Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I wish to applaud the distinguished leader Senator Reid for his statement. He has helped us over and over again to get this bill to the floor. The reason it is here is because of the action of the distinguished majority leader in getting it up here. I was pleased to hear his comments about hopefully finishing this today or tomorrow. Anyway, it should be done soon. This is a landmark law.

The Senate has before it a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law we enacted that has made a difference in women's lives. 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 stood 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 is a simple and significant step we can take, right now and without delay. I, again, thank Majority Leader Reid for making this unfinished business from the last Congress a priority for the Senate early this year.

Senator Crapo and I 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 1,300 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 on Monday. I, again, thank them for their tireless efforts.

On Monday the Senate voted to proceed to consideration of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was disappointed to see that 13 Republican Senators did not vote to proceed to the bill. I do not know why. They did not say.

I worry that there are Senators who do not appreciate the role of the Federal Government in helping improve the lives of Americans. That is what the Violence Against Women Act is intended to do and it is what this law has successfully accomplished for nearly 20 years. This is an example of how the Federal Government can help solve problems in cooperation with State and local communities. The fact is, 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 hope that those who previously opposed our efforts to improve the Violence Against Women Act will join with us and help the Senate send our strong bill to the House of Representatives so that we can get it enacted. Let us not undercut the provisions to help protect Indian women from the serious problems they face.

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 earlier this 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.

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. 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.''

I appreciate the administration's support for this legislation and our goal in reaching all victims. In particular, I note the support of the administration in its Statement of Administration Policy for our bipartisan proposal, first developed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, to ``bring justice to Native American victims.'' Three out of five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. We can no longer idly stand by while this epidemic of abuse continues.

The language in the bill is that which the Senate adopted last April. The best legal views of which I am aware believe these provisions are both constructive and constitutional. We are building on the Tribal Law and Order Act and recognizing tribal authorities with respect to domestic violence in Indian country. No one should be able to get away with domestic violence and rape, not in any community, and not because the victim is a Native American victim in Indian country. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy expressing the administration's strong support for this provision and the bill as a whole, be made

part of the Record at the end of my statement.

The bottom line is this: While we have made great strides in reducing domestic and sexual violence, there is more to be done and it is incumbent upon us to act now. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act has been carefully considered and debated for more than 2 years. It is time we vote and send this bill to the House of Representatives so that it can be enacted. Let us not undermine the provisions to help protect Indian women and other particularly vulnerable victims from the serious problems they face.

I hope the Senate will come together to reauthorize this needed legislation in a bipartisan manner that represents the finest traditions of the Senate. Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old, gay and straight, male and female. Let us come together now--today--to pass this strong reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Let us show the American people what we can accomplish when we work together.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Statement of Administration Policy

S. 47--Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

(Sen. Leahy, D-VT, and 59 cosponsors, Feb. 4, 2013)

The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S.

47 to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a

landmark piece of bipartisan legislation that first passed

the Congress in 1994 and has twice been reauthorized. VAWA

transformed the Nation's response to violence against women

and brought critically needed resources to States and local

communities to address these crimes.

The Administration is pleased that S. 47 continues that

bipartisan progress and targets resources to address today's

most pressing issues. Sexual assault remains one of the most

underreported violent crimes in the country. The bill

provides funding through State grants to improve the criminal

justice response to sexual assault and to better connect

victims with services. Further, the bill seeks to reduce

domestic violence homicides and address the high rates of

violence experienced by teens and young adults. Reaching

young people through early intervention can break the cycle

of violence.

The Administration strongly supports measures in S. 47 that

will bring justice to Native American victims. Rates of

domestic violence against Native American women are now among

the highest in the United States. The bill builds on the

Tribal Law and Order Act--which President Obama signed on

July 29, 2010--to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of

tribal justice systems and also recognize tribal authorities

with respect to domestic violence in Indian country. The

Administration is pleased that S. 47 recognizes the need to

provide protection and services to all victims of abuse and

includes proposals to strengthen existing policies that were

supported by both Democrats and Republicans last year.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her words. The Senator from Washington State has been a consistent and clear supporter of the Violence Against Women Act. I especially applaud what she said: It should apply to all victims. I have said so many times on this floor, and I sometimes wonder if people hear, but certainly in my experience in law enforcement the police never asked and said, well, we can't help this victim unless they fall into a particular category. They said a victim is a victim is a victim, and a crime is a crime is a crime.

We didn't have the Violence Against Women Act when I and my colleagues around the country were in law enforcement. I cannot help but think of all the deaths that would have been prevented had we had something like this, all the violence that would have been prevented if there had been organizations like some of the actual ones we have in Vermont and other States supported by the Violence Against Women Act that have prevented violence.

I cannot imagine any Member of this body would oppose this law if it affected them or their families. We, as Americans, are all family, so it affects every one of us.

I again thank the Senator from Washington State for her comments.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters from advocates and faith-based organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from New

Hampshire would yield to me for a moment.

Mr. President, I know the senior Senator from New Hampshire is about to speak regarding the Violence Against Women Act. I would like to take a moment to thank her for all the work she has done in her State and in the Senate to help advance this legislation.

Senator Shaheen and I are from rural States. We border each other. The Connecticut River runs down the border between our two States. We have so much in common. We face some of the same difficulties of weather and rural nature, and, of course, in a rural State there is the question of access to transportation. Senator Shaheen was the one who brought up, based on her experience in New Hampshire, that women were having trouble getting to crisis centers and courts. Of course, we have a similar challenge in a rural State such as mine. But Senator Shaheen worked with the Department of Justice to address this problem. As a result, the Office on Violence Against Women is now allowing rural communities to obtain VAWA grant funding for transportation needs.

A number of the women who are going to be getting this transportation and desperately need it may not know how that came about, but I wish to congratulate Senator Shaheen on her successful efforts on behalf of not just women in New Hampshire or Vermont but throughout the country-- again, another example of what we are doing with this bill and the necessity to finish this bill. I hope we can finish it today.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senators Murray, Shaheen, Begich, Udall of New Mexico, Klobuchar, Murkowski, Hagan and Franken for their statements today in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

I also note that the ranking Republican member on the Judiciary Committee made a statement today from which I take some hope. The Senator from Iowa indicated that this measure could have been enacted last year. I wish it had been enacted last year after the Senate voted with a strong majority to do so and did everything I could, including reaching out to the Republican Speaker of the House, to try to make that happen.

I will not respond to all that my friend from Iowa said but I do want to correct any notion that I have abandoned my efforts to increase U visas to help law enforcement and immigrant women. As I have said repeatedly, I remain committed to these provisions that I originally introduced and will pursue them in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. I hope that the Senator from Iowa will join me and support them. We will need them later this year.

I am encouraged that our bipartisan bill has 62 cosponsors. I am disappointed that Senators who say it should have passed last year are still opposing it. I hope that after a vote on the Republican substitute, remaining opponents will join us and support Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. That is what Senator Hutchison did last year when the Senate rejected her alternative; she joined with us. I praised her for it. Let us join together and pass the strong Senate bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the Republican substitute bill being offered by the Senator from Iowa does not meet the needs of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Respectfully, I must say it is a poor substitute for the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act we developed over the last 2 years that has 62 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. I urge Senators to vote against it.

The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act already reflects many efforts we have undertaken to address the concerns of Senator Grassley and to meet Republican members halfway, and to accommodate them where we could. Our bill includes significant new accountability provisions modeled on language Senator Grassley had us include in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Our bill significantly reduces authorization levels to all programs. This is the first time a reauthorization reduced authorization levels, and we do so by almost 20 percent. Our bill consolidates and streamlines 13 programs. Our bill limits the percentage of grants that organizations can use for planning purposes. In drafting our bill, we eliminated several provisions that Senator Grassley indicated were problematic. We took these steps in an effort to work together to pass a bipartisan bill.

The proposed substitute bill would remove fundamental points of fairness that are at the core of this legislation. We need to cover everyone who experiences domestic and sexual violence in this country. No exceptions.

About 3\1/2\ years ago, the Congress finally adopted the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which protected those targeted with violence in a similar way to what we are considering today. We should not retreat from that position when we are addressing domestic and sexual violence.

The Republican substitute abandons VAWA's historic emphasis on abuse of women. Women are still more often the victims of domestic and sexual violence with more catastrophic results. The Republican substitute not only fails women, it also fails to guarantee that services will actually reach those victims who have in the past been unable to access them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

We should listen to those on the front lines of these tragedies who have told us about underserved communities needing protection. We should respond to law enforcement when they tell us about the importance of the U visa program, which enables them to take dangerous people off the street. We should not adopt the measures included in the Republican substitute that would make it more difficult for victims to apply for U visas. The Republican substitute would abandon our provisions that address domestic and sexual violence in tribal areas, which has reached epidemic proportions with rates of victimization far exceeding those in the general population. Taking money from other Justice Department programs to impose Federal judges and prosecutors on Indian lands is costly, unworkable and a non-solution to the problem. The bipartisan reauthorization bill, by contrast, takes the approach recommended by our Committee on Indian Affairs. We include local, community-based approaches to domestic violence that have worked so well in so many VAWA programs. Federal prosecutors already have authority to prosecute on these lands and have not solved the problem. Federal judges have plenty to do and our Federal courts are stretched thin with 83 current vacancies. Giving tribes the authority to prosecute those who commit violence against Indian victims on Indian land is a better and less costly solution than bringing in large numbers of Federal officials to Indian country.

All these differences are in the wrong direction and would result in leaving victims out. The Grassley substitute also includes costly and inefficient bureaucratic provisions that could cripple the delivery of needed services to victims and tie up the work of the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

In contrast to the Republican substitute, the bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill responds to the needs we have heard from the professionals, including law enforcement, who work every day to help victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. No one I have worked with has identified Federal sentencing as an area requiring changes. The sentencing provisions in this substitute, which include mandatory minimum sentences, are unnecessary and counterproductive. In fact, leading sexual assault advocacy groups like the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence oppose mandatory minimum sentences because they have a chilling effect on reporting and prosecution of

sexual assaults. The sentencing provisions in the substitute make victims and, by extension, our communities less safe.

We should not include extraneous provisions, as this substitute does, that have nothing to do with domestic violence or sexual assault. Comprehensive immigration reform is coming before us. The Judiciary Committee is hard at work on that. Proposals to change deportations may be appropriate in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. They have nothing to do with VAWA. Yet they are included in the Republican substitute. And when a provision of that type was included in the measure last year, its author nonetheless opposed VAWA reauthorization. It can be considered with comprehensive immigration reform, not here.

Every previous reauthorization of VAWA has contained new protections for immigrants and underserved communities. Our bill builds on that foundation with changes that are modest and widely supported.

The Republican substitute would gut core provisions of our bipartisan legislation that we all know we need and that professionals in the field tell us are needed. I thank Senator Cantwell, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Durbin for their excellent statements in opposition and urge all Senators to oppose the substitute and support the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the bill: Grassley substitute amendment No. 14, Leahy amendment No. 21, Portman amendment No. 10, Murkowski amendment No. 11, Coburn amendment No. 13, Coburn amendment No. 15, and Coburn amendment No. 16; that the time until 4 p.m. be for debate on the Grassley substitute; that the debate be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Grassley substitute amendment; that there be no amendments in order to any of the amendments on this list prior to votes in relation to the amendments; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill following any leader remarks on Monday, February 11, the time until 5:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the remaining amendments and passage of the underlying bill as amended, if amended; further, that Senator Cornyn have 45 minutes under his control on the Republican side; and there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

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

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

Madam President, I have spoken on this earlier, but I would just tell my colleagues why I will oppose this substitute which will be voted on in a few minutes. The substitute does not meet the needs of victims of domestic violence or dating violence or sexual assault or stalking. I think it is a poor substitute for the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that we have developed over the last 2 years, and which has 62 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. That is why I will urge Senators to vote against it.

The proposed substitute bill would remove fundamental points of fairness that are at the core of this legislation. We need to cover everyone who experiences domestic and sexual violence in this country, with no exceptions. Again, I have said 100 times on this floor, a victim is a victim is a victim; violence is violence is violence. You can't say this victim will get protection, but this victim won't get protection. The police never do that; we shouldn't do it.

Also, this substitute abandons VAWA's historic emphasis on abuse of women. Women are still more often the victims of domestic and sexual violence, with more catastrophic results. The substitute not only fails women, it fails to guarantee that services will actually reach those victims who in the past have been unable to access them.

Every previous reauthorization of VAWA has contained new protections for immigrants and underserved communities. Our bill builds on that foundation with changes that are modest and are widely supported by faith-based organizations, the law enforcement community, and those who work against domestic violence.

We have gone all over this country to find the best way to do this. This is what we have done in this bill. And what bothers me the most about the substitute is that it guts the core provisions of our bipartisan legislation. We know we need these services, and professionals in the field tell us they are needed. Look at what we have in our bipartisan reauthorization bill. It responds to the needs we have heard of from the professionals, including law enforcement. These are the people who work every day to help victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and dating violence and stalking.

No one I have worked with has identified Federal sentencing as an area that requires changes, so the sentencing provisions in the substitute are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Earlier I went through this I think point by point. I won't repeat that, but I would say to all the Members of this body, Republicans and Democrats alike, who have worked to craft this bipartisan piece of legislation: Please vote against this substitute amendment, because it is nothing, nothing at all like what we have worked on.

Madam President, what is the amendment before us now?

Madam President, under the unanimous consent request agreement, am I correct the Grassley substitute is to be voted on in about 30 seconds?

Madam President, normally I would call it up, but I understand Senator Grassley is almost here. As a matter of courtesy, I will not call it up; but if there is going to be a delay, because people are expecting this 4 o'clock vote--

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, there was a lot of attention recently on the French military's operation to repel Islamic extremists and Tuareg nationalist rebels who had terrorized the local population of northern Mali, including in the ancient city of Timbuktu. That operation was widely welcomed by local Malian citizens and the international community. Many of the rebels are believed to be hiding out among the local population until the French soldiers leave, so whether they are ultimately vanquished remains to be seen. It will depend in large measure on the longer term capability of a multinational force of African troops supported by the United States and others.

Besides terrorizing, torturing, mutilating, and slaughtering innocent people, the rebels destroyed ancient tombs, shrines, and manuscripts dating to a period many centuries ago when Timbuktu was a crossroads for commerce and a center of intellectual pursuits in northern Africa. I mention this not only to inform those who may be unaware of Mali's ongoing cultural importance, but also to call attention to the fact that Irina Bokova, Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO, has already pledged to reconstruct the damaged mausoleums. As she was quoted in the New York Times on February 4, 2013, ``This is the record of the golden ages of the Malian empire. If you let this disappear, it would be a crime against humanity.''

There are also little known heroes in this otherwise humanitarian and cultural disaster. Malian residents, particularly Ali Iman Ben Essayouti, who knew the importance of priceless manuscripts preserved in a library funded by international donors, including the Library of Congress and Department of State, managed to carefully move some of them to another location where the rebels did not find them. As a result, although the rebels burned the library, only a small portion of the manuscripts were destroyed.

The other point of this is that, as many Senators are aware, the United States, once the largest contributor to UNESCO, including under President George W. Bush, was forced to sever its support last year due to a 1990s law that prohibits U.S. funding to any United Nations- affiliated agency in which the Palestinian Liberation Organization, PLO, obtains the same standing as a member state. After UNESCO's members voted, against the advice of Ms. Bokova, to grant the PLO that standing, the law was triggered and U.S. funding abruptly ended.

This is illogical and self-defeating. First, although the PLO was a terrorist organization in the 1990s, it is no longer. Second, by cutting off our contribution to UNESCO we not only empower its other members, including Russia, Iran, and Syria, we also make it impossible to assist the organization in the kind of cultural preservation activities it is now undertaking in Mali, which are clearly in the national interest of the United States. There are many other examples, including World Heritage Sites like the Great Barrier Reef, which UNESCO designates and protects today without the support of the United States. Finally, if U.S. funding is not restored before the end of this fiscal year, we will lose our vote in the organization. Ironically, despite PLO membership in UNESCO, Israel has paid its dues through 2014. Presumably, Israeli officials recognize, as we should, that their interests are far better served by participating in a U.N. agency, not by watching from the sidelines.

Mr. President, regardless of what one may think about Palestinian President Abbas' effort to obtain U.N. membership for the PLO, and I am among those who regard it as an unhelpful distraction, cutting off U.S. funding to UNESCO and thereby weakening our influence and empowering our adversaries makes no sense. It is time we recognize that a law that might have seemed sensible to some people years ago has had unintended consequences that run directly counter to our interests, and should be amended or repealed.

I have enjoyed working with the senior Senator from Idaho. If he wants more time--

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Idaho for his comments. He has been not only a stalwart supporter, he actually has been essential in the drafting of this legislation. We all share this concern of finding ways to stop violence against women. I realize different parts of the country have different problems, different stresses. I am pleased to have a western view to go with this eastern view. But also, I think, it is a case of the best legislation in this body, legislation supported by both Democrats and Republicans. When we come together as Senators, things get done.

That is one of the reasons we are turning to this bill, S. 47, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, as one of our first bills. It has bipartisan support. I thank Majority Leader Reid for making this unfinished business a priority for the Senate.

Congressional enactment of our strong bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence is long overdue. Our bill has more than 60 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. I think this week we can finally finish what we started last year by passing the bill in the Senate, sending it to the other body, and having them take it up. I know I am deeply indebted--we all are--to the women and men around the country who have been working with us. They have been steadfast in their commitment to the victims and to our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault.

There is a pressing need to update the Violence Against Women Act. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence. 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.

Let me emphasize that just a bit. Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. But when I look at the source of the crime, more than half of the homicides are related to domestic violence. Those percentages are very high in almost every State. That is simply unacceptable. While the Judiciary Committee has been preparing to consider legislation on the subject of gun violence at the end of this month, we can act now, without delay, in the Senate to strengthen the protections of the Violence Against Women Act.

All of the provisions in our bill passed the Senate last year. In fact, 9 months ago the Senate passed the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with 68 votes. The Senate often has a hard time coming together with 51 votes, but here we had 68 votes from Members of both parties, across the political spectrum.

Last December we worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley additional provisions to amend the Debbie Smith Act, which we passed, to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits in order to provide for additional audits and reporting, and increase the capacity of State and local law enforcement to perform DNA analysis. Those provisions are now incorporated into this VAWA bill.

I hope those few Senators who opposed the bill last year will now join with us to enact VAWA reauthorization. I think we should act quickly and decisively to pass this bill, and send it to the House. I know if it reaches the President's desk, from what he has told me, he will sign it without delay.

Our bill will support the use of techniques proven to identify high- risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It is going to increase VAWA'S focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. It will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities. A recent study found almost three in five native women had been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners.

Our bill will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a few weeks ago that found the rates of domestic and sexual violence in these communities are equal to or greater than those of the general population. We also have key improvements for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence.

I did note when we reintroduced this bill at the outset of this year that we will be pressing the increase of U Visas for those victims who assist law enforcement in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. Last year, the House of Representatives refused to consider the Senate-passed bill because the U Visa provision, while fully offset, was seen technically to affect revenues. We removed it from the bill this year. I don't want this bill to be slowed up because of a technical excuse.

When somebody is being abused, they don't need to hear about technicalities. They want us to stop it, and they want us to expedite action on this bill. I remain strongly committed to the U Visa increase. As I said, I will try to include it in the immigration legislation we will be considering in the next couple of months. The reason I will do that, of course, is it will benefit law enforcement and victims, and we should enact it.

I have said so many times on the floor of the Senate that I remember my days as a prosecutor in Vermont--let me state it this way: I remember going to crime scenes at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. I remember seeing people being taken out in an ambulance, barely alive, battered to within an inch of their life. But I especially remember those who did not even get that far, lying on the floor, up against a wall, waiting for the medical examiner to come and pronounce the person dead and allow the police to collect evidence and move them.

During that time no police officer ever said: Is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim an immigrant or Native American? They said, as I have said so many times on the floor: A victim is a victim is a victim. How do we stop this from happening to somebody else? How do we catch the person who did this?

Law enforcement wants tools for after the fact. But even more, they want what we have in here: something to stop the abuse from happening in the first place. Every day we do not pass legislation to prevent this violence and assist victims, people are suffering.

I hope all Senators--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--will join us. I have spoken of Senator Crapo's longstanding commitment to victims. But, also, I have spoken often of the support of Senators Mikulski and Murkowski and Murray and Klobuchar and Coons and Collins and Shaheen and Franken and Hagan and Casey and so many others who have joined to help to shape this legislation and work to pass it. I also appreciate the support and assistance of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women and its many member organizations whose insight has been so critical.

I thank the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I am so proud of them. They have done great work helping victims in Vermont with support from the VAWA programs. They have been a leader in developing and supporting this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a letter organized

by the National Task Force and signed by more than 1,300 local, tribal, and national organizations supporting this important bill.

Since we first passed the Violence Against Women Act nearly two decades ago, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have something here that has been a success. We have helped to provide victims with critical services, such as housing and legal protection.

We have to remember, these are not just statistics. These are thousands of lives made immeasurably better. I might say because of this work these thousands of lives are still lives; they are not statistics of people murdered. All the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and those who assist them every day. They are commonsense measures. They will help real people. Every prosecutor, every support group--all will tell you it is past time for Congress to enact this bill to provide help for victims of domestic violence and rape.

We can make these concrete, important changes in the law. We can do it this week. I have been involved in this for years, and I have seen the results of what we have done. I have seen the lives that have been made immeasurably better because of what we have done. I have seen the lives that have been saved because of what we have done. There is no excuse to delay further.

Exhibit 1

National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence

Against Women,

February 4, 2013.

Senator,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned local, tribal, and

national organizations, represent and support millions of

victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault

and stalking throughout the United States, American Indian

Tribes and territories. On behalf of the victims we

represent, the professionals who serve them and the

communities that sustain them, we ask that you support the

Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA) reauthorization by co-

sponsoring and voting for S. 47. As you know, VAWA is slated

to come to the Senate floor as early as next week and we are

asking you to take a leadership role in ensuring that this

landmark bi-partisan bill will continue its important work.

VAWA's programs support state, tribal and local efforts to

address the pervasive and insidious crimes of domestic

violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. These

programs have made great progress towards reducing the

violence, helping victims to be healthy and feel safe and

holding perpetrators accountable. This critical legislation

must be reauthorized to ensure a continued response to these

crimes.

Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has dramatically

enhanced our nation's response to violence against girls and

women, boys and men. More victims report domestic violence to

the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner

violence against women has decreased by 64%. The sexual

assault services program in VAWA helps rape crisis centers

keep their doors open to provide the frontline response to

victims of rape. VAWA provides for a coordinated community

approach, improving collaboration between law enforcement and

victim services providers to better meet the needs of

victims. These comprehensive and cost-effective programs not

only save lives, they also save money. In fact, VAWA saved

nearly $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in just its

first six years.

VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to

these terrible crimes. Nonetheless, much work remains to be

done to address unmet needs and enhance access to protections

and services for all victims. We urge you to sponsor and vote

for S. 47 in order to build upon VAWA's successes and

continue to enhance our nation's ability to promote an end to

this violence, to hold perpetrators accountable and to keep

victims and their families safe from future harm. Thank you.

Sincerely,

* * *

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to proceed.

Today I am pleased the Senate will pass the bipartisan Embassy Security Funds Transfer Act of 2013. This commonsense legislation will enact a provision similar to one passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last December as part of the Sandy Supplemental but that was stripped out by House Republicans.

This bill simply provides authority to the State Department to transfer up to $1.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012 for operations in Iraq, which are no longer needed due to reduced State operations there, to be used for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas posts identified in the Department's security review after the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Making such resources available for these purposes is one of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. The bill permits the transfer of funds between the diplomatic and consular programs and embassy security construction and maintenance accounts. Such transfers would otherwise be precluded due to percentage limitations.

To be clear, this legislation appropriates no additional funds. It costs the taxpayers no additional money. It has no scoring impact. It merely allows for the transfer of existing, appropriated funds for this critical purpose. There is nothing controversial about this bill.

We all want to do what we can to prevent another tragedy like what occurred in Benghazi. The State Department has done a review, and these funds will be used to expedite construction of Marine security guard posts at overseas facilities and for the construction of other secure embassies. While it is impossible to guarantee the safety of our diplomats and aid workers, many

of whom risk their lives daily in dangerous places, we should protect them as best we can so they can carry out their duties as safely as possible.

As I mentioned, the Senate approved a similar provision last December, overwhelmingly, by voice vote. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Graham, and the other cosponsors for supporting this bill and for helping to expedite its consideration. I am confident that the chairwoman and ranking member of the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee share our view that this is an appropriate use of these funds. I hope the House will act quickly to send this bill to the President.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Would that this amendment were as simple as the junior Senator from Kentucky described. His amendment would hinder our military assistance program and licenses for commercial sales of all major military equipment, including aircraft, ships, tanks, other armored vehicles, and so on.

Ending these contracts would not only mean a loss of thousands and thousands of American jobs, it would incur more than $2 billion in contract termination penalties for U.S. taxpayers. We would also put at risk our access to the Suez Canal, the overflights of the U.S. Air Force over Egyptian territory, cooperation on the Sinai, Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa--a part of the world where we need all the allies we can get--and our emphasis on the ability to keep the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement going.

Do I have problems with the way the Morsi government is going? Certainly. But removing our ability to be involved with keeping that peace agreement and our ability to influence, this is not the way to do it.

It is shortsighted and harmful to U.S. security arrangements.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the Committee on the Judiciary has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 113th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules for the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Rules of Procedure United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary--

113th Congress

Madam President, I want to congratulate David Kappos, whose last day as the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, is today. Director Kappos's leadership of the PTO has been applauded by all segments of the intellectual property, IP, community. This is no easy feat. The IP community is as diverse as our economy, and the community's views on IP law are hardly uniform.

I have known Director Kappos since well before he entered government service, and I was particularly pleased to chair his confirmation hearing in July 2009. Director Kappos was well suited to understand both how to manage a $2 billion office and meet the needs of inventors and innovators. He began his career as an engineer and worked in the IP law department of IBM in nearly all of its business units before finally managing all of IBM's IP law interests as vice president and assistant general counsel. IBM is a large employer in Vermont and one of the reasons that Vermont receives more patents per capita than any other State.

Anyone who has met Director Kappos cannot help but be taken with his integrity and his clear passion for an intellectual property system that rewards inventors and creators. Those leadership qualities have motivated the PTO staff, which has reduced the time it takes to receive responses from the patent office on applications and, according to most experts, simultaneously improved the quality of patents that the PTO issues.

Director Kappos played an instrumental role in the development and passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act--one of the few bipartisan, job-creating bills of the 112th Congress. Soon after being confirmed as Director in August 2009, he sat down to work with me and a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members to work out a consensus on patent reform legislation.

Director Kappos's credibility within the patent community and his leadership was critical in bringing together the different interests to support the changes in the America Invents Act that will speed the time for high quality patents to issue from the PTO while providing more efficient methods for challenging low quality patents. Since enactment, Director Kappos and his team have set the PTO on course to implement the key provisions of the act, which will improve the patent system for decades.

The America Invents Act was the highest profile law on which I worked with Director Kappos, but it was not the only one. Early in his tenure, the PTO recommended legislation that ultimately became the Trademark Technical Correction Act of 2010 and the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012.

Director Kappos's full title is Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is one of the longest titles in government and underscores the vast responsibility he has had, and which is particularly important because IP is such a key driver of our economy.

I am saddened that Director Kappos has decided to step down but heartened by how he has energized the PTO. The President and the Commerce Department have lost a valuable member of their economic team. I wish Dave all the best.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 4 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, today, I join privacy advocates, industry leaders and National, State and local government officials from across our Nation in celebrating Data Privacy Day--a day to recognize the need to better secure our privacy and security in cyberspace. I am also pleased to join Senators on both sides of the aisle in cosponsoring a Senate resolution to commemorate Data Privacy Day.

In the Digital Age, Americans face new threats to their digital privacy and security as consumers and businesses alike collect, share and store more and more information in cyberspace. Data Privacy Day is an important reminder about the need to improve data privacy as we reap the many benefits of new technologies.

Last year the Judiciary Committee approved digital privacy legislation that I authored to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to improve the privacy protections for Americans' email and other electronic communications. That bill would, among other things, require that the Government obtain a search warrant, based upon probable cause, before obtaining email and other electronic communications from a third-party service provider. When I and others in Congress authored ECPA in 1986, email was a novelty and most Americans had never heard of the Internet. Today, communication by email is commonplace and many of us store email and other electronic communications with service providers or ``in the cloud'' for extended periods of time.

After 3 decades, it is essential that Congress update ECPA to ensure that this critical law keeps pace with new technologies and the way Americans use and store email today. Digital privacy is important to all Americans, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. That is why when Congress first enacted ECPA, we did so with strong bipartisan support. I appreciate the willingness of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte to work in partnership with me to examine and update this critical privacy law. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Goodlatte and others in Congress to update this law so that it keeps pace with the many new threats to our privacy.

I again thank and commend the many stakeholders and leaders from across the Nation who are holding events to commemorate Data Privacy Day. I look forward to working with them and with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, to enact reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Madam President, I would note that, of course, we have passed a budget, and that is why we are facing sequestration now. That wasn't just a resolution; that was an actual law, signed by the President. A lot of people who voted for it don't like it, but we voted for it.

Madam President, I want to commend President Obama for nominating Senator Kerry to be our next Secretary of State. There are few, if any, people in America today who have had the breadth of experience that Senator Kerry has had: as a military officer, as a highly decorated veteran, as a Lieutenant Governor, as a U.S. Senator, and as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is exceptionally well qualified to be the next Secretary of State.

John Kerry is a leader of extraordinary intellect, wisdom, and insight. To those of us who have watched him, worked with him, and traveled with him over the years, it is crystal clear that he is a natural diplomat. He lives and breathes the art of diplomacy. He is instinctively drawn to understanding and addressing the global security challenges of our time.

He is also multilingual. I have heard Senator Kerry in meetings in other capitals of the world, and I have watched those who were there pay special attention to what he had to say as he conversed in their language. This is someone who does not need on-the-job training. He has been learning the job over the course of four decades of public service.

I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations. In that role, I will look forward to working closely with Senator Kerry in his new position as Secretary of State, to provide the resources necessary to promote and protect U.S. interests around the world.

It is a formidable assignment. We face daunting threats from religious extremism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, growing competition for energy, water, and other natural resources--all amid the obligations of deficit and debt reduction. But these threats and challenges present opportunities if we approach them intelligently.

Some in Congress have an almost xenophobic attitude. They would have us retreat. They would slash our contribution to the United Nations and weaken our ability to build alliances, which would only embolden our adversaries.

They would cut the State Department's budget at a time when our diplomats and consular officers, many of whom work long hours in dangerous places, already are stretched to the limit. Then they criticize and politicize when tragedies happen.

We saw that yesterday, when members of the other body criticized Secretary of State Clinton for lapses in diplomatic security, only a week after they prevented passage of my amendment that would have allowed for the transfer of unused State Department funds to improve security at U.S. embassies around the world. Let's stop the hypocrisy.

Some here would roll back funding for international development programs, which help to create political stability in conflict-prone regions and build markets for U.S. exports, on the grounds that these funds would be better spent at home.

They miss the point. Ninety-nine percent of the Federal budget is spent on domestic programs. The notion that somehow the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth is an island, and that we can ignore what is happening in the world around us is foolhardy, and is dangerous.

John Kerry understands this, and he knows that appropriations begin with Congress. In times of close scrutiny of all aspects of the Federal budget and fierce competition for funds among Federal agencies, he will need to make his case up here repeatedly, and I will work with him to do that. We have to convince Congress and the American people why the State Department's budget is important. As Secretary of State one can have the best policies and the best plans to implement them. But if you don't have the resources, if you don't have the people to do it, the best plans in the world don't go very far.

Secretary Clinton has done an outstanding job. I have told her that I stand in awe of what she has accomplished throughout the world and within the State Department. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her steady hand and tireless energy as Secretary of State. I have traveled with her to other countries. I have seen how she approaches problems, always prepared and with such energy. Every American should be proud to be represented by her. She has done an extraordinary job in reintroducing America to the world after the missteps following 9/11 that caused so much damage to our image and authority abroad.

Her successor also has not only a hard act to follow, but he also understands, as we all do, that America must continuously demonstrate to the rest of the world what we stand for as a people.

I believe the Congress and the American people, and I think, in a way, the world, is fortunate to have a nominee for the position as qualified as Senator Kerry. I will enthusiastically vote for him when his name comes before the Senate.

Madam President, seeing no other person seeking recognition, as President pro tempore of this body, I am glad to see you in the role of Presiding Officer. I realize you can't respond to this, but in your first month in the Senate you are actually filling the pivotal role in this body, and I appreciate it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, during my 38 years in the Senate, I have served with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, during Republican administrations and Democratic ones. Whether in the majority or the minority, whether the chairman or ranking member of a committee, I have always stood for the protection of the rights of the minority. Even when the minority has voted differently than I have or opposed what I have supported, I have defended their rights and held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out and that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans would do the right thing.

Yet over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have come dangerously close to changing something central to the character of the Senate and threatening its ability to do its work for the American people.

As a caucus, instead of trying to work with us on efforts to help the American people at a time of economic challenges, Senate Republicans have engaged in an across-the-board procedural barricade. On issue after issue, from the DISCLOSE Act to efforts to curb massive subsidies for big oil companies, from the American Jobs Act to the Paycheck Fairness Act, from legislation to help small businesses to providing support for our veterans, Senate Republicans have relied on the unprecedented use of the filibuster to thwart the majority from making progress. They have long since crossed the line from use of the Senate rules to abuse of the rules, exploiting them to undermine our ability to solve national problems.

Filibusters that were once used rarely have now become a common occurrence, with Senate Republicans raising procedural barriers to even considering legislation or voting on the kinds of noncontroversial nominations the Senate once confirmed regularly and quickly by unanimous consent. The leader has been required to file cloture just to ensure that the Senate makes any progress at all to address our national and economic security, and a supermajority of the Senate is now needed even to force a vote on mundane issues.

That is not how the Senate should work or has worked. The Senate is built on a tradition of comity, with rules that only function based on the kind of consent commonly and traditionally given. The rules are not built to aid and abet Senators using across-the-board filibusters and obstruction at every turn. The Senate does not function if an entire caucus takes every opportunity to use obscure procedural loopholes to stand in the way of a vote because they might disagree with the result. Without serious steps to curtail these abuses, the approach taken the last four years by Senate Republicans risks turning the rules of the Senate into a farce and calls into question the ability of the Senate to perform its constitutional functions.

In an earlier period of Senate history, when the filibuster was widely regarded as having become too great an obstacle for long-overdue reforms--for which there was a wide and general national consensus--I had the honor of playing a small part as a freshman senator during Senator Walter Mondale's heroic and successful efforts to lower the cloture bar from 67 votes to 60 votes. Then, as now, reform came through arduous, bipartisan negotiation.

I am hopeful that the agreement reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader represents that kind of serious step toward restoring the tradition of the Senate and its ability to work for the American people. I am hopeful that the Republican Senators who join today with Senate Democrats follow through on the commitment they are making to curtail the abuse of Senate rules and practices that have marked the last four years.

The progress we are making today is a credit to Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others whose efforts to reform the Senate rules are justified by the abuses we have seen. The diligence and energy of these reformers provided the impetus for the agreement reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader. In my view the agreement does not go far enough to address abuses, and I wish it included more of the commonsense proposals put forward by the reformers to make the Senate run more efficiently. As I did at the beginning of the last Congress, I support their proposals to put the burden of maintaining a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct the Senate, rather than on those seeking to overcome the obstruction. However, I am willing to accept today's agreement as a meaningful compromise with concessions by both sides that will have the support of senators from both parties, rather than the support of only one party. I will support it because it can be adopted by a supermajority vote instead of the kind of extended and damaging floor fight over the rules that would undermine any progress we hope to make. With so many urgent issues to tackle for the American people, we cannot risk giving opponents of progress another excuse for inaction.

I am encouraged by the verbal agreement between the majority leader and the Republican leader to change the practices of how the Senate handles filibusters. Under this agreement, the bill managers and leadership would call on Senators who are threatening a filibuster to come to the floor, which will properly put the burden of a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct, rather than those seeking to make progress. The leaders will also press that postcloture debate time be used for debate and will bring votes to produce a quorum to avoid delay. These commonsense steps will help build on today's rules changes to help curtail the abuses we have seen and restore the Senate's ability to work for the American people.

I also believe the Standing Order that is part of today's agreement will give the majority leader new tools for overcoming the wholesale Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have been especially concerned about the damage being done by Republican obstruction to the Senate's unique responsibility for ensuring that the judicial branch has the judges it needs to do its job. Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have abandoned this constitutional responsibility, using unprecedented filibusters to delay and obstruct President Obama from appointing to the Federal bench even judicial nominations that have bipartisan support. As a result of this brand of Republican obstruction, we begin President Obama's second term with the Judiciary nearly 20 percent below where it needs to be in terms of judges, and a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people.

Senate Republicans have already forced the majority leader to file cloture on 30 of President Obama's judicial nominations, almost all of which were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Yet the Senate rules give the minority the ability to demand 30 hours of floor time even after a supermajority of the Senate has voted to end the filibuster of a judicial nomination. This extended debate time is meant to give the Senate a chance to consider amendments that are germane to a bill so it serves no purpose for judicial nominations. Rather, it has been used by Senate Republicans as a threat to obstruct the Senate for days just to get to a vote on each of these noncontroversial nominations. Such an approach has made it easier for a silent minority of Senate Republicans to make the costs too high for the majority leader to push for votes on nominees and has led directly to the unnecessary and damaging backlog of judicial nominations we have seen for years on the Senate calendar.

The agreement reached today has a good chance of curtailing this type of abuse of the rules in this Congress by reducing this extended debate time after the end of a filibuster on district court nominations from 30 hours to two hours. I believe this change will increase the ability of the majority leader to push for votes on district court nominations, where the threat by Senate Republicans of extended debate time has been particularly damaging.

Federal district court judges hear cases from litigants across the country and handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best and have been confirmed promptly with that support. Never before in the 38 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything like what has happened in the last 4 years, when we have seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non- partisan positions, needlessly stalling them for months with no explanation.

Until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W. Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court nominees, and the majority leader has been forced to file cloture on 20 of them, with many more left to linger month after month without a vote on the Senate calendar due to the threat by Republicans to require half a legislative week or more just to confirm one of them. As a result, it has taken the Senate more than three times as long to vote on President Obama's district court nominees as it did to vote on President Bush's.

The agreement reached today will blunt the ability of Senate Republicans to block important legislation and district court nominations without accountability merely by the threat of burning so much Senate time. I wish that the proposal also applied to Federal circuit court or Supreme Court nominations, where the extended postcloture debate time also serves no purpose. But the progress I believe we will make as a result of this bipartisan compromise is a good first step towards helping us reduce the extended backlog of judicial nominations created by Republican obstruction and should result in more judges serving the American people.

There is no question that the reforms sought by many Democratic Senators are justified by the extended and unprecedented abuse of the Senate rules and practices by Senate Republicans that began when President Obama took office. However, I hope that by reaching this bipartisan agreement we build a foundation for restoring the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the American people. Now the burden is on Senate Republicans to work with us rather than hide behind an abuse of the rules to block progress.

The American people want Congress to be able to solve national problems like disaster relief, comprehensive immigration reform, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. They want us to work together on commonsense solutions to reduce gun violence and to ensure that all Americans have access to a working Federal court system. I hope that today's bipartisan compromise holds the promise of getting more done to help the American people. I look forward to working with those on both sides of the aisle in the coming months.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti- Retaliation Act. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues.

Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives.

The legislation we are introducing today is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

The antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation.

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