor drafting error. It is a purely technical amendment which does not affect the substance of section 1706(c).

Mr. President, I suggest we dispose of this amendment by voice vote. It should not be controversial.

I yield back all time.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, President Obama arrived in the Middle East today. It is his first visit as President to Israel and the West Bank.

Some in the press have focused on the fact that the White House has lowered expectations for what will be accomplished in the 3 days of the President's visit. Others, including Members

of Congress, have signed letters to the President.

Rather than prejudge what can be achieved by this trip or try to tie the President's hands concerning the Middle East, I want to simply make a few straightforward points.

First, no one who knows the Middle East can honestly expect momentous accomplishments from a short visit like this, especially when the new Israeli Government is still in the process of forming. But despite that, it is very positive that the President is traveling to the region, and this is as good a time as any.

Second, the peace process, as we have come to refer to it, between Israelis and Palestinians has been stalled for a dozen years. In many ways the prospects for an end to the conflict are worse today than in the mid-1990s, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Just traveling to Israel and the West Bank reaffirms this administration's interest in helping the parties find ways to make progress on the key issues. Ultimately, however, it is up to them, not the United States, to resolve their differences.

Third, it reaffirms President Obama's longstanding support for Israel. While during the Presidential campaign there were shameful attempts to portray the President as somehow not committed enough or supportive enough of Israel, that was pure politics. The record is abundantly clear that he has been, is--and, there is every reason to believe, will continue to be--a strong supporter of Israel. Top Israeli officials have acknowledged this.

That is not to say that we and the Israeli Government are going to agree on every issue. Israel and the United States share fundamental interests, but we are different countries and sometimes our interests diverge. That is to be expected.

Fourth, the President's visit is an opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to recognize that the status quo is unsustainable. Maintaining this untenable limbo is neither in their interests nor in the interests of our great Nation. Unilateral actions by either side are harmful to the peace process. Rhetoric that dehumanizes or demonizes the other is harmful. Settlement construction in disputed territory is harmful. Incitement to violence is harmful. Both sides need to demonstrate that they want lasting peace through negotiations.

The President will also visit Jordan, which is facing increasing pressure from the flood of Syrian refugees, an issue that concerns us all. The fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution that is expected to pass the Senate this week includes additional assistance for Jordan and for Syria's other neighbors to help address these needs.

And, of course, there are growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. I believe the President has wisely proceeded with caution in the way his administration has responded to this grave threat. While some have urged the President to adopt a purely military policy toward Iran, the advice of our top military leaders is restraint. We should exhaust other means at our disposal to try to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and to avoid another war in that part of the world.

Mr. President, I commend President Obama for traveling to the Middle East. Real peace with enduring security between Israelis and Palestinians has long been and remains a key goal of the United States. It is one toward which the Congress and the administration should work together.

Mr. President, there is much at the Organization of American States that needs to be reformed, but the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR, is not among them. Yet that is what the Government of Ecuador and some other Latin American governments purport to be calling for when the OAS general assembly meets this coming Friday.

In reality, it is not about reform at all but a concerted effort to severely weaken the IACHR, the one institution in the Americas that has been a consistent, strong defender of free expression and other fundamental human rights that have been too often denied by those same governments.

I have spoken previously about the courageous work of Colombian lawyer Dr. Catalina Botero, the special rapporteur for freedom of expression. I have also spoken about the efforts by Ecuador's President Rafael Correa to intimidate and control what remains of an independent press in his country. So I will not repeat myself here.

But the United States is the largest contributor to the OAS, and we have provided additional funds in recent years to support the critically important work of the IACHR. I want to be sure Senators are aware of what is happening, as it could have serious consequences for our future support for the OAS. I ask unanimous consent that an article in the Washington Post by Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, former President of Colombia and Secretary General of the OAS, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, during the past 50 years there has been significant progress in improving living standards in developing countries. Some of the successes have been particularly noteworthy: eradicating smallpox and almost eradicating polio, stabilizing population growth rates in many areas, longer life spans, lower infant mortality, fewer people living in poverty, the expansion of democracy.

Investments in international development made by government agencies, nonprofits, businesses, and philanthropic foundations in the United States and around the world have made a difference. Our country is more secure and our economy more resilient than it would otherwise be, thanks to these investments.

Yet there is plenty of room for improvement to get better value for our overseas investments, particularly to increase the sustainability of the assistance we provide. Too often we set unrealistic goals, do not hold governments accountable for corruption, ignore local input, and channel our aid through contractors that charge high fees and put profit over results.

There are other critical areas that have not received nearly the attention they deserve, either by our government or other donors, including the explosive growth of cities and the world's changing climate.

The President mentioned the looming threat of climate change in his inauguration speech, and like many others I am glad he did. To date, our efforts to address this global challenge have been painfully slow and woefully inadequate. As anyone who works the land will tell you, the world's climate is changing fast--spring is coming earlier, polar ice and glaciers are melting, and storms are more violent. Scientists say these changes are potentially catastrophic, and that we will experience even more frequent severe weather events, shrinking water supplies, more intense heat waves and droughts, the spread of disease, and more and more threats to food production.

It is the poorest people who are most vulnerable to these phenomena, and who are most likely to be uprooted from their homes as a result. If the international community does not mobilize quickly to address this challenge we risk the reversal of many or most of the international development gains of the last 50 years, leaving an unprecedented crisis for our children and future generations.

Then there is the related challenge of urbanization. I am proud to say that a Vermont organization called the Institute for Sustainable Communities, founded by former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin, is leading an effort to accelerate climate solutions among more than 320 U.S. cities--and the list is growing. The institute is focusing on cities because it is in densely populated areas that the opportunity to quickly strengthen climate resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is greatest. This work should be expanded on a global scale.

Currently, only a very small percentage of international development dollars is spent to address problems in urban areas, yet 70 percent of the world's population will live in cities by 2030. The number of people migrating to New Delhi, Mumbai, Dhaka, Lagos, Kinshasa, and Karachi each year is greater than the entire population of Europe. Between now and 2030--only 17 years--the world will need to build a city of 1 million people every 5 days to keep up with the urbanization of the developing world. That is a staggering and frightening statistic.

Those cities are not remotely prepared to handle this flood of desperate people. These are not places like Boston or London, Washington or Paris that expanded gradually over centuries becoming stronger as they grew. Cities in developing countries expand through shantytowns, like the vast slums of Nairobi and Lagos. And bit by bit, the edges of the city creep out and suddenly the city's size has doubled, or quadrupled. Closer to home, Tijuana, on the United States Mexican border, is one of Mexico's fastest growing cities. Tijuana adds about 80,000 people each year, and is projected to be the second largest city in Mexico by 2030. Many of its inhabitants arrive with no place to live and no job. The city's infrastructure is utterly unprepared to handle them. It is a recipe for crime and misery.

Slums are not infrastructure, and in general most infrastructure decisions are not well planned. Most of the developing world does not have running water or reliable electricity, and nearly 40 percent of the world's population does not have access to basic sanitation, including 1 billion children. That number is likely to rise as rapidly expanding cities become even less able to meet the demand for basic sanitation and health care.

This immense growth in cities is a cauldron for chaos and instability. People living in cities without safe water or electricity, plagued by hunger, disease and unhealthy living conditions, threatened by rising sea levels and violent storms--these desperate conditions are likely to lead to violence, displacement, and even the toppling of governments.

Rapid urbanization is already putting tremendous pressure on the environment and threatens productive farmland. What will happen when there is not enough food or water for cities filled with millions of people? What will happen if the population of Jakarta doubles without an improvement in living conditions?

Yet as cities grow we also have an opportunity to prevent chaos. Growing cities are going to be constructing new buildings--let's make sure they are energy efficient. They are going to be creating new transport systems--let's focus on low-carbon strategies that move people, not just cars. They are going to need to feed hundreds of millions of hungry people--let's make sure urban centers are connected to the rural economy in a sustainable way. And as they build new infrastructure, let's make sure that it is designed to support livable communities and built in ways that are more resilient to extreme weather and sea level rise.

Investing in cities gives us economies of scale. We can accomplish a great deal through investing in efficient infrastructure, and we can apply lessons learned all across the developing world. An estimated 60 percent of the infrastructure needed to keep pace with the growth in urban centers has not been built yet, but it will be by 2030.

Let's focus on helping cities build smarter. It is a lot easier and cheaper to build it right the first time, than to go back and fix it later. And here in the United States there are companies that produce some of the world's best technology and some of the world's best thinking about creating smart cities. Together with our international partners we can meet this challenge if we share our expertise.

International donors, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development, should devote a larger portion of resources and effort to addressing the urgent problems of climate change and rapid urbanization. It is a critical investment for the 21st century.

Mr. President, I have been privileged to serve Vermonters for many years as a voice on foreign policy matters, and I am always reminded that my work is a reflection of the outward looking posture of the people of my State. Vermonters have a long history of defending human rights and social justice at home and abroad. The longest functioning international exchange program is based in Vermont, and there are over 3,600 nonprofits registered in Vermont that are carrying out programs to protect the environment, support public health, and many other activities here and abroad.

These small businesses help bring Vermont values to such far off places as Vietnam, central Africa, the Middle East, and Central America. One example of the far-reaching contributions Vermont small businesses make every day is the BOMA Project. Based in Manchester, VT, Kathleen Colson started the BOMA Project in the mid-2000s as a way to help women in Kenya escape extreme poverty. Kathleen's company replaces loans with grants and creates opportunities for these women to start small, sustainable income-generating businesses. To date, her company has launched over 1,100 micro-enterprises across northern Kenya.

Other examples of Vermont organizations doing innovative work to improve the lives of people overseas are the Institute for Sustainable Communities, Pure Water for the World, Clear Path International, the ARAVA Institute for Environmental Studies, and World Learning. And there are many others.

A February 10, 2013, article by the Associated Press quoted Peace Corps recruiter Brian Melman as he spoke about the people who work with these Vermont organizations: ``These are people who are willing to think big with small resources. They will go out

of their way to make relationships with anyone that they can and to make believers out of all they come across because the passion is so genuine.'' That article, entitled ``Vt. home to many worldwide development groups,'' is notable because it points out the many ways our small State has contributed in a big way to those less fortunate all across the globe. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.