Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have spoken on this subject many times on the floor. The people who are affected by violence against women have wondered why the Congress has delayed so long on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, the bill we passed here in the Senate. If someone is a victim of violence, that person can't understand such delays. So I think it is time for the Senate and the House to come together to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. The other body needs to do what we did overwhelmingly in this Senate.

Earlier this week, I read in the Burlington, VT, Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton. She is a woman from Thetford, VT. Thetford, VT, is a small, quiet, beautiful little town in our State.

Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, he beat her with a baseball bat, and he poured industrial strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said she had suffered the most horrific injury a human being could suffer. Today she is still disfigured and continues to experience pain from these injuries of 5 years ago. She is currently awaiting approval for a procedure that could help her get a face transplant. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story in a book that she has written called Overcome: Burned, Blinded, and Blessed.

Stories such as Carmen's remind me that every day we do not pass VAWA more people are suffering.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the article to which I referred.

Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer was a strong supporter of this bill--the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, as many of our colleagues were on both sides of the aisle. We tried to keep this a nonpartisan bill--even beyond

bipartisan, a nonpartisan bill--because certainly my experience has been that violence occurs not because a woman is a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Violence against women occurs in all stratum, in all categories.

Senator Crapo and I put together our bill after listening to victims and the professionals who work with them every day. We did not want provisions in our bill included to score political points. They were there to address the urgent needs of vulnerable victims. That was the one thing we wanted. This wasn't a Democratic or Republican bill, this was to address vulnerable victims.

One key provision in our bipartisan bill would allow tribal courts limited jurisdiction to consider domestic violence offenses committed by non-Indians against Indian women on tribal lands. On this, I relied on the experiences of Senator Crapo and others who come from States where there are tribal lands. As we went into this and talked to the leaders of various tribes from around this country, I heard that violence against Native women is not only appalling, as we knew, but it has become an epidemic. It has been reported that almost three in five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. Much of the violence is committed by non-Native Americans--non-Indians.

Federal and State law enforcement may be hours away and lack the resources to respond to these cases, while tribal courts lack jurisdiction to consider these cases. So what happens? The perpetrators are, in effect, immune from the law. The worst part about it is they know they are immune from the law. So the jurisdiction provision in the Senate Leahy-Crapo bill would be a significant step toward addressing this horrific problem, but it would also ensure that no abuser is above the law. As the President said yesterday in a speech to the Tribal Nations Conference: ``With domestic violence so prevalent on reservations, we're pushing Congress to restore your power to bring to justice anyone--Indian or non-Indian--who hurts a woman.''

Even though our tribal provision is limited and guarantees comprehensive rights, House Republicans have objected to it. So I come to the Senate floor to report to my colleagues what I hope is a breakthrough on this issue in this important bill. Two conservative House Republicans, with leadership positions in the Republican House majority, have introduced a reasonable, middle-ground position regarding tribal jurisdiction.

Representative Issa of California and Representative Cole of Oklahoma have introduced the Violence Against Indian Women Act, H.R. 6625. Their cosponsors include Republicans from North Carolina, Minnesota and Idaho. They all have tribes within their states and are concerned about the violence our Senate bill is trying to combat. The Issa-Cole bill includes a provision that allows defendants to remove a case to Federal court if any defendants' rights are violated. This modification should ensure that only those tribes that are following the requirements of the law and providing full rights can exercise jurisdiction, and that defendants can raise challenges at the beginning of a case.

Some in the House Republican leadership have expressed a ``just say no'' approach to any grant of tribal jurisdiction, but the House Republican leadership should give serious consideration to this Republican proposal so we can move forward and protect thousands of victims, non-Native Americans and Native Americans.

The National Congress of American Indians has sent a letter and urged Senator Crapo and me to take a serious look at the Issa-Cole provisions. We are. I have consulted with Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding this proposal so we can find a way forward. I urge the House Republican leadership to do so as well.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the NCAI letter.

Mr. President, already, eight House Republicans have endorsed this approach in a letter to Speaker Boehner urging passage of our VAWA legislation with this compromise. I am reaching out to them and to members of both parties in both houses of Congress asking them to consider how we can bridge differences and get VAWA reauthorization legislation enacted to meaningfully address the brutal violence on tribal lands.

I remain committed to finding solutions to all the areas of contention between the House and the Senate on VAWA. We ought to be able to pass legislation that includes provisions addressing the violence on tribal lands and the need to protect immigrant women and those who have not had access to services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I believe we can find acceptable versions of the Senate bill's new protections for students and other key provisions. I am reaching out to the House Republican leadership. I look forward to their seizing this opportunity provided by these senior House Republicans to work with me and Senator Crapo and the 68 Senators from both parties who voted for the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill last April. If we can complete our work and send this bill to the President before we adjourn this year, he will sign it. Because with every day, every week, every month that goes by there are more horrific accounts of domestic and sexual violence. Whether it is a victim in Thetford, VT, or Kansas City, we owe it to them to come together to find a compromise.

I have said this before several times: I still have nightmares from the domestic violence crime scenes I saw as a prosecutor in Vermont. I became a prosecutor at a time when many of the laws were changing-- search and seizure laws, Miranda laws, and so forth--and I would go with the police to crime scenes to give them advice on what the new laws might mean. A lot of times those scenes were at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Many times we would see battered women, sometimes women no longer alive. I had nightmares from those. But I remember the police never asked: Is this an immigrant? Is this woman gay or straight? Is this woman Native American? They just wanted to stop the crime from happening again, and this legislation would give them a lot of tools so they can do that. The thought that our inaction could lead to more scenes such as those I saw would be tragic.

Congress must act now to protect victims of rape and domestic violence. I am optimistic we can move together now that several House Republicans support a compromise position on tribal jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing from the House Republican leadership.

Mr. President, I know we are going to vote at 12, so I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote today on the nomination of Michael Shea to be a district judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. It has taken far too long for this day to come, but he will be confirmed and I congratulate him and his family on his confirmation and I congratulate the two Senators from Connecticut on finally having this nomination come to a vote.

I mention this not to urge that we confirm him because we will--and I will very proudly vote for him--but Michael Shea is another nominee whose nomination was stalled for months for no good reason. The Judiciary Committee--and the distinguished Presiding Officer serves on that committee and will recall--we gave his nomination strong bipartisan support more than 7 months ago. He has the support of both home State Senators--both Senator Lieberman and Senator Blumenthal. He has significant litigation experience. He is a graduate of Yale Law School. He clerked for the conservative Judge James Buckley in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit following graduation.

We have to ask, why did it take 7 months for the Senate to finally consider his nomination--after waiting 7 months, we will talk about it for 20 minutes, and then we will vote on his nomination. Why the 7- month delay? Republican obstruction.

After this vote, the Senate remains backlogged with 17 judicial nominations that go back to before the August recess. Senate Republicans are establishing another harmful precedent by refusing to proceed on judicial nominees with bipartisan support before the end of the session. They held up judicial nominees 3 years ago, they did it 2 years ago, they did it last year, and now they are doing it again this year.

They have found a new way to employ their old trick of a pocket filibuster. They stall nominees into the next year, and then they force the Senate, in the new year, to work on nominees from the past year. They delay and delay and delay and push other confirmations back in time and then cut off Senate consideration of any nominees.

How else does anyone explain the Republican Senate opposition to William Kayatta of Maine, who is supported by the two Republican Senators from Maine? How else to explain the Republican filibuster and continuing opposition to Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, who has the support of Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn, the two Republican Senators from Oklahoma? How else to explain their adamant refusal to consider the nomination of Richard Taranto to the Federal Circuit, when the Judiciary Committee had seven of the eight Republican Senators voting for him? One, Senator Lee, cast a ``no'' vote but said it was a protest on another matter. But every single Democrat voted for him.

These delays may serve some petty political purpose, but the American people do not want petty political purposes. They want our Nation's courts to be staffed. They want the American people who seek justice to be able to get it. So we should take action on all pending nominees and reduce the damagingly high number of judicial vacancies. Federal judicial vacancies remain above 80. By this point in President Bush's first term, we had reduced judicial vacancies to 28.

There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more than 80 vacancies this past March when the majority leader was forced to take the extraordinary step of filing cloture motions on 17 district court nominations--something I had never seen in my 37 years here. There are going to be at least 80 vacancies after today. Before we adjourn, we ought to at least vote on the 17 pending nominations that could have been and should have been confirmed before the August recess.

From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a Presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. That is whether there was a Republican or Democratic President or a Republican- controlled or Democratic-controlled Senate.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before now. Somehow, this President is treated differently than all the other Presidents before him. I have been here with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, the first President Bush, President Clinton, the second President Bush, and now President Obama. None of those other Presidents were treated in the way this President is treated. It is something Senate Democrats have never done in any lame duck session, whether after a Presidential or midterm election.

In fact, Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including 3 circuit court nominees, in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. I remember. I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I moved forward with those votes, including one on a very controversial circuit court nominee. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lameduck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. Actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee.

We proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in a lame duck session after the elections of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. The reason I am not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the Judiciary Committee in September and long before the lame duck session.

That is our history. That is our recent precedent. Those across the aisle who contend that judicial confirmation votes during lame duck sessions do not take place are wrong. The facts are facts are facts. It is past time for votes on the 4 circuit court nominees and the other 13 district court nominees still pending on the Executive Calendar.

Let's do our job. This is what the American people pay us to do. Let's vote up or vote down, but let's vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. The Senate today is considering the ratification of an important treaty that will further strengthen the United States' longstanding role as a beacon of human rights around the world. I support ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD, and hope that this treaty, which enjoys bipartisan support, will be approved by the Senate today.

I have long been a strong supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, which has served to protect the rights of disabled U.S. citizens for more than 2 decades. The CRPD is a natural extension of many of the core principles guided by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe that any person living with a disability, regardless

of where they were born or where they reside, should be protected from discrimination and unfair treatment.

President Obama signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, and earlier this year, he submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported the CRPD to the full Senate in July, and it is right that the Senate is taking action on this important treaty before this Congress adjourns. Current U.S. law already provides a number of protections called for under the CRPD. The Foreign Relations Committee included in its reported treaty reservations, understandings, and a declaration which will allow the United States to be in full compliance with the treaty, without making changes to existing U.S. law.

Like President Obama, I believe this convention serves a number of American interests, including encouraging protection of U.S. citizens and servicemembers with disabilities who live or travel abroad, and assisting U.S. businesses by ensuring that their international counterparts are required to comply with similar laws.

Around the world, 125 nations have signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and are parties to this treaty. Its ratification is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and by well over 300 religious organizations, health care centers, advocates for people with disabilities, and veterans' organizations. Disability Rights Vermont and the Vermont Center for Independent Living are among those organizations supporting ratification. I hope all Senators will support this important treaty. It sends the right message to the rest of the world that the United States cares about the dignity of all people.

Madam President, I was very pleased that the Senate adopted last night an amendment to improve the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, LEOSA. I was pleased to join Senator Webb, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as a cosponsor to strengthen a policy that is important to our Nation's law enforcement community. I thank Chairman Levin and Senator Webb for their efforts.

The amendment we adopt today will place military police and civilian police officers within the Department of Defense on equal footing with their law enforcement counterparts across the country when it comes to coverage under LEOSA. The LEOSA law permits active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. This law, which has been in place since 2004, gives our law enforcement officers, should they choose, the peace of mind that they are protected wherever they may be.

One of the qualifications required of active or retired officers to be covered by the LEOSA law is that they must have ``statutory arrest authority''. Some law enforcement personnel within the Department of Defense do have such statutory arrest authority. Others do not. For example, civilian police officers that conduct law enforcement activities on military bases or installations derive their authority from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This authority, while statutory, is ``apprehension'' authority. Due to that difference between the LEOSA law's specific enumerated requirements, and the authority pursuant to which civilian police in the military operate, these law enforcement officers have not been able to obtain the law's benefits.

To remedy this, the amendment we have adopted will expressly include within the LEOSA statute currently non-covered civilian police officers and military police. It will do so by adding a statutory citation within Title 18 of the United States Code to the relevant portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This will provide legal certainty for the Department of Defense, and will provide the needed LEOSA coverage for currently non-covered law enforcement personnel within the military.

The Senate has agreed unanimously to extend LEOSA to the law enforcement officers that serve within our military who are currently not eligible for coverage under LEOSA. They are no less deserving or worthy of this privilege and I am very pleased we have acted to equalize their treatment under the Federal law. Given the productive discussions we have had with the Department of Defense Office of Law Enforcement Policy and Support, and with Chairman Levin in developing this amendment. I expect that it will be implemented without delay so that those intended to be covered may gain the law's benefit quickly. These police officers, who largely perform the same duties as their counterparts elsewhere in the Federal Government and at the State and local level, deserve the equal treatment this amendment will provide.

That is right.

Mr. President, while the Senator from Iowa is on the floor--and I will be very brief because there are others waiting to speak--I am so moved and touched by what he had to say. I had the privilege of being in that room with the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and Senator Dole--both Senators Dole, Senator Bob Dole and Senator Elizabeth Dole.

The Senator referred to Justin Dart's widow and his hat was there. My colleague and I saw him wearing that hat the day the disability legislation was signed into law on the White House lawn. In fact I have a photograph I took of the Senator standing there.

Persons with Disabilities Treaty

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving in this body every day that Tom Harkin has been here. Nobody has spoken more eloquently for the needs of the disabled than Senator Harkin. He learned sign language so he could communicate with his brother. I have seen him with members of the disabled community. He is loved and respected.

This was not the Senate's finest day. It was not ``Profiles in Courage'' to see what happened. I am glad the Senator mentioned the veterans, as though any of them would stand for something that would take over our country. Many of them lost limbs fighting for this country and fighting for the security of this country. They represent people who died fighting for this country.

So this is one Senator who will be here next year. I pledge to the Senator from Iowa and to Senator Kerry, my seatmate--actually, I have both Senators on either side of me--that I will be here, and I will support the Senators every step of the way.

Mr. President, our intellectual property system in the United States is the envy of the world and the engine of economic growth. By granting inventors exclusive rights in their discoveries for a limited time, the patent system incentivizes research and development by independent inventors and large multinational companies. Consumers benefit from new technologies, and our economy benefits from continued investment.

I am introducing legislation today that will encourage patent holders to apply their intellectual property to address global humanitarian needs. This has long been an interest of mine. In 2006, I introduced legislation that would have created a statutory license to manufacture and export life saving medicines to eligible, developing countries.

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

Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in June, I asked Director Kappos whether the program would be more effective, and more attractive to patent owners, if the acceleration certificate were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, particularly for small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act of 2012 simply makes these acceleration certificates transferable.

Director Kappos described the Patents for Humanity Program as one that provides business incentives for humanitarian endeavors. All Senators should support both the approach and the objective.

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

Mr. President, our intellectual property system in the United States is the envy of the world and the engine of economic growth. By granting inventors exclusive rights in their discoveries for a limited time, the patent system incentivizes research and development by independent inventors and large multinational companies. Consumers benefit from new technologies, and our economy benefits from continued investment.

I am introducing legislation today that will encourage patent holders to apply their intellectual property to address global humanitarian needs. This has long been an interest of mine. In 2006, I introduced legislation that would have created a statutory license to manufacture and export life saving medicines to eligible, developing countries.

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

Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in June, I asked Director Kappos whether the program would be more effective, and more attractive to patent owners, if the acceleration certificate were transferable to a third party. He responded that it would, particularly for small businesses. The Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act of 2012 simply makes these acceleration certificates transferable.

Director Kappos described the Patents for Humanity Program as one that provides business incentives for humanitarian endeavors. All Senators should support both the approach and the objective.

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

Mr. President, after months of unjustifiable delays, the Senate will finally be allowed to vote on one of President Obama's qualified, consensus judicial nominees. The nomination of Paul William Grimm to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland was reported by the Judiciary Committee nearly-unanimously 6 months ago. Judge Grimm and the people of Maryland have been forced to wait 6 months for this day for no good reason. He is one of the 19 judicial nominees who should have been confirmed before the August recess.

Since 1997 Judge Grimm has served as a United States Magistrate Judge and since 2007 as Chief Magistrate Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Grimm had wide legal experience as a lawyer in Maryland State government, private practice, and as a Judge Advocate General. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District Court, its highest possible rating. He has the strong support of his home State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. There was no opposition on the merits to his confirmation when he was considered by the Republican and Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee.

This is another judicial nominee whose service has been stalled by unnecessary, partisan obstruction. In her recent comments at Huffington Post, Jen Bendery correctly noted:

The pattern throughout the president's tenure has been

uncontroversial judicial nominees clearing the Senate

Judiciary Committee but going nowhere [on] the Senate floor.

Then, after months of opposition, GOP leaders agree to clear

some of the backlog and long-stalled nominees sail through

virtually unopposed. . . . [W]hat has changed is the degree

to which obstruction has become standard operating procedure

since Obama took office. After four years, Obama has seen

about 75 percent of his nominees confirmed. By contrast, the

Senate confirmed . . . 88.7 percent of Bush's nominees by

this point in [his] presidency.

Two months ago, the Senate went into recess without taking

action on 19 judicial nominees, nearly all of whom have

support from both parties.

Regrettably, the Senate has not been allowed to make real progress for the American people by reducing the number of judicial vacancies. There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more than 80 vacancies this past March when the Majority Leader was forced to take the extraordinary step of filing cloture petitions on 17 district court nominations. There are now more than 80 vacancies once again.

In stark contrast, there were only 29 vacancies at this point in President George W. Bush's first term and we had lowered vacancies during those four years to 28, not the 83 at which they stand today. When George W. Bush was President, we routinely considered four to six judges per week. In 2002, we confirmed 18 judges in 1 day. That is what it takes to make real progress. The Senate should proceed to consider and confirm all 19 judicial nominations ready for a final vote without further delay.

There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on the 19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and are pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. President Obama has consistently reached across the aisle, consulted with home State Senators from both parties and appointed moderate, well-qualified judicial nominees. Seven of the 19 nominees currently waiting for final Senate consideration are supported by Republican home State Senators. Seventeen of these nominees received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. The Senate should be learning the lesson of the recent elections and working in a bipartisan manner to consider and vote on these nominees. It is time for the obstruction to end and for the Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve the American people. Delay for delay's sake is wrong and should end.

Whatever justification Senate Republicans contended they had by resort to their misapplication of the Thurmond Rule to stall judicial nominations before the election is gone. The American people have voted and chosen to reelect President Obama. The President is not a lame duck. He is the President elected and reelected by the American people. It is time for the Senate to vote on his judicial nominees.

From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before now. That is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election.

Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including one very controversial circuit court nominee, in the lame duck session after the elections in 2002. I remember, I was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved forward with those votes. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006, and proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lame duck session after the elections in 2010, as well. The reason that I am not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the Judiciary Committee in September.

That is our history and recent precedent. Those across the aisle who contend that judicial confirmations votes during lame duck sessions do not take place are wrong. It is they with their obstruction who are creating a wrongheaded precedent. The Senators from Kentucky, Tennessee, Utah, Iowa, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi should all remember the judicial nominees from their home States Democrats moved forward to confirm in lame duck sessions in 2002, 2004 and 2010.

If the Senate will be allowed to vote on these 19 judicial nominees, we can help fill nearly one-quarter of our Nation's Federal judicial vacancies. We can fill almost one-third of all judicial emergency vacancies. Most importantly, we can help hardworking Americans to have better access to justice.

I congratulate Judge Grimm and his family as well as the Senators from Maryland who have continued to press for this day. There is no reason the Senate should not be allowed to vote on the other 18 long- pending judicial nominations. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that was enacted into law last December contained several deeply troubling provisions related to the indefinite detention of individuals without charge or trial. These provisions undermine our Nation's fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties. I strongly opposed these provisions during last year's debate, and believe that we must eliminate and fix those flawed provisions. Toward that end, I voted last night in favor of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein, which clarified that our Government cannot detain indefinitely any citizen or legal permanent resident apprehended in the United States. It is my hope that this is a positive step forward in our efforts to undo some of the damage from last year's NDAA.

But our work is not done. As I have stated before, I believe that the vital protections of our Constitution extend to all persons here in the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. That is why I cosponsored an amendment filed by Senator Mark Udall that would go beyond the scope of the Feinstein amendment to extend the protection against indefinite detention to any person within the United States. I look forward to working with Senator Udall and others in our continuing efforts to improve the law in this area.

I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial. I fought against the Bush administration policies that led to the current situation, with indefinite detention as the de facto policy. I opposed President Obama's executive order in March 2011 that contemplated indefinite detention, and I helped lead the efforts against the detention-related provisions in last year's NDAA. Simply put, a policy of indefinite detention has no place in the justice system of any democracy let alone the greatest democracy in the world.

The American justice system is the envy of the world, and a regime of indefinite detention diminishes the credibility of this great Nation around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for engaging in such conduct, and as new governments in the midst of establishing legal systems look to us as a model of justice. Indefinite detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I have pledged to uphold since my years as a prosecutor and in our senatorial oath to defend the Constitution. That is why I have opposed and will continue to oppose indefinite detention.

Last December, Senator Feinstein introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act, which was at the core of her amendment to this year's NDAA. Both the Due Process Guarantee Act and Senator Feinstein's amendment make clear that neither an authorization to use military force nor a declaration of war confer unfettered authority to the executive branch to hold Americans in indefinite detention. In February, I chaired a hearing to examine the Due Process Guarantee Act, and the Judiciary Committee heard testimony from witnesses who asserted that no individual arrested within the United States should be detained indefinitely regardless of citizenship or immigration status. I wholeheartedly agree, and I believe that the Constitution requires no less.

The notion of indefinitely imprisoning American citizens is the most striking, but to me the Constitution creates a framework that imposes important legal limits on the Government and provides that all people in the U.S. have fundamental liberty protections. That is why I have cosponsored Senator Udall's amendment, which provides expansive protections against indefinite detention and fixes this unwise policy for all people. As I said before, though, I view the adoption of Senator Feinstein's amendment as a positive first step towards this goal.

During last night's Senate floor debate on Senator Feinstein's amendment, however, some made fundamentally flawed legal arguments and interpretations. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel it is important to set the record straight.

According to those who had opposed our efforts and support indefinite detention, Senator Feinstein's amendment should somehow be read as authorizing the indefinite detention of United States citizens captured on U.S. soil. They contended that the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld held that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) expressly authorized the indefinite detention of citizens, regardless of where they were apprehended. This assertion is flatly wrong, entirely unsupported by the actual text of the opinion and, I believe, contrary to the Constitution.

Much of last night's debate centered on the language in Senator Feinstein's amendment that prohibited the ``detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.'' Senators who had opposed our remedial efforts and support indefinite detention asserted that the Supreme Court in Hamdi concluded that the AUMF was an ``explicit authorization'' of such detention even for citizens captured in the U.S. and that the AUMF was an act of Congress that fulfills the exception in the Feinstein amendment. The Senators ignore the fact that the text of the AUMF contains no reference whatsoever to the detention of individuals without charge or trial, and certainly no express reference to or authority for the detention of citizens in such a manner. Moreover, nowhere in the plurality or dissenting opinions in Hamdi do any of the Justices state that the AUMF expressly authorizes the detention of citizens without charge or trial.

The preexistence of the AUMF does not fulfill the requirement that the amendment seeks to create and that requires express congressional authorization of exceptional authority after the adoption of the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein did not intend to write and the Senate did not intend to pass a nullity. If this opposition argument were right, the amendment changed nothing.

Senator Levin acknowledged in his remarks last night that the ``Supreme Court in Hamdi held that the existing authorization for use of military force does address this issue and does explicitly, in their words, authorize detention of United States citizens in that situation which was on the battlefield in Afghanistan.'' (emphasis added) The Hamdi case did not address and did not expressly authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. As Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin have pointed out, the Hamdi ruling was limited to ``individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.''

The substance of the Supreme Court's legal analysis is important here, and the attempts to gloss over the actual text of the Hamdi opinion cannot go unchecked. The starting point of the Court's analysis in this regard was the text of the Non-Detention Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 4001(a), which states that ``no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' The Hamdi court then turned to whether the AUMF constituted an act of Congress within the scope of this exception, such that Hamdi's detention would be authorized. In her plurality opinion, Justice O'Connor concluded that the answer was yes, but she made certain to circumscribe carefully the scope of that ruling by saying ``we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe,'' i.e. ``individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.'' Stated simply, the Hamdi decision does not stand for the proposition that the AUMF expressly authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil.

Although last night's debate on the Hamdi decision focused largely on the

statutory authority to detain individuals, we must also not lose sight of other aspects of that opinion regarding the nature and duration of law of war detention, and how changing circumstances might warrant re- examination of the authority for such detention. Last night, Senator Graham stated that Hamdi's imprisonment ``could last for the rest of his life because the law of war detention can last for the duration of the relevant conflict.'' Although I do not necessarily disagree that law of war detention has historically been viewed as appropriate for the duration of the relevant conflict, this statement begs the question of when and how the duration of the relevant conflict is determined.

In her opinion in Hamdi, Justice O'Connor stated that the AUMF justified detention as part of the exercise of necessary and appropriate force ``if the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan'' against Taliban combatants. Significantly, Justice O'Connor wrote that ``if the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel.'' Accordingly, as we wind down our combat operations in Afghanistan, Congress and the courts should consider carefully how those changing circumstances might affect the legitimacy of so-called law of war detention authority under the AUMF.

I also continue to be deeply disturbed by the mandatory military detention provisions that were included in last year's NDAA through Section 1022. In the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist threats, we should give our intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals all the tools they need not limit those tools, as was required by this law. That is why the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Director of the FBI, and Director of National Intelligence all objected to this section and it was modified to require the President to produce procedures to determine who meets the definition of a person subject to mandatory military detention. I appreciate that the President took an aggressive approach in these procedures to preserve the flexibility of law enforcement, as well as military and intelligence professionals, to investigate and prosecute alleged terrorists.

However, these procedures do not mitigate my concerns that the mandatory military detention requirements are overly broad and threaten core constitutional principles. Once sacrificed, our treasured constitutional protections are not easily restored. After all, the policy directive of this President can be undone by a future administration. That is why I have cosponsored Senator Udall's amendment to this year's NDAA that would repeal this ill-advised authority.

In Hamdi, Justice O'Connor stated unequivocally that ``[w]e have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.'' We can never forget that the power of our Federal Government is bound by the Constitution. The detention provisions enacted through last year's NDAA are deeply troublesome. They do not represent Vermont values, they do not represent American values, and they have no place in this world. Moving forward, I urge all Senators to join in support of upholding the principles of our Constitution, protecting American values, and championing the rule of law. We need a bipartisan effort to guarantee that the United States remains the model for the rule of law to the world.

Mr. President, so much of the news we hear today is riddled in tragedy, but every so often a story of joy and hope transcends the negativity and warms our hearts. I would like to share such a story and salute a constituent of mine, fifteen-year-old Adam Merchant of Barre, VT.

Adam is in remission after battling Burkitt lymphoma, a cancer that attacks the lymphatic system. Through the kindness of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Adam received his wish: to see his favorite team play, the defending Super Bowl champions New York Giants. Not only did he see his Giants defeat the Green Bay Packers on Sunday night, but Adam also delivered an impromptu, pregame motivating speech to the Giants, which many of the team's players cited as an inspiration to their 38-to-10 victory over the mighty Packers. Adam described the night as a ``dream,'' but it is the rest of us who should be moved by Adam's bravery and persistence battling lymphoma. The Make-A-Wish Foundation brightens so many young lives, and I thank them and the New York Giants for helping make Adam's dream come true.

I ask unanimous consent that Christian Red's article in the November 27, 2012, edition of the New York Daily News, ``Young Adam Merchant, teenager fight cancer, gives NY Giants inspired pep talk before rout of Green Bay Packers,'' be printed in the Record.

It was a pleasure and an honor for this Senator to serve side by side with the late Senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman.

As we in New England knew and, of course, as the people of New Hampshire, and we neighbors in Vermont, especially knew--he was a skilled and accomplished legislator. He was a credit to this body. He was a catalyst for reform. He always kept his word. What was most important to me personally is that he was a good and close friend. We traveled together, we worked together, and we never let our different political parties get in the way of doing things that helped our part of the country or our country at large.

I think he was shaped by his experience as well as by his Yankee origins. An Army combat infantry commander, he saw much action during the Korean conflict before coming to the Senate. He had been a widely respected attorney general from New Hampshire.

Senator Rudman embodied the characteristics that many of us call the old school of Senate values. We served together on the Appropriations Committee. We often worked together on national issues, as well as on behalf of our two adjoining States. As I said earlier, I quickly learned that when Warren Rudman gave his word, you could count on it.

He served during a time when Senators would readily put aside party affiliations to work together. When progress required compromise, as it usually does, he was able to help chart the way forward to accommodate different viewpoints and interests. Regrettably, that kind of bipartisanship at this point in the Senate's history is too rare, and I think we have to work to recapture it.

In the can-do Yankee spirit, he took on difficult challenges and stuck with them. From national security and foreign affairs to budget policy, he dug into pressing and often prickly issues, and he made a difference.

Well after his retirement from this body--a voluntary retirement--he continued to serve the country he loved so deeply. Well before the attacks on our Nation of September 11, 2001, he and former Senator Gary Hart headed a national advisory panel investigating the threat of international terrorism. The sobering conclusions they reached about our susceptibility to terrorist attacks were prescient, but largely forgotten, until 9/11.

When I was asked to serve on the advisory board of the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership and Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire, of course I was pleased to accept. His legacy will be reflected well at the Rudman Center, just as his legacy of service and accomplishment will continue to be reflected and appreciated in this body.

Madam President, as I say this, it seems perfectly fitting that the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire is presiding: The Senate, and the Nation, are better for Warren Rudman's service.

Mr. President, this fall also marks the 10th anniversary of the passing of another great Senator, Paul Wellstone, and his wife Sheila. They were dear friends. Among the many things for which they are fondly remembered is the important work they did to combat domestic violence and help victims. We have made much progress on this issue, in large part thanks to the Violence Against Women Act, which has long demonstrated the bipartisan commitment to work together against domestic violence and rape.

Sadly, so much remains to be done. Recent reports find that almost one in four women have experienced severe domestic violence, and nearly one in five women have been raped. In some communities, the picture is much worse. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, one in five female college students will be a victim of sexual assault during college. A recent study found that three out of five Native American women have been assaulted by a spouse or intimate partner.

The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act includes vital provisions to help these and other particularly vulnerable victims. As the New York Times observed this weekend:

The act's reauthorization is must-do business for the lame-

duck session. Mr. Boehner should relent and allow the House

to vote on the Senate bill.

I ask that the full Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Friday will mark a year since Senator Crapo and I introduced this bill. We have kept victims waiting too long. We should come together to act now.

Mr. President, it has now been more than 3 weeks since President Obama was reelected by the American people, and Senate Republicans are still blocking votes on 19 judicial nominations who should have received confirmation votes before the Senate recessed for the election. Some of these nominees have been waiting close to 9 months for a vote. It is time for us to come together to do what is right and to act in the interests of the American people.

We should begin by having an up or down vote on the longest-pending nomination. The nomination of Patty Shwartz to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has been ready for a final vote since last March 8. Judge Shwartz received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, its highest possible rating, and it is well past time for the Senate to vote on her nomination.

Regrettably, the Senate has not been allowed to make real progress for the American people by reducing the number of judicial vacancies. There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more than 80 vacancies when in March the Majority Leader was forced to take the extraordinary step of filing cloture petitions on 17 district court nominations. There are now more than 80 vacancies once again. In stark contrast, there were only 29 vacancies at this point in President George W. Bush's first term.

There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on the 19 judicial nominations that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and are pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. President Obama has consistently reached across the aisle, consulted with home state Senators from both parties and appointed moderate, well-qualified judicial nominees. It is time for the obstruction to end and for the Senate to complete action on these nominees so that they may serve the American people without further delay. Delay for delay's sake is wrong and should end.

Senate Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction and a contorted rewriting of the ``Thurmond Rule'' in their refusal to proceed on consensus nominees. Whatever justification Senate Republicans contended they had by resort to their misapplication of the Thurmond Rule to stall judicial nominations before the election is gone. The American people have voted and chosen to reelect President Obama. It is time for the Senate to vote.

From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote. That is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election.

Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including one very controversial circuit court nominee, in the lame duck session after the elections in 2002. I remember, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved

forward with those votes. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006, and proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lame duck session after the elections in 2010, as well. The reason that I am not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the Judiciary Committee before the election recess in September.

Republicans can no longer claim the ``Thurmond Rule'' is the reason they are holding up nominations since the American people reelected President Obama. Having said in September that they objected to proceeding because of the impending election, Senate Republicans cannot now say that their insistence on delay has made it too late in the year to proceed with confirmations. That is wrong and it results in denying Americans the judges they need to administer justice around the country.

I implore Senators to put their partisanship aside and work with the President on behalf of the American people. That is what the American people voted for in the last election. Delaying confirmation votes on nominees for the sole purpose of delay is precisely what the American people repudiated when they cast their ballots. Further delays on the 19 nominees before us do not benefit the American people.

I am encouraged that several Republican Senators have recognized this, and have said that they want votes on their home State nominees. The Republican Senators from Oklahoma and Maine, and Senator Toomey from Pennsylvania have all advocated for up or down votes on nominees during this lame duck session, and they are right to do so. They know that filling those judicial vacancies in their States is important.

A judge in Florida has written that persistent vacancies ``jeopardize our Court's ability to deliver the quality of justice that the citizens of Florida deserve and will inhibit our citizens' access to justice.'' Sadly, Senate Republicans' tactics of delay and obstruction has perpetuated the high level of judicial vacancies around the country. Continuing these tactics hurt the Federal courts and the American people they are intended to serve. This is a problem that has a commonsense solution: Let the Senate vote on consensus nominees that have been stalled.

With the number of judicial vacancies now at 83, and with all pending nominees having waited at least 4 months for a vote, it is past time for Senate Republicans to abandon these tactics. This obstruction is not good for the country. How does preventing a vote on Patty Shwartz benefit the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware? How does preventing a vote on Richard Taranto benefit Americans who seek to have their claims resolved by the Federal Circuit? How does preventing a vote on William Kayatta benefit the people of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico? How does preventing a vote on Robert Bacharach benefit the people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming? How does preventing a vote on Michael Shea benefit the people of Connecticut? How does preventing a vote on John Dowdell benefit the people of Oklahoma? How does preventing a vote on Paul Grimm benefit the people of Maryland? How does preventing votes on Mark Walker and Brian Davis benefit the people of Florida? How does preventing a vote on Terrence Berg benefit the people of Michigan? How does preventing votes on Jesus Bernal, Fernando Olguin, William Orrick, and Jon Tigar benefit the people of California? How does preventing votes on Lorna Schofield and Frank Geraci benefit the people of New York? How does preventing votes on Matthew Brann and Malachy Mannion benefit the people of Pennsylvania? How does preventing a vote on Thomas Durkin benefit the people of Illinois? How does preventing votes on these nominees help the American people receive speedy justice?

If we can just have up or down votes on these 19 nominees, we can fill almost one-quarter of our Nation's judicial vacancies, and almost one-third of all judicial emergency vacancies. Most importantly, we can make it easier for hardworking Americans to have access to justice.

President Obama has worked with home State Senators and all of these nominees have the support of their home State Senators. Seven of them are supported by Republican home State Senators. Seventeen of these nominees received bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee.

When Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were President, Senate Democrats cleared the calendar of all but the most controversial and extreme ideological judicial nominations. The Senate needs to be allowed to vote on President Obama's judicial nominees now so that our Federal courts are better able to function and fulfill the fundamental guarantee of providing access to justice. Americans are rightfully proud of our legal system and its promise of access to justice and speedy trials. This promise is embedded in our Constitution. When overburdened courts make it hard to keep this promise, the Senate should work in a bipartisan manner to help.

I have asked, now that the American people have reelected President Obama, for Senate Republicans to work with us to fill these longstanding judicial vacancies. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Russ Cummings, a military fellow from Senator Manchin's office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Haller

of Senator Udall's office be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on S. 3254.

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

Madam President, I know we have matters under discussion with the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the committee. I have discussed with them that I am not bringing up an amendment at this point. But let me talk about an amendment that I will bring up and expect to pass at some point.

The amendment I will call up at some appropriate point is legislation I have been trying to get enacted for more than 3 years called the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. This legislation improves the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, which is the Federal death and disability program for our Nation's first responders who are killed or disabled in the line of duty.

Just so Senators will know, an earlier version of this legislation was adopted here on the Senate floor by voice vote in December 2011. The Presiding Officer will recall it was almost exactly a year ago when we brought that up. It was adopted as part of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. During the course of conference negotiations related to the FAA legislation, the House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith and I negotiated additional measures to be added to the legislation. Our work together produced a package of improvements that contains a modest expansion of benefits for deserving emergency medical responders, and a host of reforms to make the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program stronger, more effective, and more cost efficient.

The legislation has become one of the cornerstones of the partnership we have between the Federal Government and our first responders and will make that partnership even stronger. In fact, the reforms Chairman Smith and I developed in consultation with the Department of Justice and the first responder community completely offset and eliminate an estimated modest increase in spending.

Unfortunately, at that time, due to an error made by the Congressional Budget Office, the matter was dropped from the FAA conference report. The CBO, to their credit, later corrected their error, and provided an official cost estimate which makes clear this legislation will result in no new Federal spending. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.

Despite our setback, Chairman Smith and I were, and have remained, determined to move forward. I know I have his full support for inclusion of this measure in the Defense authorization measure we now consider, and I greatly appreciate the efforts he made in a bipartisan manner to get this done. In fact, the legislation containing this amendment was unanimously passed in the House of Representatives in June of this year by a voice vote.

I know a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle care about reforming government programs and making the Federal Government work better. This is a bipartisan measure that does that. It will speed up claims processing, it will reduce costs to the Department of Justice, and it will lessen unnecessary paperwork burdens for claimants. It has passed with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support in the House. It had stalled in the past over misguided objections. Some might say this is not the responsibility of Congress. As a constitutional matter, that is simply not true. It is a matter of policy.

Since 1976, Congress has made the judgment that the right thing to do is to take care of surviving spouses and children of police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical responders who are killed in the line of duty. Congress has always provided assistance to these heroes. If there is a Senator who believes this is beyond the responsibility of Congress, then introduce and defend legislation to repeal the policy first enacted in 1976.

Americans take care of each other. We live by the ideal that we take care of our own. Just as the Federal Government is working hard to help those suffering from Hurricane Sandy or as the Federal Government provides critical assistance to people and communities devastated by tornadoes or droughts or wildfires, just as Congress stood by the families of those killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001, we take care of our own. We always will.

As I said, at some appropriate time I will call up the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2955.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is actually a simple amendment. It strengthens the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. That is the Federal death and disability program that we have for our Nation's first responders who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. There is nothing new to this body in this amendment.

An earlier version of this legislation was adopted on the Senate floor by voice vote in December of 2001. It was adopted as part of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. In fact, following the Senate's adoption of the amendment, I worked closely with the House Judiciary chairman, the distinguished Member of the House, Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas. He and I added additional reforms so we ended up with an improved bill. We ended up with a

modest expansion of benefits for deserving emergency medical responders and a host of reforms to make the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program stronger, more efficient, and more cost-effective.

The most important thing, CBO, which initially had concern, reviewed it and found this cost nothing. The CBO recognized the cost savings associated with the reforms and efficiencies that we incorporated and determined that the modest expansion of benefits was fully offset by these reforms. What we are saying, since 1974, this country has recognized that we have first responders who are killed and disabled in the line of duty whose families deserve our help. This bipartisan legislation does that.

We have determined that a police officer who is shot in the line of duty, a first responder, a firefighter, an emergency medical responder and others who are killed in the line of duty, died as a result of their work in the line of duty, that they would have and share in the same benefit we have provided for the whole country. This clarifies the policy for all first responders who serve their communities in an official capacity.

It is hard to think of anybody who could possibly disagree with this amendment. It costs taxpayers nothing. It builds upon and improves what we have always done.

Let me tell a story. Before we had this act, before we had this law, when I was a young State's attorney, the police chief in Manchester, VT, responding to a burglary, was shot and killed. He was a man, the sole support of his wife and his aging mother. It turned out there was no program at that time, no assistance from the state or Federal Government. This was prior to 1974, 1976, and there was no program to care for them, to care for the widow. Therefore, there was not even money to pay for his funeral.

I was president of the Vermont State's attorneys association at the time, and I started making calls around the State. We quickly raised the money for his funeral and for some modest help for his family. I still remember that funeral. It was one of those days we often have in the winter during a snowfall when there are very large snowflakes. They call them silver dollar snowflakes, and they are very large. They were falling gently out of the sky. But on the two-lane road leading to this small church, a typical New England church with a white steeple on it, for miles and miles all we saw is that of the snow coming down in the reflection. The blue lights from the police cars were flashing, the red lights from the firetrucks were flashing, and the white and red lights from the ambulances were flashing. I have never forgotten that.

Today, thanks to Federal legislation, if that happened again, there would at least be benefits, as it should be. But this is something that could happen in Vermont or Rhode Island or any other State in this country. This measures contained in this amendment were passed in the House overwhelmingly by voice vote in June of this year. It passed here on the floor of the Senate by voice vote before that. It has no cost to the taxpayers, which is something Chairman Smith and I worked on together to ensure. I hope it will pass and at 6 o'clock we vote on it.

I reserve the balance of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that time be equally divided during the call of the quorum.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we will be voting at 6 p.m. Is that correct?

And as I understand, the managers will be requesting a rollcall vote.

Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Vermont have remaining?

Mr. President, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma has noted his objection, and I appreciate him doing that, but I would also note that we share different views on this. For example, the Senator from Oklahoma was the lone vote opposing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2012. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has saved the lives of hundreds and even thousands of our police officers. He opposes the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, which provides a Federal death benefit to surviving families of first responders who are killed in the line of duty. And he is objecting to the passage of the bipartisan, bicameral, and cost-neutral Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012, which would make important reforms to a program that has assisted the families of thousands of police officers and other first responders who have lost their lives protecting their communities and fellow citizens.

During the months when we were trying to pass the Public Safety Officers' Benefits legislation, we heard from Chuck Canterbury, the highly respected president of the Fraternal Order of Police. He is one of our Nation's law enforcement leaders. He wrote to the chairs of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about the distinguished Senator's opposition to this cost-neutral Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program reform, and he concluded:

The FOP views this not as a politician embracing the

principle of federalism, but as a . . . ploy to place even

greater strain between law enforcement and other public

safety officers that serve on the local and State level and

their colleagues employed by the Federal government. When a

police officer puts himself in harm's way, he does not stop

to think about jurisdiction. He does not ask the offender if

he is committing a local, State, or Federal crime. He acts in

the best interest of the safety of those he swore to protect.

A family that loses a loved one in the line of duty should

not just be left adrift, their sacrifice ignored because

their loved one was a local firefighter or State Trooper and

not a Federal agent.

I hope the Senate will overwhelmingly pass this bipartisan piece of legislation. We have always supported our first responders. I think back to my own experience in law enforcement and also the experience of former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado, who I joined to write legislation, based upon his experience in the sheriff's department in Colorado, and my experience as a prosecutor, to provide assistance to state and local law enforcement to obtain bulletproof vests. The amendment we consider today is in that same spirit. Anybody who served in law enforcement, anybody who served as a volunteer firefighter or emergency medical responder, anybody in any part of this country who serves in these capacities knows the need for this. The fact that we have been able to improve the existing law, with no cost to the taxpayer, is even better.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from the Congressional Fire Services Institute, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, and the American Ambulance Association in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I would note that this is a very modest expansion of benefits for emergency medical technicians who serve at the direction of a state emergency response system, and is entirely offset by other provisions in the amendment. It simply reforms and improves what is already law and adds no cost--no Federal cost.

And if I could have the attention of the Senator from Indiana, this is less an expansion than a correction to a gap in the existing law. It is a reform of programs we have, and it is of no cost to the Federal taxpayers.

I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. I am perfectly willing to yield back my time and go to vote if he wishes.