Floor Statements

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 March 6, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Department of Homeland Security at 10 Years: A Progress Report on Management.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 6, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 6, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 13, the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.

Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will have an opportunity to correct itself and complete action on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the DC Circuit. She was first nominated to a vacancy on the court in September 2010, almost 30 months ago. No one who knows her, no one who is familiar with her outstanding legal career can be anything but impressed by her experience, her intelligence, and her integrity. Hers is a legal career which rivals that of the DC Circuit judge she was nominated to succeed.

I might mention that the judge she was nominated to succeed was John Roberts, who served on the DC Circuit. He is now Chief Justice of the United States. I voted for the confirmation of John Roberts to the DC Circuit. I voted for the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. He and I do not share the same judicial philosophy or

political party, but I voted for him because he was well qualified. I did not agree with every position he had taken or argument he made as a high-level lawyer in several Republican administrations, but I supported his nomination to the DC Circuit because of his legal excellence. Caitlin Halligan is also well qualified. Caitlin Halligan is as well qualified as John Roberts, whom I voted for, and her nomination deserves a vote. John Roberts was confirmed unanimously to the DC Circuit on the day the Judiciary Committee completed consideration of his nomination and reported it to the Senate. It is time for the Senate to consider Caitlin Halligan's nomination on her merits and end the filibuster that has extended over 2 years.

What I am saying is that if we want to be honest in the Senate, we have to apply the same standard to her that we applied to the nomination of John Roberts. After being nominated and renominated four times over the course of the last 3 years, it is time for the Senate to accord this outstanding woman debate and vote on the merits she deserves.

Caitlin Halligan is a highly regarded appellate advocate, with the kind of impeccable credentials in both public service and private practice that make her unquestionably qualified to serve on the DC Circuit. In fact, the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary reviewed her nomination and gave her their highest possible rating. The judge for whom she clerked on the DC Circuit, former chief judge Pat Wald, urges her confirmation. Those who have worked with her all praise her. We have not heard a single negative comment on her legal ability, judgment, character, ethics, or her temperament. By the standard we have used for nominees of Republican Presidents, there is no question that Caitlin Halligan should be confirmed and this ill-advised filibuster should end. Earlier this month the Senate ended a filibuster against the nomination of Robert Bacharach and he was confirmed unanimously to the Tenth Circuit. We finally were allowed to complete action on the nomination of William Kayatta to the First Circuit. So, too, the Senate should now reconsider its prior treatment of Caitlin Halligan and confirm her nomination.

She is a stellar candidate with broad bipartisan support. She is supported by law enforcement, with whom she worked closely while serving as a chief appellate lawyer in the State of New York and as general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney. That includes the support of New York City police commissioner, Ray Kelly; the New York Association of Chiefs of Police; and the National District Attorneys Association.

Carter Phillips, who served as an assistant to the Solicitor General during the Reagan administration, describes her as one of those extremely smart, thoughtful, measured, and effective advocates and concluded that she would be a first-rate judge. She has the strong support of the New York Women in Law Enforcement, the National Center for Women and Policing, the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of letters in support for Ms. Halligan at the conclusion of my remarks.

I have been here 38 years and occasionally see things that really disappoint me. This is one where I see that narrow special interest groups seek to misrepresent her as a partisan or ideological crusader. She is not. Everybody who knows her, everybody who has dealt with her, Republican and Democratic alike, says she is not. What they do say is that she is a brilliant lawyer who knows the difference between the roles of legal advocate and judge. She will be a fair, impartial, and outstanding judge.

To oppose her for her work as an advocate would be like saying: We can't have this particular nominee be a judge because the nominee was appointed to defend a murderer and we are against murder. No. We are against the rule of law. We are against everybody who appears before a court having good representation whether we agree with their position or not. These kinds of arguments undermine our whole legal system.

While serving as the solicitor general for the State of New York, she was an advocate, representing the interests of her client. How often have we heard Republican Senators say that what lawyers do and say in legal proceedings should not be used to undermine their judicial nominations? Chief Justice Roberts himself has made that point. As an attorney, Chief Justice Roberts advocated for positions where I disagreed with him, but he was supporting the position of the people for whom he was an advocate. At his confirmation hearing to join the United States Supreme Court, Judge Roberts said:

[I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back

before the founding of the country that lawyers are not

identified with the positions of their clients. The most

famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the

British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that

for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution

in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule

of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law.

Our Founders thought that they were not being given their

rights under the British system to which they were entitled,

and by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that

what they were about was defending the rule of law, not

undermining it, and that principle, that you don't

identify the lawyer with the particular views of the

client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of

the client, is critical to the fair administration of

justice.

That has always been our tradition--at least until now. This litmus test that would disqualify nominees because as lawyers they represented a legal position in a case is dangerous and wrong. Almost every nominee who had been a practicing lawyer would be disqualified by such a test. By the standard that is being applied to Caitlin Halligan, John Roberts could not have been confirmed to serve as a Federal judge let alone as the Chief Justice of the United States.

Yet some have justified their filibuster because she was directed by the New York attorney general to draft an amicus brief challenging a Federal law that protected gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their products. As New York's solicitor general she filed a brief in support of a class action lawsuit against anti-choice clinic protestors under the Hobbs Act. She filed a brief on behalf of New York in support of a lower court's decision to permit back pay to undocumented employees whose employers were violating Federal law. She filed a brief on behalf of New York and other States in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. In all of these cases, she was representing her client, the State of New York.

Note that her critics are not arguing that she was a bad lawyer. In essence, what they are contending is that because they disagree with the legal positions taken on behalf of her client, she should not get an up-or-down vote. That is wrong.

When I voted for Chief Justice Roberts, I remember a number of Republicans told me, of course, that is the only thing you should do because you think he is qualified. Now I have Republicans who tell me they feel she is well qualified, but this special interest group or that special interest group is opposed to her. She took positions with which they disagree. That is not the issue. Is she qualified? Did she stand up for her clients the way an attorney should in our adversarial system?

Her public service in the State of New York is commendable, and no reason to filibuster this nomination. Vote yes or vote no on this nomination. Voting to block it from coming to a vote is saying: I don't have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no; I want to vote maybe. It never comes to a vote if we filibuster it. I may vote maybe so I don't have to explain to people that she is far more qualified than people we voted for who were nominated by Republican Presidents. I didn't vote against her; I didn't vote for her; I voted maybe.

That is not the way it should be. Our legal system is an adversarial system, predicated upon legal advocacy for both sides. There is a difference between serving as a legal advocate and as an impartial judge. She knows that. She is a woman of integrity. No one who fairly reviews her nomination has any reason to doubt her commitment to serve as an impartial judge.

I always said when I practiced law that I didn't want to walk into a courtroom and say the case is going be determined by whether I was plaintiff or defendant, Republican or Democratic, but that the case would be determined on the facts and the law.

We have been fortunate in Vermont that we have had many judges like this, judges who were appointed by Republican Governors, judges appointed by Democratic Governors, Federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents, Federal judges appointed by Democratic Presidents. In Vermont, we have been fortunate because no matter what their positions have been before, they turned out to be impartial judges, which is what this good woman will be.

In fact, it is not only wrong but dangerous to attribute the legal position she took in representing her client, the State of New York, to her personally and then take the additional leap--and it is a huge leap--to contend that her personal views will override her commitment to evenhandedly apply the law.

John Adams, one of our most revered Founders, wrote that his representation of the British soldiers in the controversial case regarding the Boston Massacre was ``one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.'' That is our tradition. The Senate should end this filibuster and vote to confirm a woman who has ably served as a public official representing the State of New York and the district attorney of Manhattan.

The other justification Republican Senators used 2 years ago to justify their filibuster is gone. Some contended that the caseload in the DC Circuit was not sufficiently heavy to justify the appointment. There are now four vacancies on the DC Circuit. The vacancies have doubled during the last 2 years. The bench is more than one-third empty. This is reason enough for Senators to reconsider their earlier votes and end this filibuster.

The Senate responded to this caseload concern in 2008 when we agreed to decrease the number of DC Circuit judgeships from 12 to 11. Caitlin Halligan is nominated to fill the 8th seat on the DC Circuit, not the 11th. Just a few years ago when the DC Circuit caseload per active judge was lower than it is now, all the Republican Senators voted to confirm nominees to fill the 9th seat, the 10th seat twice, and the 11th seat on this court. In fact, the DC Circuit caseload for active judges increased 50 percent from 2005--50 percent from when the Senate confirmed the nominee to fill the 11th seat on the DC Circuit bench. The caseload on the DC Circuit is also greater than the caseload on the Tenth Circuit, to which the Senate just confirmed Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma last week.

In her recent column in The Washington Post, Judge Wald explains why the work of the DC Circuit, with its unique jurisdiction over complex regulatory cases is different and more onerous than in other circuits and why the court needs to have its vacancies filled. She wrote:

The number of pending cases per judge has grown from 119 in

2005 to 188 today. A great many of these are not easy cases.

The D.C. Circuit hears the most complex, time-consuming,

labyrinthine disputes over regulations with the greatest

impact on ordinary Americans' lives: clean air and water

regulations, nuclear plant safety, health-care reform,

insider trading and more. These cases can require thousands

of hours of preparation by the judges, often consuming days

of argument, involving hundreds of parties and interveners,

and necessitating dozens of briefs and thousands of pages of

record--all of which culminates in lengthy, technically

intricate legal opinions.

She also notes: ``The D.C. Circuit has 11 judgeships but only seven active judges. There is cause for extreme concern that Congress is systematically denying the court the human resources it needs to carry out its weighty mandates.'' I ask that a copy of her article be included in the Record at this point.

I urge all those who have said filibusters on judicial nominations are unconstitutional to end this filibuster. I urge those who have said here on this floor that they would never support a filibuster of a judicial nomination to end this filibuster. I urge those who said they would filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances to end this filibuster. I urge all those who care about the judiciary and the administration of justice, the Senate, and the American people to come forward and end this filibuster.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for what he said on these nominations. As he knows, we have an awful lot of them that have come out, and then every time he has tried to move them quickly on the Senate floor there has been opposition from the other side.

It has been frustrating when we actually had nominations that waited months, or will have a cloture vote, and then they will get 90 or 95 votes for confirmation.

Of course.

Mr. President, it would be hard to state it any better than the Senator from Nevada has. But so many of the issues we grapple with every single day on this floor--regulatory issues, issues that affect the various departments of government--when there are appeals of those issues, when there are questions of what the Departments do, they invariably go to the DC Circuit. They don't go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court, as the distinguished Presiding Officer and the distinguished majority leader know, takes only a tiny percentage of cases that are appealed. But every one of these major legal issues that are appealed are heard by the DC Circuit, and it is frustrating to know there is a concerted effort on the other side to try to stop having a balance in the DC Circuit.

Every one of us as lawyers would hope we could come into a courtroom and know that if we have a good case, we would win it; and if we have a bad case, we would lose but that the cards aren't stacked against us because we are a Republican or Democrat. Because of the makeup of the DC Circuit, more and more people are getting the view--rightly or wrongly--it is stacked. The efforts of the Republican Party to block anybody else from going down there except for people they have vetted increase that impression that the court is stacked. That doesn't help the system of justice in the United States. It actually doesn't help whether you are a Republican or a Democrat because it destroys the idea of the impartiality of the courts.

Of course.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct. I would even argue that in some areas it is more important than the Supreme Court because on so many of the issues that go there, they will have the final word. The Supreme Court could never hear all of the requests for appeals from the DC Circuit, and they become the final word.

So on the issues that involve average Americans based on what their government does, they will be decided in that circuit court, not in the Supreme Court. So it is extraordinarily important that we have a balanced court there.

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, last week, Congress failed to act to avoid indiscriminate across-the-board cuts from sequestration. These automatic cuts are in the tens of billions of dollars at a time when our economy is finally recovering but remains fragile. Among those who will have to endure these cuts are the overburdened Federal courts already suffering from longstanding vacancies that number almost 90 and have remained near or above 80 for almost 4 years. Budgetary cuts will mean more difficulty for the American people to get speedy justice from our Federal justice system.

Two senior district judges, one appointed by President Reagan and one appointed by President Clinton, wrote last week in U.S. News and World Report that sequestration will ``devastate the judicial branch.'' They wrote: ``[C]ourts may need to close periodically, furlough employees, and cut security, thereby, delaying proceedings. These realities, combined with a reduction in supervision of persons on bond and convicted felons who are released from prison, compromise public safety.'' They conclude: ``[Our Federal courts provide access to justice, protect against abuses of power, and defend the Constitution. Failure to avert sequestration by March 1 undermines the ability of the Federal courts to fulfill this Constitutional mandate.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

As we hear these warnings from judges and other officials across our three branches of Government, I hope Senators understand that sequestration is bad for the courts, bad for the economy, and bad for the American people.

Over the past 4 years, unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans has meant that all judicial nominees have become wrapped around the axle of partisanship. Senators from both sides of the aisle used to agree that Federal courts are supposed to be impartial and outside of politics. Yet, the actions of Senate Republicans over the last 4 years have undermined that principle of our constitutional system and hurt the integrity of the judiciary. I hear this from judges appointed by Republican Presidents and those appointed by Democratic Presidents. They say the unprecedented delays that nominees face politicize the courts and destroy the appearance of impartiality the Federal courts need. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said last year that this extreme partisanship erodes the public's confidence in our courts and ``makes the judiciary look politicized when it is not, and it has to stop.''

This obstruction has also contributed to keeping judicial vacancies at a damagingly high level for over 4 years. Persistent vacancies mean that fewer judges have to take on growing caseloads and make it harder for Americans to have access to speedy justice. There are today 89 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration.

Senate Republicans chose to depart dramatically from well-established Senate practices from the moment President Obama took office in their efforts to delay and obstruct his judicial nominations.

Until 2009, judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, we usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district court nominee has been stalled 4.3 times longer and the average circuit court nominee has been stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. No other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Some Republicans have ignored the facts I just cited even though they came from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS). No invented statistic can change the fact that no president's nominees have ever waited as long for a vote as President Obama's.

Senate Republicans have also claimed that President Bush had only 74 percent of his nominees confirmed during his first term. This is also not true. President Bush nominated 231 men and women to serve as circuit and district judges; of them, 205 were confirmed. That is a confirmation rate of 89 percent. During President Obama's first term, only 173 district and circuit judges were confirmed, and a much lower percentage. Contrary to the claims of Senate Republicans the Senate has confirmed far fewer of President Obama's nominees and confirmed them at a significantly lower rate at the same points in his and President Bush's administrations. Senate Republicans talk about how much progress we made during the 112th Congress, when we confirmed 113 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees. But they ignore the fact that 19 of those nominees could and should have been confirmed during the 111th Congress, and the fact that the 60 confirmations they allowed in the 111th Congress was the lowest total for a new president in over 30 years. They ignore the fact that in President Obama's first year in office they allowed just 12 of his circuit and district nominees to be confirmed, which, according to CRS, was the lowest one-year confirmation total since the Eisenhower administration when the Federal bench was barely one-third the size it is today. We have yet to make up the ground we lost during those first 2 years. Looking only at the confirmation total from last Congress while ignoring the historic obstruction of nominations that preceded it and the backlog that was created provides an incomplete and misleading picture.

There can be no question about the effect of the unprecedented effort by Senate Republicans to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Despite bipartisan calls to address longstanding judicial vacancies, the delays and obstruction of judicial confirmations have led to judicial vacancies to the remaining near or above 80 for almost 4 years.

During the vote on Judge Bacharach last week, some Senators defending the filibuster that blocked his confirmation for 7 months claimed that it was just the usual Senate practice in a presidential election year. During the filibuster last year of Judge Bacharach, there was not even a pretense of any substantive concern--Senate Republicans just decided to shut down the confirmation process and contorted the ``Thurmond Rule.'' But personal attacks on me, trying to repackage their own actions as if following the Thurmond Rule, do not change the facts. The fact is that in the past six presidential election years, Senate Democrats have never denied an up-or-down vote to a consensus circuit nominee; Senate Republicans cannot say that. Until last year, no circuit nominee with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support had ever been successfully filibustered. Senators claiming to be upholding Senate tradition while engaging in a filibuster that had no precedent in Senate history are not supported by the facts.

After last year's filibuster, Judge Bacharach waited another 7 months before being allowed a vote on the merits.

The outcome of that vote was that he was confirmed unanimously. It is hard to understand why 7 months of delay were necessary. During the 7 months of additional unnecessary delay since his filibuster, Judge Bacharach could have been working on behalf of the people of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Likewise there is no reason to delay further the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit was first reported nearly 2 years ago. Senate Republicans justified their filibuster of her nomination a year ago by arguing that the Circuit did not need another judge. Since that time, the number of vacancies on that court has doubled, and it is now more than one-third vacant. It needs Caitlin Halligan. She is the kind of moderate, superbly qualified nominee who should easily be able to be confirmed under any standard by which the Senate has considered judicial nominees in the past. It is well past time to walk back from the precipice marked by the wrongheaded filibuster of Ms. Halligan. The continued filibuster of her nomination does harm to the Senate, to the important D.C. Circuit, and to the American people.

At a time when judicial vacancies have again risen to almost 90, we must do more for our overburdened courts. It is past time for the partisan obstruction to end. We have a long way to go. After 4 years of delay and obstruction, we remain far behind the pace of confirmations we set during President Bush's administration, and there remain far too many judicial vacancies that make it harder for Americans to have their day in court. During President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from 2004 through 2008, vacancies never exceeded 60. Since President Obama's first full month in office, and as far into the future as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress.

Senate Republicans claim that we cannot do more because President Obama has not made a sufficient number of nominations. But it is Senate Republicans themselves, and their unwillingness to work with a President who has reached out to them to submit recommendations and to work with him, that has delayed many nominations.

Unlike his predecessor, President Obama has worked hard to solicit recommendations from home State Senators, including those from the other party. This President has consistently selected qualified, mainstream nominees. For the judicial vacancies in States with 2 Republican Senators, just 11 percent have a nominee. I urge Senate Republicans to do a better job providing consensus recommendations and fulfilling their own constitutional responsibility to ``advise'' the President on nominations and work with President Obama to fill these vacancies.

The Senate today will finally vote on the nominations of Pamela Chen and Katherine Failla. Both nominees should have been confirmed last year. Pamela Chen is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She has worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the district to which has now been nominated to be a judge for all but one of the last 14 years, rising from a line prosecutor to serve as chief of Civil Rights Litigation, deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, and chief of the Civil Rights Section, Criminal Division. Between January and April 2008, she served as the deputy commissioner for enforcement at the New York State Division of Human Rights. Previously, she spent 7 years as a trial attorney and senior trial attorney in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. She began her legal career as an associate in private practice. She earned her B.A., with honors, from the University of Michigan, and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. When confirmed, Pamela Chen will be only the second female Chinese-American in U.S. history to serve on a Federal district court. She will also be one of only a few openly gay Federal judges.

Katherine Failla is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Since 2000, she has served as an Assistant United States Attorney in that division, and since 2008 she has served as the chief of the office's Criminal Appeals Unit. Prior to her government service, she was an associate in the New York office of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. In her career, she has tried 10 trials to verdict. After law school, she clerked for the Honorable Joseph E. Irenas, U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey. She graduated with honors from the College of William & Mary, and Harvard Law School.

After today's votes, 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, almost all of whom had been reported with bipartisan support, and their refusal to consider another 4 who had hearings and could have been expedited. I urge that the Senate act quickly on these long-pending nominations. Further delay does not serve the interests of the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Today I am proud to introduce modified legislation to combat the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. Since my initial introduction of the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act at the very beginning of the 113th Congress on January 22, I have had productive conversations with several Senators who share my goal of reducing this destructive criminal conduct. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Kirk, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Blumenthal. These Senators understand the weaknesses in our current law and the challenges faced by law enforcement officials. I thank them for their commitment to this legislation, for their support of law enforcement, and for their cooperation in making progress in our collective efforts to prevent and reduce gun violence.

I hope that as other Senators on both sides of the aisle become more familiar with our bipartisan proposal, they will understand how it provides law enforcement with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. The practice of straw purchasing is used for one thing to put firearms into the hands of those that are prohibited by law from having them. Many are then used to further violent crimes.

I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort and help answer the call from Gabrielle Giffords and so many Americans for us to take action.

I want to commend the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this matter and for her willingness to work across the aisle to make real progress. She helped unite us to get this done. Without her, we would not have made the progress we have, or be in position to consider this comprehensive response to what law enforcement has told us they need.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue our consideration of four measures to reduce gun violence. The issue of gun trafficking and straw purchasing is before the Committee. I will amend my original trafficking bill that is pending on the Committee agenda with the text of this bipartisan compromise, which combines the proposals that I put forward with Senator Durbin at the beginning of this Congress as well as proposals that have been championed by Senator Gillibrand and Senator Kirk. Our substitute amendment will improve the language already pending before the Committee. As I did before introducing any measure related to gun violence this year, I also hope to continue my outreach to the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member. I invite Senator Grassley and other members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle to join with us so that I can report this measure with strong bipartisan support and without delay for consideration by the Senate.

Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary effectively to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless.'' If we are to address gun violence, we should respond to this clear vulnerability that is being exploited by criminals.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes that will better equip law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. Straw purchases typically involve a person, who is not prohibited by Federal law, purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. These practices result in the support of larger criminal organizations, and the illegally obtained guns are often sold and re-sold across state lines. This trafficking in firearms results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. Straw

purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system, and they put law enforcement officials and law-abiding firearms dealers in difficult positions. Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe.

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.

The bipartisan bill we introduce today 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. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. Talk about prosecuting mere paperwork offenses is no answer.

Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. 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.

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 laid out 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. I hope Federal firearms licensees welcome a stronger deterrent to keep criminal straw purchasers out of their business.

The problems of gun trafficking and straw purchasers, particularly along the Southwest border, are matters we have been talking about for years. Senator Durbin chaired a hearing on border violence back in early 2009. Law enforcement officials have called for a firearms trafficking statute that can be effective to go after straw purchasers. That is something agents did not have when they initiated Operation Wide Receiver during the Bush administration and later the disastrous Fast and Furious effort. Their frustration with the limits of the current law contributed to their looking for another way to make a difference in their fight against gun trafficking. Their initiative was a failure. What we need to do now is to create better law enforcement tools. I hope that those who have been concerned about Fast and Furious, whose investigation established that it was the local ATF agents in Arizona who initiated and so poorly implemented that effort, will join with us to close the loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels are continuing to exploit.

Our bill was drafted at the request of law enforcement. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities. It will not undermine the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. It has the support of many law enforcement organizations--both leadership and rank and file. Indeed, the original bill I introduced with Senator Durbin has been supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum. I urge everyone who cares about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to join in this effort.

We have an obligation to find solutions to reduce gun violence and I thank these Senators for their strong leadership. We can do this in a way consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I believe our bipartisan legislation meets those goals. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I look forward to continuing our progress on this important legislation.

Today I am proud to introduce modified legislation to combat the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. Since my initial introduction of the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act at the very beginning of the 113th Congress on January 22, I have had productive conversations with several Senators who share my goal of reducing this destructive criminal conduct. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Kirk, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Blumenthal. These Senators understand the weaknesses in our current law and the challenges faced by law enforcement officials. I thank them for their commitment to this legislation, for their support of law enforcement, and for their cooperation in making progress in our collective efforts to prevent and reduce gun violence.

I hope that as other Senators on both sides of the aisle become more familiar with our bipartisan proposal, they will understand how it provides law enforcement with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. The practice of straw purchasing is used for one thing to put firearms into the hands of those that are prohibited by law from having them. Many are then used to further violent crimes.

I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort and help answer the call from Gabrielle Giffords and so many Americans for us to take action.

I want to commend the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this matter and for her willingness to work across the aisle to make real progress. She helped unite us to get this done. Without her, we would not have made the progress we have, or be in position to consider this comprehensive response to what law enforcement has told us they need.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue our consideration of four measures to reduce gun violence. The issue of gun trafficking and straw purchasing is before the Committee. I will amend my original trafficking bill that is pending on the Committee agenda with the text of this bipartisan compromise, which combines the proposals that I put forward with Senator Durbin at the beginning of this Congress as well as proposals that have been championed by Senator Gillibrand and Senator Kirk. Our substitute amendment will improve the language already pending before the Committee. As I did before introducing any measure related to gun violence this year, I also hope to continue my outreach to the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member. I invite Senator Grassley and other members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle to join with us so that I can report this measure with strong bipartisan support and without delay for consideration by the Senate.

Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary effectively to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless.'' If we are to address gun violence, we should respond to this clear vulnerability that is being exploited by criminals.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes that will better equip law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. Straw purchases typically involve a person, who is not prohibited by Federal law, purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. These practices result in the support of larger criminal organizations, and the illegally obtained guns are often sold and re-sold across state lines. This trafficking in firearms results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. Straw

purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system, and they put law enforcement officials and law-abiding firearms dealers in difficult positions. Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe.

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.

The bipartisan bill we introduce today 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. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. Talk about prosecuting mere paperwork offenses is no answer.

Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. 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.

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 laid out 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. I hope Federal firearms licensees welcome a stronger deterrent to keep criminal straw purchasers out of their business.

The problems of gun trafficking and straw purchasers, particularly along the Southwest border, are matters we have been talking about for years. Senator Durbin chaired a hearing on border violence back in early 2009. Law enforcement officials have called for a firearms trafficking statute that can be effective to go after straw purchasers. That is something agents did not have when they initiated Operation Wide Receiver during the Bush administration and later the disastrous Fast and Furious effort. Their frustration with the limits of the current law contributed to their looking for another way to make a difference in their fight against gun trafficking. Their initiative was a failure. What we need to do now is to create better law enforcement tools. I hope that those who have been concerned about Fast and Furious, whose investigation established that it was the local ATF agents in Arizona who initiated and so poorly implemented that effort, will join with us to close the loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels are continuing to exploit.

Our bill was drafted at the request of law enforcement. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities. It will not undermine the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. It has the support of many law enforcement organizations--both leadership and rank and file. Indeed, the original bill I introduced with Senator Durbin has been supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum. I urge everyone who cares about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to join in this effort.

We have an obligation to find solutions to reduce gun violence and I thank these Senators for their strong leadership. We can do this in a way consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I believe our bipartisan legislation meets those goals. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I look forward to continuing our progress on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. It is identical to the bill that she and I have introduced in prior years, and I commend her for her persistence on this important humanitarian issue.

I come to this issue having devoted much effort over many years to shining a spotlight on and doing what can be done to help innocent victims of war. In the last century, and continuing into this new century, noncombatants increasingly have borne the brunt of the casualties in armed conflicts across the globe. Limiting the use of weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines, and that have indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, are tangible, practical, meaningful things we can do to reduce these unnecessary casualties.

Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation that cluster munitions cause over wide areas understands the unacceptable threat they pose to noncombatants. These are not the laser guided weapons the Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad. To the contrary. Cluster munitions can kill and maim anyone within the 360 degree range of flying shrapnel.

There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is an unsuspecting child, or a farmer.

Even now, in Laos today people are still being killed and maimed by millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the 1970s. That legacy, resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It is shameful that we have contributed less in the past 35 years to clean up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing.

Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets.

The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018.

Like Senator Feinstein I reject the notion that the United States can justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and injure innocent people including children, and which many of our allies have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and expects from the United States. If we have learned anything from Afghanistan it is that harming civilians, even unintentionally, creates enemies among those whose support we need, and undermines the mission of our troops.

Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1 percent failure rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of enactment. However, our bill permits the President to waive the 1 percent requirement if the President certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States. I would hope the Pentagon would recognize that this is in its best interest, and will work with us by supporting this reasonable step.

Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions opened for signature in Dublin, at least 111 countries have signed the treaty including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia and other allies of the United States. However, the Bush Administration did not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and the Obama Administration has not signed it.

Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless exercise, since it does not yet have the support of the United States and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and stockpiled--and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions.

It is important to note that the United States today has the technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the requirements of our bill, as well as of the treaty. What is lacking is the political will to act. There is no excuse for continuing to use cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

I urge the Obama administration to review its policy on cluster munitions and put the United States on a path to

join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an important step in the right direction.

I want again to thank and commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown such passion and steadfastness in raising this issue and seeking every opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. It is identical to the bill that she and I have introduced in prior years, and I commend her for her persistence on this important humanitarian issue.

I come to this issue having devoted much effort over many years to shining a spotlight on and doing what can be done to help innocent victims of war. In the last century, and continuing into this new century, noncombatants increasingly have borne the brunt of the casualties in armed conflicts across the globe. Limiting the use of weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines, and that have indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, are tangible, practical, meaningful things we can do to reduce these unnecessary casualties.

Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation that cluster munitions cause over wide areas understands the unacceptable threat they pose to noncombatants. These are not the laser guided weapons the Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad. To the contrary. Cluster munitions can kill and maim anyone within the 360 degree range of flying shrapnel.

There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is an unsuspecting child, or a farmer.

Even now, in Laos today people are still being killed and maimed by millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the 1970s. That legacy, resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It is shameful that we have contributed less in the past 35 years to clean up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing.

Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets.

The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018.

Like Senator Feinstein I reject the notion that the United States can justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and injure innocent people including children, and which many of our allies have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and expects from the United States. If we have learned anything from Afghanistan it is that harming civilians, even unintentionally, creates enemies among those whose support we need, and undermines the mission of our troops.

Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1 percent failure rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of enactment. However, our bill permits the President to waive the 1 percent requirement if the President certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States. I would hope the Pentagon would recognize that this is in its best interest, and will work with us by supporting this reasonable step.

Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions opened for signature in Dublin, at least 111 countries have signed the treaty including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia and other allies of the United States. However, the Bush Administration did not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and the Obama Administration has not signed it.

Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless exercise, since it does not yet have the support of the United States and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and stockpiled--and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions.

It is important to note that the United States today has the technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the requirements of our bill, as well as of the treaty. What is lacking is the political will to act. There is no excuse for continuing to use cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

I urge the Obama administration to review its policy on cluster munitions and put the United States on a path to

join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an important step in the right direction.

I want again to thank and commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown such passion and steadfastness in raising this issue and seeking every opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for allowing me to go first. I assure him I will be very brief. I know the distinguished Senator from Washington State is here. She has an interest in what I am going to say because of her very strong support of the Violence Against Women bill.

Earlier this month, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the chamber to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with a strong bipartisan vote. I am happy to report that the House of Representatives just passed the Senate-passed bill. This vital legislation will now go to the President, and it will be signed into law. It will help victims of rape and domestic violence and victims of human trafficking who could not wait another day for us to act. This action of Congress will prevent terrible crimes and help countless victims rebuild their lives.

Today Congress showed that we still can act in a bipartisan way. I thank Senator Crapo for being my partner on this legislation from the beginning, and I was glad when he and Senator Murkowski, another steadfast supporter, joined me on a bipartisan letter earlier this week asking Speaker Boehner to pass this legislation to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence. Today, the House followed the Senate's example, and listened to the call from thousands of survivors of violence and law enforcement by passing this fully-inclusive, life- saving legislation with a bipartisan vote.

We made the Violence Against Women Act our top priority this Congress but it should not have taken this long. Our bill was written with the input of law enforcement, victims, and the people who work with victims every day to address real needs. None of the commonsense changes it included should have been controversial. Still, at a time when we face gridlock and stonewalling on even the most compelling issues, I am glad to see that we could find a way to cut through all of that to help victims of violence.

This new law will make lives better. It will encourage and fund practices proven to help law enforcement and victim service providers reduce domestic violence homicides. It will lead to more investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual assault crimes and more services provided to victims of those crimes. It will also help eliminate backlogs of untested rape kits to help those victims receive justice and security promptly.

This reauthorization, like every VAWA reauthorization before it, takes new steps to ensure that we can reach the most vulnerable victims whose needs are not being met. For the first time, it guarantees that all victims can receive needed services, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This law strengthens protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures that colleges and universities will do more to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization also takes important new steps to combat the appalling epidemic of domestic violence on tribal lands and to ensure that no perpetrators of this terrible crime are above the law.

The bill that the President will sign also includes the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which continues and strengthens effective programs to help us take on the scourge of human trafficking. It is unacceptable that 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the evils of sex trafficking and labor trafficking, forms of modern day slavery, still exist around the world and even in the United States. It has been too difficult, but I am glad that Congress is finally acting once again to address trafficking.

I will never forget going as a young prosecutor to crime scenes at 2:00 in the morning and seeing the victims of these awful crimes. As we worked on this bill, I heard the moving stories in hearings and rallies and meetings of those who survived true horrors and had the courage to share their stories in the hopes that others could be spared what they went through. We have finally come together to honor their courage and take the action they demanded.

I thank the many Senators and Representatives of both parties who have helped to lead this fight, and the leadership of both Houses who have prioritized moving this vital legislation. I thank Representative Cole for his steadfast dedication to help preserve the protections for Native women. But most of all, I thank the tireless victims, advocates, and service providers who have given so much of themselves to ensure that this legislation would pass and that, when it did, it would make a real difference. Lives will be better because of their work and because of this law.

I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

Madam President, earlier this week, I shared with the Senate the consequences of sequestration for the budget of the Department of State and foreign operations and its impact on the security of the United States. Funding for the entire Department of State and foreign operations budget amounts to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget, not the 15 or 20 percent some mistakenly believe.

That 1 percent includes funding to operate our embassies and consulates in over 290 countries, to carry out diplomacy in dangerous environments like Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, respond to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with security and trading partners. Sequestration would harm these efforts by cutting assistance for diplomatic security at a time when everyone agrees we need to do more to protect our Foreign Service officers overseas.

On the development side, sequestration will mean cuts to global health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for vaccines for children, protect maternal health, and combat malaria and tuberculosis. It will also mean reductions for funding for disaster and refugee aid at a time when an increasing number of victims of drought, famine, and extremist violence around the world need assistance.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it would have such catastrophic consequences that rational minds would replace it with a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction.

That has not happened. To the contrary, just 1 day before the sequester is to take effect, our friends on the other side of the aisle, who favor cutting government programs and particularly those that help the neediest, seem to have decided that they would rather see sequestration take effect rather than close tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and pad growing corporate profits.

However, as President Obama and others have been warning for weeks, allowing these Draconian cuts to go into effect tomorrow will have a tremendously negative impact on jobs all across the country and on essential services provided by our government.

The American people elected us to come to Washington to work together and make tough decisions. It is well past time for a certain amount of reasonableness to come back to Congress. I have always believed that a balanced approach of pairing decreased spending with increased revenues is a far better way to deal with our budget deficits than sequestration. That is what we did with President Clinton in the 1990s, and we saw record budget surpluses.

We simply cannot cut our way out of this deficit. We created this situation partly by putting two wars on the Nation's credit card. We already have reduced the debt by $2.5 trillion, with the vast majority of those savings coming from spending cuts. Just as most private businesses adjust their prices prudently over time, we cannot finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone.

We must understand that even in these difficult budgetary times we cannot sacrifice the future of critical Federal programs in education, in health care, and in national security that affect hard-working families across the country, every single day. The American people want and expect us to take a balanced approach. They know it isn't wise to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in our schools, our factories, our roads, and our workers. Yes, they want us to get our books in order-- but in a balanced way where everyone pulls equally.

Today the Senate has the opportunity to avoid this devastating sequester by voting for the American Family Economic Protection Act, which does just that. This balanced legislation will delay sequestration by replacing it with a combination of new revenues and targeted spending cuts. These spending cuts would reduce the deficit in a responsible way, eliminating unnecessary direct payments and farm subsidies and implementing reasonable and responsible defense spending reductions beginning when the war in Afghanistan is expected to end. This legislation would also generate revenue, equal to the amount of spending cuts included, by eliminating oil industry tax loopholes, denying deductions to companies that ship jobs overseas, and ensuring that millionaires do not pay a smaller share of their incomes in taxes than the typical middle-class family.

The American Family Economic Protection Act provides us with a clear, balanced proposal that would avoid the devastation of sequestration. I look forward to the opportunity to support this responsible approach to deficit reduction and hope all Senators will join me in doing the same.

If we choose to not act responsibly and do not pass this legislation today, I am afraid sequestration will go forward and would mean devastating cuts around the country and for Vermont. Without action, sequestration would mean that Vermont schools would lose more than $2.5 million for primary and secondary education and the education of children with disabilities, while putting the jobs of teachers and aides at risk. Vermont would stand to lose more than $1 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste.

Vermont would lose roughly $2.6 million in funding for medical research

and innovation funding from NIH and $400,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation, costing the State 53 jobs. Vermont would lose funding for the grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. Sequestration would mean Vermont would lose $101,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning 3,700 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment, just when they need it most.

In Vermont, sequestration would impact public health. Fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations. Across-the-board cuts mean Vermont will lose about $270,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 500 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Vermont Department of Health will lose about $55,000 resulting in around 1,400 fewer HIV tests. Sequestration would mean the state would lose funding used to provide meals for seniors and services to victims of domestic violence.

If we do not pass the American Family Economic Protection Act today, our States will lose funding for community development block grants and housing vouchers helping to put a roof over families' heads, we will lose funding for cancer screenings, childcare, and Head Start programs helping to get our Nation's children ready for school.

We cannot afford to allow this self-inflicted devastation move to forward. The bottom line is that getting our fiscal house in order must go hand in hand with policies that promote economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class--all things that President Obama and Democrats in both Houses of Congress are eager to do if only we had more cooperation from our friends across the aisle. We simply cannot cut our way out of this. We cannot allow an unbalanced approach that would once again require that deficit reduction be achieved solely through spending cuts, and would disproportionately impact low-income Americans and middle-class families. And we should not allow politics and posturing to dictate our actions here today. The American people expect more from us. I hope the Senate will end the filibuster of this legislation and allow an up-or-down vote so that we can show our constituents that we are capable of putting the interests of the Nation first.

Madam President, tomorrow we will begin commemoration of Women's History Month--an annual occasion to celebrate and honor the many contributions of women to American history, culture, and society. Since our Nation's founding, generations of women have fought injustice and broken down barriers at home, in the workplace, and in their communities in pursuit of the American dream. During Women's History Month, we remember these struggles, celebrate our collective progress, and renew our commitment to protecting the rights of all women.

Earlier this month, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the Chamber to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with a strong bipartisan vote. This bill would not have passed without the strong leadership and support of every woman currently serving in the Senate. And today the House of Representatives passed our bipartisan bill to help survivors of rape, domestic violence, stalking, and human trafficking. On the eve of Women's History month, Congress's actions will prevent terrible crimes and help countless victims rebuild their lives.

A few days from now, on March 3, 2013, we will mark the centennial celebration of the 1913 women's suffrage procession--a watershed moment in the struggle for women's right to vote. On March 3, 1913--the eve of the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson--more than 5,000 women from every State in the Union assembled in Washington, DC, to march for the right to vote. They did so in the face of widespread opposition to their cause, and some were hospitalized after violence erupted along the parade route. A century later, this courageous public act is recognized as the key turning point that led to the ratification of the 19th amendment to the Constitution, giving women the right to vote in 1920.

In the coming days, we will witness the arc of American history, as thousands of women retrace the steps of the heroines of 1913, by reenacting the Women's Suffrage March. This ``Centennial Women's Suffrage March'' will be led by the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated--the only African-American women's organization to participate in the 1913 march. I commend Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, UniteWomen.org, the American Association of University Women, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the many other women's organizations that will join forces to reenact this historic event. I also commend the many government and private sector institutions that will support this event, including the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Park Service, the National Women's History Museum, and the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

Like the many Americans who will commemorate the women's suffrage march this weekend, I celebrate the progress that we have made towards justice, fairness, and equality for women--and for all of our citizens. But, while we have made remarkable strides towards gender equality, gender discrimination still exists. According to a recent study by the American Association of University of Women, full-time working women who are recent college graduates earn, on average, just 82 percent of what their male counterparts earn in the workplace. This gender wage gap directly affects the economic stability of American families. A Center for American Progress report on women in the workplace found that in 2010 nearly two-thirds of all American mothers were either the primary breadwinner for their family or shared that financial responsibility with a spouse or a partner.

As we celebrate Women's History Month, the courageous acts of the American heroines of 1913 should inspire us all to work to eliminate the gender inequalities that still exist in our society today. I join all Americans in celebrating the countless contributions of women to our Nation's history and culture and in working towards a more just and fair society for future generations of American women and girls.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland and commend the very energetic way she has taken on her new responsibilities as Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She has played a leading role in educating other Senators and the American people about the real impacts of sequestration.

While most of the media has focused on the projected consequences for programs and jobs here at home, there are also consequences for the budget of the Department of State and foreign operations, which is directly related to the national security of the United States.

It might interest people to know that the entire Department of State and foreign operations budget amounts to one percent of the Federal budget, not the 15 or 20 percent many mistakenly believe.

That one percent is what we have to operate our embassies and consulates in over 290 countries, to process visas, carry out diplomacy, respond to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with security and trading partners. There are dozens of examples of how sequestration would harm these efforts, but I will mention just three:

Cuts in diplomatic security at a time when everyone agrees we need to do more to protect our Foreign Service Officers overseas. Funding for local guards, diplomatic security personnel, and embassy security would be reduced by $181 million from the current level.

This would force the Department of State to choose between reducing the number of local guards at overseas posts, delaying maintenance at existing facilities, or postponing construction of secure facilities to replace those that do not meet current safety standards at a time of increasing attacks against U.S. overseas diplomatic posts.

Global Health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for vaccines for children, women's health, and to combat malaria and tuberculosis, would be cut by $468 million from the current level.

A reduction of this size would end life-saving drugs to more than 165,000 people infected with the AIDS virus. It would result in thousands more deaths from malaria. Tens of thousands of people infected with TB will not receive treatment. And the health of millions of Americans who travel, study, work, and serve in our Armed Forces around the world would be put at greater risk.

Funding for disaster and refugee aid would be cut by $156 million from the current levels. With 750,000 Syrian refugees and 5,000 fleeing the country each day, now is not the time to cut these programs. Other funds to help victims of drought, famine, and extremist violence in Mali, Somalia, and Sudan, and to prevent those crises from getting worse, will also be cut.

These are just a few examples of the real world consequences, not only for the people of those countries but for the security of the United States. People need to know what is at stake.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it would have such catastrophic consequences that rational minds would replace it with a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction.

That has not happened. To the contrary, just days before the sequester is to take effect our friends in the minority party whose only answer is to slash government programs and particularly those that help the neediest, have apparently decided that sequestration is not so bad after all.

Military Construction and Veterans Programs

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

This week, the country is facing indiscriminate across- the-board cuts from sequestration if Congress does not come to an agreement. The automatic cuts that will otherwise occur are in the tens of billions of dollars at a time when our economy is finally recovering but remains fragile. Among those who will have to endure these cuts are the overburdened Federal courts that are already suffering from longstanding vacancies that number almost 90. Budgetary cuts will mean more difficulty for the American people to get speedy justice from our Federal justice system.

According to the sequestration report released by the Office of Management and Budget, the sequestration would lead to a $555 million reduction for our Federal courts. Despite their higher caseloads and the needs of the American people, the courts' funding will be capped at a level last utilized 6 years ago. This could result in elimination of nearly one third of the courts' staff, as many as 6,300 employees, or month-long furloughs system wide. The sequester will result in cuts that will force courts to hear fewer cases and hear them more slowly. Court proceedings will be delayed. Some 30,000 civil cases have already been pending for more than 3 years and this will only exacerbate the problems of delay. Sequestration cuts could even result in the suspension of civil jury trials in some courts. And consider that if probation and pretrial services offices are affected, that can mean that defendants in pretrial release and those convicted but not in prison may not be properly supervised.

Sequestration is bad for the courts, bad for the economy and bad for the American people.

Today, after an unprecedented filibuster, Senate Republicans will finally allow a vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Bacharach should be a consensus nominee. He received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating of well qualified. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last year and, again, this year. Despite his experience, qualifications and bipartisan support, he was filibustered by Senate Republicans since July last year.

The filibuster of his nomination, which was supported by the Oklahoma Senators who had previously supported the nomination and who will likely reverse themselves again and support confirmation today, was the ne plus ultra of an unprecedented campaign of obstruction Senate Republicans have waged against President Obama's judicial nominees. That obstruction has spread to executive nominees, as well, including the nomination of Chuck Hagel, a recent Republican Senator from Nebraska whose nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense was filibustered earlier this month.

Judge Bacharach is the kind of nominee who every Senator should support. Over his 13-year career as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Oklahoma, he has handled nearly 3,000 civil and criminal matters, presided over 400 judicial settlement conferences, and issued more than 1,600 reports and recommendations. As an attorney in private practice, he tried 10 cases to verdict, argued two cases before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefed scores of other cases to the Tenth Circuit and the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Judge Bacharach's judicial colleagues in the Western District of Oklahoma stand strongly behind his nomination. Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, has said of Judge Bacharach:

He is an outstanding jurist and my colleagues and I

enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend him for the

Tenth Circuit position. . . . We knew that we were lucky to

have Bob as a Magistrate Judge, and he's been remarkable in

this position for over 12 years. He is an absolutely great

Magistrate Judge. His research and writing are excellent, his

temperament is superb, his preparation is top-notch, and he

is a wonderful colleague to all of the judges and in general

to the entire court family. . . . All of the other judges and

I--Republicans and Democrats alike--enthusiastically and

wholeheartedly recommend Judge Bob Bacharach for the Tenth

Circuit position. All of us believe very strongly that Judge

Bacharach would be a superb choice for the position.

Throughout the careful and deliberate process in which Judge Bacharach has been thoroughly vetted, considered, and voted on by the Judiciary Committee, I have not heard a single negative word about him. There is no Senator who opposed his nomination on the merits. He was praised extensively by his home State Senators. Senator Inhofe has said of him:

I believe Judge Bacharach would continue the strong service

Oklahomans have provided the Tenth Circuit. Throughout his

career and education, he's distinguished himself. In 2007,

the Oklahoma City Journal Record profiled Judge Bacharach as

an example of leadership in law, where he simply stated that

as a future goal he intends to improve. Always working to

improve has defined Judge Bacharach. . . . [H]is colleagues

have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating

superb judicial temperament, and a real asset to the Western

District court family and legal community.

Senator Coburn said:

Judge Bacharach is well qualified for this position and has

received widespread praise and hearty recommendations from

Oklahomans, including members of academia and fellow members

of the bar. . . . I believe that Judge Bacharach will uphold

the highest standards and reflect the best in our American

judicial tradition by coming to the bench as a well-regarded

member of the community. At a time when our country seems as

divided as ever, it is important that citizens respect

members of the judiciary and are confident they will

faithfully and impartially apply the law. . . . I believe

Judge Bacharach would be an excellent addition to the Tenth

Circuit.

Unfortunately, along with 42 other Senate Republicans, Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn filibustered Judge Bacharach since last July. The people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have been needlessly denied his service as a Tenth Circuit judge for 7 months. Republican Senators in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming could have prevented the filibuster but went along with the obstruction that served no good purpose and established another damaging precedent: Judge Bacharach is the first circuit court nominee to be filibustered who had received bipartisan support before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Coburn was quoted last year admitting: ``There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' There was none other than the obstruction of Senate Republicans.

Their partisan obstruction was wrong, and it is damaging to our Nation's courts and the American people. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republicans' partisan obstruction.

This obstruction has contributed to the damagingly high level of judicial vacancies that has persisted for over 4 years. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to speedy justice. While Senate Republicans delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 89 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration. The circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last four years fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term.

Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their

efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's most extreme circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators as they unfairly short-circuited the process of consideration over and over again. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home state Senators and their rights have been fully protected in a fair consideration process.

Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district court nominee is stalled 4.3 times longer and the average circuit court nominee is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. No other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee.

Senate Republicans have also forced the Majority Leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already in 4 years 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's eight years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Fewer than 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees at this point in their Presidencies.

The record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies . . . This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads . . . There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address longstanding judicial vacancies, Senate Republicans have continued their unwarranted obstruction of judicial confirmations. In the case of Judge Bacharach, there was not even a pretense of any substantive concern--Senate Republicans just decided to shut down the confirmation process and contorted the ``Thurmond rule.''

At a time when judicial vacancies have again risen to almost 90, we must do more for our overburdened courts. It is past time for the partisan obstruction to end. We have a long way to go. After 4 years of delay and obstruction, we remain far behind the pace of confirmations we set during President Bush's administration, and there remain far too many judicial vacancies that make it harder for Americans to have their day in court. During President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from 2004 through 2008, vacancies never exceeded 60. Since President Obama's first full month in office, and as far into the future as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress.

The Senate today will finally vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach. He has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma since 1999. Previously, from 1987 to 1999, he was in private practice at the Oklahoma City law firm of Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. From 1985 to 1987, he served as a law clerk to Judge William J. Holloway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the same court to which he has been nominated. Judge Bacharach was twice reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote--last June and again this month.

The Judiciary Committee has been working to vet, consider, and report nominees, and just before the recess we reported another dozen circuit and district nominees, all of whom had to be renominated from last year. The longest pending of these nominations is that of Caitlin Halligan, who the President first nominated to the D.C. Circuit back in 2010. At that time, there were already two vacancies on that court, a number which has now doubled to four. The purported justification for the partisan Republican filibuster of the Halligan nomination was that the circuit did not need another judge. The circuit is now more than one-third vacant and needs several, including Caitlin Halligan. I urge that the Senate act quickly on long-pending nominations. Further delay does not serve the interests of the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. If there is time remaining, I ask the time be equally divided.

Less than 7 years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives joined together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We explained and documented our findings that this landmark civil rights law was still needed because of continuing discrimination and to preserve the progress that had been made. Because of this extensive record and the acceptance of the Voting Rights Act's importance in our country, our 2006 reauthorization of this crucial law was marked by Members of Congress from both parties and from every corner of the Nation coming together to renew one of the cornerstones of American Democracy.

It is a sad irony that on the same day we will be honoring Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks by unveiling her statue in the U.S. Capitol, the first full statue of an African American to stand in the halls of Congress, across the street the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments from those challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization named in part for her. In the pending case, the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge. Neither the words of the Constitution nor the importance of these critical provisions for protecting the right to vote has changed in the last four years. Under the specific words of the 14th and 15th Amendments, Congress has the power to remedy discrimination and enforce the Amendments by enacting laws that address racial discrimination in connection with voting. That is what we did nearly unanimously less than 7 years ago. And over the past year lower courts have repeatedly upheld both its constitutionality and its protections. In light of the lengthy court findings from just the last year, there can be no doubt that the operation of the Voting Rights Act is continuing to protect American voters from discrimination.

In his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed: ``When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.'' The Voting Rights Act is one of our most important means for enforcing this promise and upholding the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights and equal protection of the law. Reauthorizing and restoring the Voting Rights Act was the right thing to do, not only for those who fought and bled for its passage but also for those who come after us--our children and our grandchildren. We owe it to them to continue our commitment to this vital Act. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America.

As we celebrate Black History Month and the significant progress we have made as a Nation, let us not forget the promissory note to future generations and the continuing need for civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act.

Our Nation has grown stronger since its Founding as more Americans have been able to exercise their right to vote. The actions taken by previous generations--through a Civil War, through Constitutional amendments, and through the long struggles of the civil rights movement--have worked to break down barriers that stood in the way of all Americans participating in our Democracy.

It has not been an easy road. The pervasive discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. As a nation, this effort to ensure equal protection dates back more than 140 years to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. Yet, it took 95 years from the passage of the 15th Amendment and a historic struggle for civil rights for people of all races to begin the effective exercise of the rights guaranteed by that Amendment. The struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, when state troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were trying to exercise their civil rights. The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were a catalyst to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which finally ensured a century after the enactment of the Civil War amendments that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the political process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

Prior to the Voting Rights Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. Section 5 provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in voting by requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ``pre-clear'' all voting changes with either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This remedy combats the practice of covered jurisdictions shifting from one invalidated discriminatory voting tactic to another, which had undermined efforts to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment for nearly a century.

In 2006, congressional leadership stood together on the steps of the Capitol to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act--an historic announcement in an era of intense partisanship. We came together in recognition that there are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. In sharp contrast to the tremendous resistance and bitter politics which met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act, our efforts in 2006 overcame objections through discussions, the hearing process and by developing an overwhelming record of justification for extension of the expiring provisions. The legislation contained specific findings about the need for reauthorization and concluded that without reauthorization the gains we have made would be undermined. Our efforts reached completion when President Bush signed the bill into law after a unanimous vote in the Senate and nearly unanimous vote in the House.

At that time, I was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the lead Democratic Senate sponsor of the reauthorization. Over the course of 19 hearings, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees developed a comprehensive record supporting the continuing need for a reauthorized and reinvigorated Voting Rights Act. In the Senate Judiciary Committee alone we received testimony from 46 witnesses, including a

range of constitutional scholars, voting rights advocates, and Supreme Court practitioners, regarding the need for reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, the Committee gathered and considered thousands of pages of testimony, articles, letters, and other evidence from these witnesses and other sources discussing these issues. This evidence, along with voluminous evidence gathered in the House--under the leadership of then-Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Mel Watt, John Conyers and John Lewis-- provided an overwhelming demonstration that Section 5 continues to be an effective and necessary tool for protecting minority voting rights.

At the time the Senate voted, we had before us the House Committee Report, the full debate from the floor of the House of Representatives, including debate surrounding four substantive amendments to H.R. 9 that were all rejected, leading up to final passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization. Before we voted, I also provided the Senate with some of the extensive evidence received over several months of hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the persistence of discriminatory practices in Section 5 covered jurisdictions.

The record gathered by the Judiciary Committee included three categories of evidence supporting the continuation of Section 5. First, we found evidence that even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions continued to engage in recurring discriminatory tactics, often in subtle forms that play on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast by members of a particular race. Second, we found evidence that Section 5 provides an effective deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions. Finally, we found evidence that Section 5 plays a vital role in securing the gains minority voters have achieved against the risk of backsliding.

Most importantly, of course, at the time we voted, all Senators had before them the detailed findings in Section 2 of the legislation based on the record and all Senators endorsed those findings with their votes. For example, those findings explicitly include:

Evidence of continued discrimination includ[ing] . . . the

hundreds of objections interposed, requests for more

information submitted followed by voting changes withdrawn

from consideration by jurisdictions covered by the Voting

Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions

undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered

jurisdictions since 1982 that prevented election practices,

such as annexation, at-large voting, and the use of multi-

member districts, from being enacted to dilute minority

voting strength; . . . the number of requests for declaratory

judgments denied by the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia; [and] . . . the continued filing of

section 2 cases that originated in covered jurisdiction . . .

By passing the legislation, Congress adopted and reaffirmed these detailed findings, including Congress' determination that:

[t]he continued evidence of racially polarized voting in

each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 demonstrates that racial and

language minorities remain politically vulnerable, warranting

the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Now some suggest that Section 5 should be a victim of its success. In my view abandoning a successful deterrent just because it works defies logic and common sense. When Congress finds an effective and constitutional way to prevent violations of the law, the courts must uphold it. In fact, since 1966, whenever the Supreme Court has reviewed or even cited to the Voting Rights Act, it has affirmed the Act as a valid exercise of congressional authority. That is what the Court rightly did again in 2009.

Nothing we have seen in the time since Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 or since the Supreme Court again upheld Section 5 in 2009 has invalidated Congress' determination to reauthorize that critical remedy for racial discrimination in voting. In fact, the events of last year's election only serve to remind us anew of the continuing need for Section 5. Last year, panels of judges appointed by presidents of both parties found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters in redistricting, and that Texas failed to demonstrate that its voter ID law does not impose greater burdens on minority voters. A separate panel of three Federal judges approved South Carolina's voter identification law under Section 5 starting this year, with judges appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents noting that South Carolina legislators passed a less restrictive law than they desired specifically in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, worse laws would be in place and the fundamental rights of many Americans would be diminished.

The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws ever passed by Congress, transforming America by ushering the nation out of a history of discrimination into an era of greater inclusion. The Act has been a tremendous source of protection for the voting rights of those long discriminated against and a great deterrent against discriminatory efforts cropping up anew. As we celebrate Black History Month, we should reflect not only on how far we have come, but how far we still must travel to truly secure the guarantees of the Constitution for all Americans.

Ensuring that all Americans are able to vote and have their vote counted should be an issue of concern to Democrats and Republicans, and a matter of conscience for all of us regardless of political party. That is how it was in 2006, when members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to full democratic participation by reauthorizing the key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I am confident that this week when the Justices review the substantial record relied upon by America's elected representatives in Congress, they will again do the right thing. Congress is at the height of its power when giving enforceable meaning to the 14th and the 15th amendments. That is what Congress did when passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and what we did when we voted nearly unanimously to extend the vital remedies of Section 5 in 2006. Now the Supreme Court is called upon to respect the role of Congress by upholding this vital civil rights legislation as it rightly did in 2009.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for the protection of the Voting Rights Act. Now is no time for backsliding. Now is the time to renew our commitment to the right to vote for all Americans.