Floor Statements

I have often said, Mr. President, that the Senate is supposed to be, it can be, and often is the conscience of the Nation. Well, we became the conscience of the Nation 2 weeks ago when Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. We made protection of these victims our top priority. After compromise and extensive negotiations, we set partisanship aside and came together.

The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act will provide immeasurable help to all victims of domestic violence and of rape throughout our country and to victims of human trafficking in the United States and around the world. The Senate passed it with an appropriate show of bipartisan unity. A majority of Republican Senators voted for our bill, as did every woman elected to this body and every single Democratic Senator and the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. My amendment adding significant human trafficking legislation passed with the support of 93 Senators.

Senators from across the political spectrum have shown that stopping domestic and sexual violence in the most effective way possible is an issue above politics. I mention this not to pat ourselves on the back but to say that, in contrast to this action where Republicans and Democrats came together to

protect women in this country, the House leadership is poised to once again take a different route. Tomorrow they are scheduled to substitute our bipartisan bill with a partisan alternative that leaves vulnerable victims without protection and mires our efforts in partisan politics, which delays getting help to victims. I hope they reconsider this ill- conceived approach. The overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate for the VAWA reauthorization Senator Crapo and I introduced sent a powerful message to survivors of violence. But this bill is about so much more than sending a message. It includes real, meaningful additions to the law to fill gaps and address needs that law enforcement, victims, and the service providers who work with victims every day have identified for us. None of these provisions are about politics. They are about preventing terrible crimes and helping the survivors of violence.

The Senate-passed bill takes new steps to prevent domestic violence homicides. It will increase the focus of law enforcement and victim service providers on rape and sexual assault crimes that too often slip through the cracks. It will take needed steps to address the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities and to increase protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures access to services for LGBT victims who experience domestic and sexual violence at rates at least as high as the rest of the population but often have no place to go for help.

Our bill strengthens protections on campuses, where too many students experience devastating violence instead of the wonderful experience of learning and growth that we all wish for our children. It includes new bipartisan measures to ensure that rape kits are promptly tested so that victims no longer live for years in fear when the perpetrators could be identified and taken off the streets. Our bill would give law enforcement and service providers new tools to crack down on sex trafficking and labor trafficking and help the victims of these appalling crimes. These common sense provisions will make a real difference in so many lives.

The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is putting forward once again takes a tragically different approach. Instead of taking up legislation developed over years of work with victims and those who help them, they have presented a version put together by a few here in Washington. For reasons I cannot understand, they have jettisoned the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act altogether and stripped provisions developed by Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and me to take meaningful steps to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence in rape kits. Those provisions could help victims and could help law enforcement keep our communities safe.

The House substitute drastically weakens protections for vulnerable victims. It eliminates key protections intended to keep college students safer. It fails to include meaningful language to ensure that LGBT victims can get the same help as any other victims. For immigrant victims, the House substitute actually adds new hurdles that would make it harder for victims to help law enforcement and receive assistance. It adds new burdens and loopholes to protections for Native women who experience domestic violence at horrific rates. The House substitute would continue to allow the most aggressive abusers of native women to escape justice since the most that could be charged in tribal courts would be a misdemeanor. That is not justice for the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence.

I have been working on this legislation for years. During the last year we have amended and tweaked its language many times to accommodate the requests of various Republicans who support the effort. I stand ready to work with House leadership and have reached out to Speaker Boehner several times. I have not heard from House leadership once this year. I appreciate the efforts of such conservative House Republicans as Congressmen Tom Cole and Darrell Issa, who have tried to find common ground with reasonable compromise approaches to the tribal provisions. I know there are many others in the House of Representatives who believe that we must reauthorize and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act so that it protects all victims. It is not too late for others in the House to follow their lead and come together to pass a meaningful reform that protects all victims.

The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is proposing will disappoint the community of violence survivors and those of us who are trying to prevent further violence by passing needed protections. If the House leadership were serious about getting the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and protecting our most vulnerable victims against rape, sexual violence, stalking, and human trafficking, they would simply take up the Senate bill. So many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents here support it and passed that bill.

I don't understand this picking and choosing about who is going to be considered a victim. I have said this so many times on this floor, I almost wonder if anybody hears it, but, as many other Senators have, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor before I came here. I went to a lot of very violent crime scenes at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and some of them I remember almost as graphically as if it were yesterday, with a victim of severe violence, often dead, there on the floor. The police never said: Well, we have to find out if this victim is gay or straight, if this victim is Native American or an immigrant. No, they knew that a victim was a victim was a victim. If somebody has been treated that way, a crime has been committed, and the police want to find out who committed the crime and stop them before they do it again.

Back then, we didn't have anything like the Violence Against Women Act--an act which has protected so many people before they could become a victim, and which provides the tools to prevent this sort of victimization. I think of some of the victims I saw, sometimes in the morgue, and I know if we had something like our Violence Against Women Act at that time, they would be alive today.

So let's put aside gamesmanship and let's worry about the real victims in this country. None of us here will face the horrendous things these women go through, but we can help stop these horrendous things from happening to them, and we should do that.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez of New Jersey, I ask unanimous consent that Margaret Taylor be granted the privilege of the floor during the executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 7, the nomination of Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to be U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee yield for a question?

Mr. President, I have listened to the recitation. Basically what the Senator is saying is that all the rules that were in place for nominees to the Department of Defense under Republican Presidents are being followed for Senator Hagel. But there are some who want to go beyond those and create new rules beyond those for Vice President Cheney when he was Secretary or Donald Rumsfeld or Gates or any of the other Secretaries of Defense. The Senator is saying some now want to do something different for this nominee of President Obama's than the practices they found totally acceptable for the nominees of President Bush?

I stand with the Senator from Michigan. In the Judiciary Committee, we follow the same procedure for our judicial nominees regardless of the party of the President who nominates them. If we begin switching the rules depending upon who is President--well, if we think the American public holds Congress in low esteem right now, it is going to get even

worse. So I compliment the Senator for sticking to the rules.

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

Mr. President, I applaud what Senator Levin has said about Senator Hagel. If you made a list of the qualifications of the perfect Secretary of Defense, it would look like the resume of Chuck Hagel. If you look past the partisan posturing of some, I think the American public supports his confirmation as Secretary of Defense.

I worry that this partisan posturing adds to the low opinion Americans have of both the House and Senate. This is not the way we should be doing the country's business.

I strongly support the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense and urge all Senators to support him. We are at a time of fiscal austerity. We all understand that. But we need a leader at the Pentagon, one who understands what it takes to maintain the strongest military force in the world.

Senator Hagel is a former enlisted soldier. He understands defense policy and practice from the ground up. He is the leader we need as Secretary of Defense. He is experienced by any measure. Like thousands of people he will lead at the Pentagon, he has earned a combat infantryman's badge. These qualifications are not abstract. He has two Purple Hearts from combat service in Vietnam. He still carries shrapnel in his body from those injuries.

On any issue having to do with the U.S. military, I have long valued the firsthand experience of Chuck Hagel. But this service alone is not what makes him qualified. He has been a leader in the public and private sectors. He cofounded Vanguard Cellular Systems, a successful cellular carrier in the 1980s and 1990s. He was president and CEO of the USO and the chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit. He served as president of an investment bank, on the boards of some of the world's largest companies, and as a two-term U.S. Senator. He is clearly a qualified nominee.

Since his nomination was announced last month, some have questioned Senators Hagel's position on a number of issues--notably, his support for Israel. Well, as recently as his confirmation hearings, he has reaffirmed his long record of support for Israel. In January, Danny Ayalon, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, affirmed what he sees as Senator Hagel's commitment to the unique U.S.-Israeli relationship. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Hagel supported the authorization of almost $40 billion in aid to Israel. In a 2008 book, Senator Hagel wrote that, ``there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel's

defense.'' He also wrote that that there can be no compromise on Israel's identity as a Jewish state. He has affirmed the U.S. commitment to Israel's security and Israel's right to defend itself against aggression. These are just a few examples, but by any objective measure, Senator Hagel is committed to the mutual interests of the United States and Israel.

Attacks suggesting that Senator Hagel is soft on Iran are also baseless. Through all my conversations with Senator Hagel, I have never once doubted his belief in the President's responsibility to build alliances and exhaust all available means to achieve our foreign policy goals through diplomacy. But he also believes that aggressive actions by us against a foreign government should be strategic. There is not a shred of evidence to support claims that he supports a nuclear Iran, or that he does not support the President's efforts--unilateral or multilateral--to bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. He has reaffirmed that he believes in keeping all options on the table, including force if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Senator Hagel supports the sanctions against Iran already in place. He has affirmed the need to keep military action on the table. He supported the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006. Any assertion that Senator Hagel accepts Iran's nuclear program is false.

Then there are the bogus, inflammatory claims that Senator Hagel is soft on terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has not hesitated to call Hezbollah and Hamas what they are--terrorist organizations. He condemned Iran's support of Hezbollah and cosponsored the Senate resolution demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. He also supported the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, a multilateral effort to force Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm itself, and accept prior agreements with Israel.

I have traveled with Senator Hagel to different parts of the world, combat areas and areas of great security concern to the United States. I have sat in meetings with him as he spoke with our military and intelligence officials. Please excuse me if I am somewhat vague, since most of these meetings were of a highly classified nature, but I can say this: he asked tough questions and always kept the security interests of the United States foremost at hand with both U.S. security officials and also with the leaders of other countries. Senators who were with us of both parties commented to me afterward how impressed they were with the way Senator Hagel conducted these meetings.

In this time of talk of across the board budget cuts, some have suggested that Senator Hagel would recklessly weaken the defense budget. Nothing in Chuck Hagel's record supports that. He resigned as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration over what he considered to be inappropriate budget cuts.

He opposes cuts that would weaken our security. He vigorously opposes sequestration, which has been rightly compared to cutting with a meat cleaver. Like Secretary Panetta and Secretary Gates, Chuck Hagel believes the Pentagon has a role to play in deficit reduction but not at the expense of keeping our military the preeminent fighting force in the world. He says that reductions must be smart and strategic. I agree. I am confident that our men and women in uniform will have no stronger advocate and that our Nation will have a solid defender in Chuck Hagel.

Senator Hagel, who has seen combat from the perspective of an enlisted member of our Armed Forces, sees our military as the last resort, not the first resort in international relations. Those who have been in combat, from President Eisenhower on until today, have taken that same position. No matter what any detractor may say, his is sound policy.

Matters of war and peace are matters of life and death. Those who sit in boardrooms or in easy chairs and say: Let's commit our soldiers here and our soldiers there--they are not the ones going. By and large, it is not their family members risking their lives. We need a Secretary of Defense who knows what it is like to go and to face combat and to be wounded. Should we commit our troops when it is necessary for our defense? Of course. That is why we have troops. But let's recognize that such decisions come at great human cost.

Senator Hagel, a decorated veteran who still walks with the shrapnel from his wounds in Vietnam, understands that a decision to go to war is a decision to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers into harm's way. It is his deep, visceral understanding of this fact, his record of experience, his patriotism, and his dedication to this Nation that qualify him to be the next Secretary of Defense.

We should have the vote and confirm this patriotic American hero. Let's not hide behind a filibuster. Let's have the courage to vote yes or vote no. Do not hide behind parliamentary tricks. Do not vote maybe. The American people elected us to vote yes or vote no. When you want to set up a filibuster rule on something, you are basically saying: Let's vote maybe. That is hardly a profile in courage and certainly not the kind of courage we would expect from a Secretary of Defense. So vote yes or vote no. But however you vote, let's do it without delay. I will vote yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in Vermont, you will find any number of successful family-run businesses. Today, I want to recognize the Cochran Family and their Cochran Ski Area. This family, which has spent 50 years on a hillside in the town of Richmond, VT, has seen 10 of its own compete in the Olympic Games and has brought thousands of local youth together to share in Vermont's rich tradition of winter sports.

The Cochran Ski Area is truly a remarkable place in Vermont, where the rewards of family togetherness, community support, and shared knowledge have been reaped to the fullest for half a century. In the 1960s, the Cochran slope was a skiing family's dreamland, but Mickey Cochran, alongside his wife Ginny and family, chose to open their home and their hearts to the community. Since then this slope has become a source of skill not only for the Cochran Olympians, but for every Vermonter who, with their guidance, has been helped to master the art of skiing. The Cochrans intensified their skiing talent and dedication through the application of math and physics, complementing a classroom education with a thrilling hands-on experience unlike any other. This Vermont family and their legacy are a model of community building and achievement. Their charity has enriched Vermont and the Cochran Ski Area has been cherished in return as a haven for families to enjoy winter traditions. Today, a new generation of Cochrans preserves their relationship with the land Mickey and Ginny Cochran sought to make their home years ago, by founding Slopeside Syrup, a maple syrup business. Each spring Cochran's taps more than 20,000 maple trees around the ski slope and opens its doors of the Slopeside Syrup sugarhouse to visitors and neighbors alike.

I am proud to share the Cochran family's story with the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article from The New York Times about this incredible family be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maine for her kind words, and I would note both for William Kayatta and for the people of Maine she has fought long and hard for this nomination. She did last year and she has this year. I am glad we are going to be finally voting on it because every time I would meet her anywhere in the halls or anywhere else it would be: What about Kayatta? She knows he, of course, had my strong support, as did another New Englander, former Justice and now judge, David Souter. I am sorry it has taken so long.

I look at a nominee like this, where the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, her former colleague, Senator Snowe, and now her current colleague, Senator King, have all supported this person from Maine. In the past, especially with somebody extraordinarily well qualified, as he is, a nomination like that would be out of the committee and off the floor within a week. We have to go back to those times.

If we have a contentious nominee, if we have somebody who needs to be debated, let's debate them. But when we have a person strongly supported by their home State Senators and who has the advantage of being highly qualified by anybody's standards--Republican, Democrat, or anybody else--then they ought to get a vote.

It makes no sense for Senate Republicans to have stalled nominations like that of William Kayatta, but this is their track record and their pattern over the last 4 years. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed, but as soon as President Obama was elected they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination. Judge David Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and was supported by Senator Dick Lugar, the longest- serving Republican in the Senate. They delayed his confirmation for 7 months. Senate Republicans then proceeded to obstruct and delay just about every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 10 of them. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit and Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, and Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal Circuit for 3 months.

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 Republican obstruction.

This obstruction is also why a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies has persisted for over 4 years. While such tactics are bad for the Senate, they are also bad for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 90 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 173 circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last 4 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 controversial circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators. 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.

At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans now deliberately refuse to vote on several judicial nominees who could and should be confirmed in order to consume additional time the following year confirming these nominees. At the end of 2009, they left 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar without a vote. Two of those nominations were returned to the President, and it subsequently took 9 months for the Senate to take action on the other eight. This resulted in the lowest 1-year confirmation total in at least 35 years. For the next 2 years, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate executive calendar at the end of each year. It then took nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm these nominees. Last year they insisted on leaving 11 judicial nominees without action and another four have had hearings but they refused to expedite their consideration. William Kayatta is one of those judicial nominees who should have been confirmed last year.

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 median district nomination is stalled 4.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration, and the median circuit court nomination is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Nor has any 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 more than 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Barely 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees were confirmed during his first 4 years compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's first term nominees.

While this is not even close to a full account of the precedents broken in the last 4 years, the record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Pretending it has not taken place is an insult to the American people. The American people know better. 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 the judicial vacancy crisis, Senate Republicans have continued their obstruction of judicial confirmations.

Today, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote on one of the nominees held over from last year. Judicial vacancies right now stand at 90. And I mention that because during President Bush's entire second term--the 4 years from 2004 through 2008--the vacancies never exceeded 60. I worked very hard to keep the vacancies down, but since President Obama's first full month in office, as far as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. This is a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people. It means people who come to our courts looking for impartial justice can't get it because there are no judges.

This is hurting the integrity of the judicial system. I hear this from judges nominated by Republican Presidents and those nominated by Democratic Presidents. They say these delays politicize the courts and destroy the impartiality the Federal courts have to have.

I commend President Obama for nominating such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first 4 years, President Obama has appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just 4 years, President Obama has also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. Americans can be proud of President Obama's efforts to increase diversity in the Federal judiciary and to ensure that it better reflects all Americans.

I hope that this year and over the coming 4 years, Senate Republicans will end their misguided and harmful obstruction and work with us in a bipartisan manner to do what is right for the country. President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, and the Senate should consider them in regular order, without unnecessary delays. That is what we had done for as long as I have served in the Senate, whether the nominations came from a Democratic or a Republican president. We should work together to restore and uphold the best traditions of the Senate.

Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported three judicial nominees, William Kayatta, Robert Bacharach, and Richard Taranto. They are all superbly qualified, consensus nominees. All have received the highest possible rating of unanimously well qualified from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and with last Thursday's Judiciary Committee votes, all have twice now received overwhelming, bipartisan support from members of the Judiciary Committee from both sides of the aisle. All have something else in common too: Their nominations were stalled before the Senate for at least 7 months last year without a vote. That is why they each had to be re-nominated by the President this year.

This is sadly typical of how Senate Republicans have treated President Obama's consensus judicial nominees. Even nominees who are supported by Republican home state Senators and by all the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are stalled for months for no good reason. They are delaying votes on all nominees, including nominees they support. This is unprecedented.

For example, Senator Coburn said that ``[Judge Bacharach] has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' That was before Senator Coburn joined a filibuster against voting on his nomination last year. Last year's filibuster of the Bacharach nomination was the first time in the history of the Senate that a circuit nominee reported with bipartisan support had been successfully filibustered. When I say unprecedented, I mean unprecedented.

I am glad that William Kayatta is finally getting a vote. The nominee spent the entirety of his 32-year legal career in private practice in the Portland, ME, law firm Pierce Atwood LLP, where he is currently a partner. Over his career, he has personally argued over three dozen appeals, including two before the United States Supreme Court. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he clerked for Chief Judge Frank Coffin on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court to which he is nominated.

William Kayatta has held a prominent leadership role in numerous professional organizations, including serving as the lead investigator for the American Bar Association Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary during its review of Justice Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. He was also appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court to serve as Special Master in an interstate dispute, where he was charged with managing proceedings and submitting a report and recommendation to the Court. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Kayatta well qualified to serve on the First Circuit, its highest possible rating.

While it is good that William Kayatta will finally receive a vote today, it is also well past time for the Senate to vote on Robert Bacharach and Richard Taranto. Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Mr. Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time that the other two circuit nominees who were renominated and considered again by the Judiciary Committee and again reported to the Senate, be given an up- or-down vote.

The Senate could confirm all three nominees this week. In June 2005, the Senate confirmed four circuit court nominees of a Republican President in just 2 days, including highly controversial nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit and William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. In July 2006, the Senate confirmed Bobby Shepherd to the Eighth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch and Jerome Holmes of the Tenth Circuit within 1 week. There is ample recent precedent for confirming Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto without further delay. Neither is controversial.

William Kayatta is strongly supported by both of Maine's Senators, Republican Senator Susan Collins and Independent Senator Angus King. When George W. Bush was President, Senate Democrats worked quickly to hold votes on consensus circuit nominees. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, half of President Bush's circuit nominees received a confirmation vote within just 18 days of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Not a single one of

President Obama's circuit nominees has received a vote so quickly. In fact, the median wait time for President Obama's circuit nominees is more than seven times that for President Bush's circuit nominees.

This continued obstruction is one of the reasons we remain so far behind the pace set during President Bush's time in office. By February of President Bush's fifth year, the Senate had confirmed 205 of his circuit and district nominees, and judicial vacancies stood at 40. In contrast, just 173 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees have been confirmed, and the vacancy rate has risen again to 90, or more than 10 percent of the Federal bench. Judicial vacancies are nearly back at historically high levels.

Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time for the Senate to act to confirm them.

I will speak more on nominations as we go along, but I do want to congratulate not only the senior Senator from Maine but also Senator King and the people of Maine, and the people of the First Circuit. The circuit needs to have its vacancies filled, and I am glad we have such a good person.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield back all time on both sides.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, one of the great privileges in serving in the U.S. Senate is the ability to make recommendations to the President with respect to important nominations for posts in our States. I was pleased 4

years ago to recommend to President Obama the nomination of David Demag to be Vermont's U.S. Marshal, and to help move his nomination through the Judiciary Committee and Senate confirmation. In fact, he was the first U.S. Marshal to be confirmed during the Obama administration.

Since his confirmation, Marshal Demag's tireless devotion to reducing crime rates in Vermont has helped make my home State a safe and comfortable home for its residents.

Marshal Demag began his career in 1971 as a patrol officer for the Burlington Police Department, where he rose through the ranks as corporal, detective, sergeant, lieutenant, and later, commander. I have known Marshal Demag throughout his career. He served as chief of police for both the Essex and St. Albans Police Departments. He also was a member of the Burlington Police Department. He has been a leader in Vermont in the fight against rural crime, and has spent his life and career devoted to public service.

As a U.S. Marshal for Vermont, Dave Demag has remained dedicated to arresting the State's most wanted fugitives and sex offenders and his work in establishing the Vermont Violent Offender Task Force has expanded the ability of the U.S. Marshal's office to catch violent and habitual sex offenders. The task force has not only served as a tool for bringing law enforcement officials throughout the State together, but has also improved Vermont's track record for fugitive arrests to 70 percent while reinvesting assets seized from criminals to address the needs of State and local law enforcement. These results are making a real difference in the lives of Vermonters across the State and should serve as a model for how Federal and State law enforcement can work together around the country.

One of Vermont's local news stations, WCAX, recently ran a story highlighting these accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that story be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with state and local law enforcement in Vermont.

I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with State and local law enforcement in Vermont.

Exhibit 1

[WCAX--Vermont, January 28, 2013]

U.S. Marshals making an impact in Vermont

(By Jennifer Reading)

Burlington, VT.--Five faces represent Vermont's most

wanted. Two have been caught, but the remaining three

fugitives are prime targets for the U.S. Marshals Service.

``It's a real good area to attack to make our communities

safer here in Vermont,'' said David Demag, who was appointed

by President Obama to head the U.S. Marshals Service's

Vermont Division.

Three months ago he created the Vermont Violent Offender

Task Force. The operation expanded the Marshals' mission to

include tracking down violent and habitual sex offenders.

Statistically--these criminals pose a greater risk to the

public. ``The ones who are out of compliance top that list

and are more likely to re-offend,'' Demag said.

Demag said dedicating a full time team to taking down non-

compliant sex offenders--on top of its regular fugitive

finding mission--meant adding a state trooper and a UVM

police officer to the task force. But he said the plan is

working. Since October they've arrested 39 federal and 40

state fugitives. In 2012 fugitive arrests for state offenses

jumped by 70 percent. ``This is not a place where fugitives

or sex offenders can come and hide,'' said Chief Deputy U.S.

Marshal Bill Gerke.

That's the message the task force sent to three high

profile out-of-state fugitives on the run in Vermont. The

Marshals found Philip Barr hiding out in Hardwick. He was

wanted for a Florida murder. Robert Mulkern was arrested in

Windsor for a Maryland sex assault and 149 counts of child

pornography. And Clifford Moore was nabbed on his way to the

airport, fleeing murder, sex assault and terrorism charges.

Although the task force gives priority to federal fugitives

identified as the ``worst-of-the-worst,'' they'll also adopt

state and local cases if there's a violent component to the

crime. The Marshals have the tools, expertise and time that

their state counterparts lack. ``We are here as a resource

for them,'' Demag said.

Two weeks ago they helped local authorities locate Shane

Phillips, a Johnson man wanted for more than a decade for

various violent crimes. He was hiding behind a false wall in

his family's home. ``The spirit and the actual cooperation

has never been better than it is presently,'' Gerke said. The

life-long Deputy Marshal said interagency cooperation is the

key to slowing down the state's ongoing violent crime and

preventing out-of-state organized crime from getting a

foothold in Vermont. ``Vermont will not harbor that type of

activity,'' he added.

The task force is funded by the federal government. Assets

seized from the criminals are then reinvested in state and

local law enforcement--paying overtime if they help with

compliance checks--as well as outfitting them with critical

safety equipment and vehicles.

Mr. President, it is easy from our perch on Capitol Hill to sometimes forget about the city that surrounds us. Like so many communities across the country, urban and rural, Washington, D.C. wrestles with a population in poverty. Soon, those people will have a new advocate at the head of one of the Nation's capital's leading organizations focused on ending the cycle of poverty among local youth and adults. Starting in April, Patty Stonesifer will become the new C.E.O. and President of Martha's Table.

Patty devoted 9 years of her life to the work of the Gates Foundation. As its chief executive officer, she helped the foundation become the largest philanthropic institution in the world while taking no salary for herself. After her time at the Gates Foundation, Patty's passion for change led her to become part of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions on AIDS, and was later appointed by President Obama in 2010 to chair the White House Council for Community Solutions. We have become friends through our shared service on the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and she is active on the board of the Center for Global Development, and is a member of the Circle of Allies and Champions for the National Council of Youth Leaders.

Patty's dedication to philanthropy aligns perfectly with the mission of Martha's Table. This nonprofit is more than a food pantry. Not only does Martha's Table supply more than 1,000 meals each day to hungry Washingtonians, it also works to develop long-term solutions to hunger and nutrition issues, seeking an end to poverty. Martha's Table helps to break the cycle of poverty by providing education, nutrition, and family support services to hundreds of children and families. Martha's Table is lucky to have someone like Patty at the helm. I have no doubt she will successfully prepare the next generation of young people for a bright future. Patty's self sacrifice and dedication to ending poverty and hunger in our Nation's Capital is to be commended, and I wish her the best of luck in her new role.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Washington Post entitled, ``Patty Stonesifer, former CEO of Gates Foundation, to lead D.C. food pantry,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an original cosponsor today.

Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy. President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he outlined last month.

Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no American should have to make. Families from Maine to California experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as well.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides. As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law, which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values.

Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that Senators who supported this important advancement in our military policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by such fears.

Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join Senator Collins and me in this effort.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an original cosponsor today.

Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy. President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he outlined last month.

Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no American should have to make. Families from Maine to California experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as well.

Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides. As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law, which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values.

Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that Senators who supported this important advancement in our military policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our immigration laws.

Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by such fears.

Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join Senator Collins and me in this effort.

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

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, before I go on to that, I would note that many have come to this floor to talk about the deficit and things of that nature. I ask anybody who is decrying our deficit if they voted for a needless war in Iraq and then voted to put it on the credit card.

The war in Iraq has cost this Nation nearly $1 trillion so far, and with all the wounded who have come back from this unnecessary war, we will, beyond the lifetime of most of us, still be paying for that.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only wars in America's history we did not have a special tax to pay for--both were put on a credit card. They were begun at a time when the last administration had inherited a large surplus from the Democratic administration before it. Since I have been old enough to vote, only Democratic administrations have left surpluses. But they took that surplus, wasted it on the war in Iraq, and because they were unwilling to pay for this war--a war that was paid for only by the men and women who served and their families; we don't have a draft--most people can say: It didn't affect me. Well, it affected those families enormously, and it will affect every single taxpayer for the rest of their lives because it will take that long to pay for a war that so many in this body and the other body voted for but then stood up and said: We cannot possibly have taxes to pay for things we are spending money on. That is one thing they voted for--for the first time in the history of this country, they voted to not pay for a war.

I urge everybody not to lose sight of the fact that a major part of our deficit was caused by the House and Senate voting for a war we never should have been in, one I voted against. In fact, everybody who actually read the intelligence material voted against it. Now our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for our mistakes.

I don't want to hear lectures about our deficit from people who voted to help create that deficit by voting for an unnecessary war.

On the subject we are on, S. 47, after more than a week of consideration, the Senate will finally vote on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. This is a good bill that makes needed changes recommended by victims and those who work with them

every day. I urge all those Senators who have opposed reauthorizing VAWA to end their opposition and join with us. Despite the predictions by some that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to consider the Senate bill, as it did last year, I see reason for hope.

Just yesterday 17 Republican members of the House wrote to their own leadership urging immediate reauthorization of VAWA. They rejected the ideological opposition of Heritage and the Family Research Council. They recognize that VAWA is effective, efficient and successful ``in curbing domestic violence and supporting victims,'' and that ``VAWA programs save lives.'' They also note, as I have said repeatedly on this floor: ``VAWA must reach all victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in every community in the country.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Republican members' letter to Speaker Boehner be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Senate has rejected the Republican substitute and defeated the Coburn amendment to strip the tribal jurisdiction provisions that have been included in the Senate bill for the past two years. Those amendments would have greatly narrowed VAWA's ability to prevent crime and help victims and would have undercut our commitment to all victims of rape and domestic violence. I hope Senators will continue to vote against amendments that weaken this important legislation.

This morning the Senate has the opportunity to vote for an amendment that goes in the opposite direction from the Coburn amendments by allowing us to help more victims of serious crime in the United States and around the world. This morning the Senate is to vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. That is another bipartisan bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers to make critical improvements to existing law. Last year, this legislation had 57 cosponsors--including 15 Republicans. In particular, I thank Senator Rubio who has been a strong cosponsor of this important measure.

Today is February 12, the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born. It was 150 years ago that he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation and it would be fitting that the Senate pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on his birthday. Although the 13th amendment to our Constitution was ratified long ago, making slavery illegal, we continue to fight human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery. This terrible crime still occurs throughout the world--including in the United States of America. The Polaris Project estimates that there are more than 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide today.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act will help us continue to make real progress on this issue. It is a parallel effort to our reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Our effort is to stop human trafficking at its roots by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking and to punish its perpetrators. We provide critical resources to help support victims as they rebuild their lives.

This measure strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It ensures better coordination among Federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to work on every facet of this complicated problem. It includes measures to encourage victims to come forward and report this terrible crime, which leads to more prosecutions and help for more victims.

We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. A Senator asserted yesterday that trafficking programs have been wasteful and duplicative. In fact, the programs supported by this amendment have been carefully tracked and shown to be effective. Nonetheless, the amendment reduces authorization levels by almost a third from the levels in the last reauthorization because we are determined to ensure efficiency and respond to concerns. We have made similar efforts to streamline VAWA.

The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls often just 11, 12, or 13 years old are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. I urge all Senators to join in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from human rights and civil rights organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, we have had an early unanimous consent order, so following that, I ask unanimous consent that the sequence of votes outlined under the previous order now start at 11:30 a.m., and the additional 30 minutes of debate be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that following the disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 15, the Senate recess for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume the sequence of votes under the previous order; and finally, all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment numbered 21 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 21, as modified.

Mr. President, I have already spoken about this, and I want to reiterate what I said earlier. Our country, justifiably so, is a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. I think of what is written on the iconic Statue of Liberty; so many people come to our shores for freedom. We also know there are many who are being held in these despicable trafficking schemes around the world. There are children who are 11, 12, 13 years old being held, and we have to speak for them.

I hope all Senators will join me in voting for this amendment. There are protections for victims of trafficking in the reauthorization act. It is a bipartisan bill written with the input of victims and service providers. It helps us to more effectively fight human trafficking, which is really modern-day slavery. Whether people are trafficked in the sex trade--especially children--or in forced labor, it is slavery. It is not isolated. There are 27 million victims worldwide today according to the Polaris Project. This amendment will help us to stop it by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking.

Just as important as it is to help us punish the perpetrators, the amendment will help us rebuild the lives of those caught up in it. We know funds are always limited. We put in accountability measures to ensure the Federal funds are used for their intended purposes.

Let us continue to have the United States as a beacon of hope to people around the world.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of amendment 21, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Let's pass this.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum unless somebody else seeks recognition. I see the distinguished Senator from Florida on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida yields, I appreciate the strong support of Senator Rubio. He has been the voice of reason and consistency in this area and I appreciate it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time equally divided.

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

Mr. President, we are going to vote in a couple minutes, but I would reiterate what I said earlier. This is going to be a vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It is a bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers. Last year, we had 57 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

I do want to thank Senator Rubio, who was on the floor a few minutes ago speaking about it.

I could not help but think, as I said earlier, when I looked at the calendar today, February 12--the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born; and 150 years ago, he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation--wouldn't it be great if the Senate passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on President Lincoln's birthday?

I also said earlier today that the Senate should be--often is--the conscience of the Nation. I have to imagine that the conscience of the vast majority of our 300 million Americans--whether they are Republicans or Democrats; liberals, moderates, or conservatives; Independents--their conscience would rebel against the idea of, really, slave trafficking, whether it is people trapped in the sex trade or in factories where they face the possibility, if there is a fire, they are all going to die because they are forced to be there.

Let's speak. Let's speak to the conscience of this country.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on my amendment?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Parliamentary inquiry: Under the previous order, we are now on amendment No. 10?

I agree with the Senator from Ohio. I am perfectly willing to accept this amendment by a voice vote, and I do support it.

I am encouraged that the Senate has voted to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which will let us make real progress in helping victims of human trafficking. I worked with Senator Rubio last Congress to reauthorize and improve our antitrafficking law and needed programs. We were stymied by an anonymous Republican objection. Today we achieved a breakthrough when the Senate voted to approve the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

I thank Senators from both sides of the aisle who have rejected the cramped view of the Heritage Foundation and joined with us to make progress on this important issue, to help victims and to help prevent human trafficking. The vote the Senate just took to approve vital antitrafficking legislation will ensure that resources and services get to trafficking victims in ways shown to work. By our action, we are improving and strengthening antitrafficking programs.

I do not wish to conflate or confuse the two issues. The Violence Against Women Act provides programs for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Trafficking is different, a unique form of abuse with separate programs designed to address it in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

When trafficking victims also experience sexual assault, they can also access programs funded through VAWA for sexual assault victims. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act explicitly provides that VAWA programs are to help victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. That includes trafficking victims. That language was carefully crafted with advocates for victims of those crimes.

Accordingly, I believe that amendment 10 is unnecessary. It duplicates and reiterates what the bill already provides. So long as it does not harm and does not create confusion, I support it. The Senator from Oklahoma may accuse us of providing duplicative programs, but no one is going to subject themselves to sexual assault just because they might be eligible for a VAWA program or help from a trafficking program. No individual victim is going to somehow profit at taxpayers' expense. The amendment is accepted merely as further clarification of the availability of VAWA programs to children who are both victims of trafficking and sexual assault. Sex trafficking victims are by definition also sexual assault victims.

I am not in favor of confusing program administrators or taking program funds away from victims of rape and domestic violence. I have worked hard not to pit victims against each other. Instead, I have tried to provide for the needs of all victims.

Madam President, I move to reconsider.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, has filed amendment No. 11, a technical fix to ensure that VAWA's tribal provisions apply to Alaska. I now offer the amendment on her behalf. I support this amendment and I ask it be added to the bill.

I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield back all time.

The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act already reduces authorization levels and adds important accountability measures. These are careful, appropriate, and effective steps. The Coburn amendment would mandate sweeping cuts which would decimate programs. The amendment is opposed by law enforcement, including the National Association of Police Organizations, and by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Of course we all want to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. But this amendment is not the way to do it. The amendment purports to be based on findings by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, but it misconstrues those findings. The amendment states that the GAO identified $3.9 billion in ``duplicative'' grants programs. That is simply not the case. The July 2012 GAO report states that the total amount of grants awarded by the Justice Department in fiscal year 2010 was only $3.6 billion. You cannot have $3.9 billion in duplication when the total amount of grant money awarded was less than that.

More importantly, the GAO report did not actually conclude that there was duplication. The July report said there was ``the potential risk of unnecessary duplication'' and recommended that the Justice Department conduct an assessment to determine if grant programs could be consolidated to mitigate that risk. The GAO did not recommend any funding cuts and certainly did not recommend the $780 million cut that this amendment would require. As I have noted, our bill already includes a 17-percent cut in authorizations.

The amendment offered by Senator Coburn requires the Department of Justice to gut key grant programs. It would mandate that the Department cut at least $780 million from its grant programs, many of which provide critical funding to law enforcement and victim service providers. This would have devastating effects on victims of rape and domestic violence, and I urge Senators to vote against it.

The amendment tries to sugarcoat the damage it will do by reference to untested rape kits. In fact, it is the amendment that is duplicative. We have established the Debbie Smith Act to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and the Leahy-Crapo bill already includes measures to reduce the backlog through core VAWA programs and through the inclusion of the SAFER Act.

By gutting grant programs to law enforcement and victims, the Coburn amendment does not help victims of rape, who rely on victim service providers funded with these grants and on law enforcement who count on Federal support. Mandating vast cuts in programs for victims and law enforcement at a time when those programs are already being squeezed is bad policy. These grant programs save lives. The amendment is bad for victims and bad for law enforcement. I urge Senators to oppose it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in opposition to amendment No. 15 to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The Senator from Oklahoma was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act was considered and approved. He was a member for many years and never came to me to raise this issue. It has not been considered and its potential consequences of cutting 20 percent of Federal assistance grants to states that help law enforcement and encourage arrests in sexual assault and domestic violence cases could be disastrous. It is the wrong way to go.

I think we all agree that victims of sexual assault should receive testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. The Leahy- Crapo bill already adds new coverage for HIV testing and services for sexual assault victims. There is also already a five percent penalty in the law for those who don't provide HIV testing.

However, the amendment would mandate that states force tests on defendants, those accused of crimes but not tried or convicted. To require such testing within 48 hours of information or indictment is practically difficult or impossible for many states and violates the state constitution in others. This amendment sets up requirements that many state and local governments cannot comply with and will cause states to lose millions in assistance that helps victims of rape and domestic violence.

The Senator from Oklahoma has consistently voted against VAWA. That is his right. But we should not make the programs more difficult for law enforcement and victims because he does not support them. This is not the right way to reduce government--by setting up government mandates that law enforcement cannot meet and then cutting their assistance funding when they cannot. I do not believe this one-size- fits-all mandate from Washington to our states is the right way to go.

A large majority of states are not in compliance with this provision and would lose crucial funds for preventing rape and domestic violence and helping victims. These funds are particularly important in difficult economic times, and cutting them would be devastating for victims. The amendment's mandate is overly proscriptive and intrusive and would result in a loss of crucial services to many victims. That is why the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women strongly opposes this amendment.

I am willing to work on even more ways to ensure that rape victims receive all needed treatment. But doing so with measures that will punish the rape victims themselves by denying them access to needed services is inhumane and counter-productive. I urge Senators to oppose this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in opposition to amendment No. 16 to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Madam President, would that it were so simple. The amendment is simply going to take protections away from thousands of women, and that is why I oppose it.

As the Senate now votes on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I hope we will join together in a strong bipartisan majority to pass this important legislation. Enactment of our bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence is overdue. Together we can finally finish what we started last year. We are deeply indebted to the women and men around the country who have been working with us and have been steadfast in their commitment to the victims and to our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault.

The Violence Against Women Act has been effective at preventing crimes and protecting victims. But there is so much more to be done. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recent survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence, and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. More than half of the homicides in my state of Vermont are related to domestic violence. This is simply unacceptable. We can and we must do better.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Leahy-Crapo bill last April. In the nearly 10 months since then, thousands of women around the country have been victimized. We have heard of too many cases, yet the vast majority of these crimes are never reported at all. I cannot help but feel that some of those crimes could have been prevented. Some of those victims could have gotten more assistance. Congress should not delay any longer.

Our bill offers support for those techniques already proven in the field that help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It will increase VAWA's focus on rape victims and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities. This bipartisan bill will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. The bill also includes key improvements for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence.

All of these provisions were included because victims and the people who work with them every day told us they were needed to prevent crimes and provide better assistance to victims. We are trying to help victims and prevent crime. We have been working to get this bill through the Senate and to the House so we can quickly get a good bill to the President for his signature. We cannot afford further delay while more victims suffer unnecessarily.

I, again, thank the Majority Leader for making violence against women a priority for the Senate. We have been debating this measure since last Monday. We have considered a number of amendments. In the legislative process we have been able to make additional progress by adopting the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, as well.

I noted at the outset of this debate that by providing new tools and resources to communities all around the country, we have helped bring the crimes of rape and domestic violence out of the shadows. The Federal Government is standing with the women of this country and sent the message that we would no longer tolerate their treatment as second class citizens. Our bill renews and reinforces that commitment.

Ending violence against women is not an easy problem to solve, but there are simple and significant steps we can take right now, without delay, by passing this legislation. We have worked hard to make this bill bipartisan and I am proud that it has more than 60 Senate cosponsors. It also has the support of more than 1400 local, state and national organizations from around the country that work with victims every day and know just how critical this law has been. I included their most recent letter of support with my remarks last Monday. I, again, thank them for their tireless efforts.

There remain some special interest lobbies and some Senators who do not appreciate the role of the Federal Government in helping improve the lives of Americans. It is disappointed that Heritage Action and the Family Research Council are urging opposition to our bipartisan bill. I hope that Senators will listen, instead, to the victims and to law enforcement and to the more than 1400 national, state, and local organizations that strongly support our Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

If anyone needs a reminder of how important government help can be, just think about the way that Federal and local law enforcement worked together last week to rescue Ethan, a 5-year-old kidnapped boy, from an underground bunker in Alabama, where he had been held hostage for almost a week. Ask the family and local law enforcement if they appreciated the help of the FBI, the Defense Department and so many who contributed to the safe return of that innocent victim.

Every day across this nation we are reminded of the importance of programs like the Violence Against Women Act. Our bipartisan bill does more than protect victims of domestic violence. It also contains provisions to protect victims of stalking. This morning the Washington Post reported that a ``man stalking one of his victims shot and killed two women waiting to pass through metal detectors at a courthouse . . . Two male police officers also were struck by bullets . . . but were

saved by their bullet-proof vests.'' This episode should remind us all that after working to reauthorize and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act, we must also reauthorize the Bullet Proof Vest program so that more of our law enforcement officials can be protected.

I spent years in local law enforcement and have great respect for the men and women who protect us every day. When I hear Senators say that we should not provide Federal assistance, we should not help officers get the protection they need with bulletproof vests, or that we should not help the families of fallen public safety officers, I strongly disagree. In our Federal system, we can help and when we can, we should help. And that is exactly the opportunity that is before us today. We have the power to help improve the lives of millions of people in this country by renewing and expanding our commitment to end domestic and sexual violence and strengthen our commitment against human trafficking. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that more than 24 people per minute are the victims of rape, domestic violence and stalking in this country. We can take action to change that and we must.

I am proud that our bill seeks to support all victims, regardless of their immigration status, their sexual orientation or their membership in an Indian tribe. As I have said countless times on the floor of this chamber, ``a victim is a victim is a victim.'' The Violence Against Women Act is an example of how the Federal Government can help solve problems in cooperation with state and local communities. The fact is that women are safer today because of this law and there is no excuse not to improve upon it and reauthorize it without delay. We are working to protect victims--all victims--of domestic and sexual violence. I urge all Senators to look past the narrow, ideological opposition of some and join with us. That is what the former senior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, did last year when her Republican substitute was rejected by the Senate.

I hope that despite 14 Republican Senators not voting to proceed to consider the bill and 35 Republican Senators supporting what was a poor substitute offered and rejected early in this debate, we will have a strong bipartisan vote for final passage. I urge those who previously opposed our efforts to improve the Violence Against Women Act to join with us and help the Senate send our strong bill to the House of Representatives so that we can get it enacted. Despite the predictions by some that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to consider the Senate bill, as it did last year, I see reason for hope. Just yesterday 17 Republican members of the House wrote to their own leadership urging immediate reauthorization of VAWA.

I thank the many Senators who have helped shape this bill and have spoken is such strong support of it, including Senator Crapo, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murkowski, Senator Murray, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Coons, Senator Collins, Senator Shaheen, Senator Franken, Senator Hagan, Senator Casey, and so many others. I also thank their staffs and my own, including Kristine Lucius, Noah Bookbinder, Anya McMurray, Chris Leopold, Bryan Seeley, and Clark Flynt, for their countless hours of work away from their own families as we try to make all families safer and more secure.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I wanted to thank all my fellow Senators, from both parties, who voted for this bill. If you are someone who has seen firsthand the results of violence against women, it would be almost impossible to vote no on this bill. Will this stop all violence? No. But will it stop a lot of it? Yes; and it will also make possible for those who are caught in violence a chance for support, a chance for someplace to go, a chance to be protected from future attacks.

This is the kind of legislation that speaks to the conscience of our Nation. It speaks to the conscience of the Senate. It tells everybody, usually the most defenseless in our society, this body stands with you. I would urge our friends on the other side of the Capitol to move quickly with similar legislation. This is something we should not hold up. This is a way we can say: We oppose violence against women. We oppose it today. We oppose it tomorrow. We will oppose it forever.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 12, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

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, am I correct that we are on the Violence Against Women Act?

Mr. President, I hope all Senators will join in adopting the trafficking victims protection amendment that is before us today. This is crucial to reauthorizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We can make real progress in helping victims of human trafficking by adopting the amendment today and then proceeding to pass both the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act without delay.

One hundred and fifty years after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and long since ratification of the 13th amendment to our Constitution, slavery is illegal. What we are fighting now is human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery. This still occurs throughout the world--including in the United States of America. The Polaris Project estimates that there are more than 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide today. To put that in perspective, that is more people than the population of Texas.

The amendment before the Senate today is drawn from our Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a bipartisan bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers to make critical improvements to existing law. I have worked hard to try to address concerns expressed by Republican Senators and to ensure bipartisan support for this legislation, which Congress has reauthorized three times before. The result is that last year this legislation had 57 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

It is a parallel effort to our reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I was preparing to move it separately but other Senators offered trafficking-related amendments to the VAWA bill. That is what led to this amendment being offered at this time. This is now our opportunity to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and take a giant stride forward to help trafficking victims.

Our effort is to stop human trafficking at its roots by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking and to punish its perpetrators. We provide critical resources to help support victims as they rebuild their lives.

This amendment includes new measures to ensure better partnership and coordination among Federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to better address every facet of this complicated problem.

It also strengthens criminal anti trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It includes measures to encourage victims to cooperate with law enforcement, which leads to more prosecutions, and to identify victims and alert law enforcement.

We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the measure and it was cleared for passage by every Democratic Senator. We worked closely with Chairman Kerry, now Secretary of State Kerry, and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We have updated it with modifications cleared with the State Department and the new Foreign Affairs chairman, Senator Menendez, to the first title. I want to acknowledge Senator Rubio's efforts last year trying to help us clear this bill for Senate passage. Regrettably, this important legislation, like so many others, was held up last year by the objection of one anonymous Republican Senator. This is now our opportunity to pass it. Let us join together today to take this important step to help trafficking victims and prevent human trafficking.

The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls, often just 11, 12, or 13 years old, are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will.

I urge all Senators to join in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.

Mr. President, I ask that the time be equally divided, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Coburn amendment No. 13; further, that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that following leader remarks on Tuesday, February 12, the Senate resume consideration of S. 47; that the time until 11 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the amendments included under the previous order and that those votes occur in the order listed; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; and finally, that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 13

Madam President, I join Chairwoman Cantwell, the chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, in opposing Senator Coburn's amendment. The amendment will remove essential protections for Native women from the bill.

Native women in this country experience domestic abuse at a shockingly high rate. A recent study found that nearly three in five American Indian women have been the victim of a domestic assault. This terrible trend has been perpetuated by a jurisdictional gap that allows many non-Indian perpetrators on tribal lands to go unpunished.

This problem is real: nearly half of Indian women are married to non- Indian men, and thousands more are in relationships with non-Indians. Tribal courts have no jurisdiction when these men commit domestic violence offenses, and federal and state officials are not in a position to prosecute in most cases. They are often hours away and lack the resources and local contacts to be able to effectively respond. These non-Indian men can essentially abuse Indian women with immunity from any consequences. That has to end.

The Leahy-Crapo bill addresses this glaring need by allowing tribes that can provide key rights to defendants to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence offenses under limited circumstances. Our bill also clarifies that tribal courts have the authority to issue and enforce protection orders against non-Indians. These are essential tools in combatting domestic violence. Senator Coburn's amendment would eliminate these crucial provisions.

These provisions in the Leahy-Crapo bill are the product of careful deliberation by the Indian Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee, with input from legal experts. They are identical to the corresponding provision in last year's VAWA reauthorization which passed the Senate with 68 votes. Just this week I received a letter from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women voicing their strong support for the tribal jurisdiction provision that is currently in the Leahy-Crapo bill and today I received their letter strongly opposing the changes proposed in Senator Coburn's amendment. I also received a letter from the National Congress of American Indians expressing their support for the current tribal provisions and unequivocal opposition to any efforts to alter them.

Senator Coburn's amendment would reverse the significant progress we made last year when the Senate passed these provisions with strong bipartisan support. It sends the message that Native women are not deserving of the same protections as other women. I urge my fellow Senators to vote against it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters and other letters opposing the amendment be pritned in the Record.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time on both sides.

Madam President, the yeas and nays have not been requested, have they?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, any one of us can only imagine what it would be like to be wrongly arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for a crime we did not commit. And whatever we imagined would pale by comparison to reality.

Kirk Nobel Bloodsworth, who I am privileged to call a friend, was the victim of such a horrific miscarriage of justice. He served 9 years for the rape and murder of a young girl he never met, based on the mistaken identification by one of Kirk's neighbors.

Eyewitness identifications, assumed to be among the best evidence, are notoriously unreliable. Case after case demonstrates this. Take the massive search currently underway for Christopher Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer suspected in three killings. The police have been inundated with numerous false ``sightings.''

Kirk Bloodsworth is a free man today not because the justice system worked. For 9 years it failed miserably, and during that time the real killer was free. Rather, he had to prove his innocence thanks to DNA evidence, which is not available in most cases. One shudders to think of the number of factually innocent people who may be serving long sentences for whom exoneration through DNA testing isn't an option.

A February 5, 2013, article in the New York Times quotes Kirk: ``The adversarial system doesn't know who's guilty or who's innocent. The millstone doesn't know who's under it.'' That article, entitled ``A Death Penalty Fight Comes Home,'' is notable because it describes the campaign Kirk is helping to lead to abolish the death penalty in Maryland, the State where he was convicted and sent to death row.

Kirk is an example of someone who was subjected to the basest indignities and humiliation, and who then came back to inspire others to prevent future unjust convictions. It is the mark of a man of extraordinary character and courage, who deserves our praise and admiration. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record.