Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am disappointed that Congress has agreed to put government funding decisions on autopilot for the first 6 months of fiscal year 2013 through another continuing resolution. This means, in effect, that a half year's worth of hearings, briefings, and drafting of a dozen appropriations bills will have been for naught.

I recognize there are many factors at play this year as the clock ticks toward the end of a fiscal year and toward November. But continuing resolutions are no way to run a government, and the consequences for the American people's priorities, and for the agencies and the dedicated workers who implement our policies, will be dramatic.

The world does not stand still, and time does not stand still. Circumstances that should be reflected in our budget decisions are changing all the time. Budgets are about choices. Budgets are about setting priorities. Doing this carefully and thoughtfully through hearings, through fact-finding and through negotiations among the people's representatives in Congress is not an easy process, but it was not meant to be easy. Setting the process on autopilot is anathema to making the right decisions for our country.

As the veteran reporter David Rogers put it today in Politico:

Continuing resolutions do only one thing well: `continue.'

They don't allow for new starts and typically set funding at

the current rate enjoyed by an agency--with no room for new

ideas.

In fact, it is worse than that. As chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee I am particularly mindful of changes that have occurred around the world in the past year. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa is one of many examples. Our posture in Iraq and Afghanistan is changing significantly. Humanitarian crises in Syria and South Sudan are far greater than anyone envisioned 1 year ago. At a time when the Chinese are ratcheting up their strategic investments across the globe to advance their national interests, the United States is stuck in neutral.

I sympathize with the chairman and vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee and all the committee staff, who have worked hard to draft and report bipartisan bills. The State and Foreign Operations bill was reported on May 24 by a nearly unanimous, bipartisan vote. It has the strong support of Ranking Member Graham, who worked closely with me in drafting it, as well as minority leader Senator McConnell. With a day or so of floor time we could pass it and go to conference. That is the way it should be. Yet continuing resolutions are becoming increasingly common because they are a convenient and temptingly easy way to avoid hard decisions. Unfortunately, the American people lose, the country loses, and a great deal of time, effort and money are wasted.

Mr. President, several weeks ago I spoke in this Chamber about the assault on freedom of expression in Ecuador, where President Correa has sought to silence his critics including the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States.

Last week, these attacks on legitimate expression reached a new height when, according to press reports, Ecuador's Secretariat of Pueblos, Mireya Cardenas, said the government is investigating Fundamedios to determine if the support it receives from the U.S. Agency for International Development--USAID--is being used to interfere in ``internal political affairs''. She specifically criticized Fundamedios for lodging complaints at the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. She also attacked USAID for supporting sustainable forestry, civil society organizations, and the development of local productive enterprises, which are designed to protect the environment and improve the livelihoods of the Ecuadoran people.

Mr. President, Fundamedios is a respected Ecuadoran nonpartisan organization that seeks to defend freedom of the press at a time when journalists and media organizations in that country are being vilified and threatened by officials of the very government that should be protecting them. It is similar to the conduct we have seen in Russia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, and other countries whose governments mistakenly equate legitimate advocacy by civil society organizations with unlawful political activity, as if Ecuador's political affairs are the sole province of those who the government approves of.

It is also important to reaffirm the indispensable role of the Inter- American human rights system, which has recently been targeted not only by President Correa, but also by the leaders of other Latin countries with weak and corrupt judicial systems who, in the name of ``reform'', seek to limit access to alternative fora for its citizens to obtain justice for abuses by government security forces. It is interesting that these same governments welcome the support of the OAS when it suits them, but campaign to weaken its mandate when it does not.

To make a bad situation worse, President Correa again recently attacked one of Ecuador's most respected newspapers. A few weeks ago, he said on TV that an editor with El Universo was ``sinister.'' And on July 28, he suggested that the editor of El Comercio was ``mentally ill'' and ``unethical'', for what appear to be nothing more than public comments made on the paper's website by readers who questioned presidential decisions.

On July 31, members of the police and the labor ministry, reportedly without a warrant, seized several items and information from the offices of the magazine Vanguardia for allegedly violating labor laws. The magazine's director, Juan Carlos Calderon, said the incident is an attempt to silence the independent press in Ecuador.

For those of us who want closer relations between the United States and other countries in the hemisphere, including Ecuador, and who believe it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for universal human rights of which freedom of expression is the most cherished, it is disappointing to see the path the Correa government is taking.

This is not about competing political philosophies, party affiliation, or national sovereignty. It is about protecting the right of Ecuadoran journalists and Fundamedios to be free of government interference, and of defending the constitutional rights of all of Ecuador's citizens. The country's first constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Its current constitution, just 4 years old, protects each citizen's right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations.''

The people of Ecuador have a right to receive uncensored information. Sometimes that information is accurate, sometimes it is not. Everyone in public office knows that. Personal attacks and inflammatory charges by top officials weaken democratic discourse and have no place in a country with a long commitment to civil liberties.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that will help American businesses and inventors by reducing obstacles for obtaining patent protection overseas. This bipartisan measure implements two patent law treaties that were signed under President Clinton and submitted for the Senate's advice and consent by President George W. Bush. The Senate voted to ratify the treaties in 2007 without a single Senator in dissent. With this implementing legislation, Congress will complete its work so that the treaties at last can be ratified and go into effect.

Our patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world. But in this global economy, it is not enough to have an effective domestic patent system; we must also help American inventors and businesses to protect their inventions and thrive in markets around the world. Consistent with last year's landmark patent reform legislation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, this legislation will benefit American inventors by implementing two measures to reduce application barriers around the world.

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs provides a simplified application system for U.S. creators of industrial designs who, by filing a single standardized application for a design patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, can apply for design protection in each country that has ratified the Treaty. American design patent applicants who previously had to file separate applications in numerous countries may now file a single, English-language application at the U.S. Patent Office, reducing the costs and burdens of obtaining international protections. The U.S. Patent Office may also receive applications that have been filed internationally, but its substantive examination process remains unchanged. The standard for obtaining a design patent is not affected. By simplifying the process for American businesses to obtain design patents overseas, the Hague Agreement will reduce barriers for small and mid-size companies to expand into foreign markets.

The Patent Law Treaty also streamlines the process for American businesses seeking patent protection overseas. It limits the formalities different countries can require in patent applications, which are often used to disadvantage American applications in foreign jurisdictions. American businesses and inventors will benefit from harmonized applications, reducing the cost of doing business and encouraging U.S. innovators to protect and export their products internationally.

In June, Director Kappos of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testified before the Judiciary Committee about the important need for this implementing legislation, stating that the treaties are ``pro- American innovation, pro-global innovation, pro-jobs, pro- opportunity.'' I agree. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this final step so that the treaties can at last be ratified, and American innovators and businesses can benefit from them as U.S. products continue to thrive on the global stage.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today legislation that will help American businesses and inventors by reducing obstacles for obtaining patent protection overseas. This bipartisan measure implements two patent law treaties that were signed under President Clinton and submitted for the Senate's advice and consent by President George W. Bush. The Senate voted to ratify the treaties in 2007 without a single Senator in dissent. With this implementing legislation, Congress will complete its work so that the treaties at last can be ratified and go into effect.

Our patent system plays a key role in encouraging innovation and bringing new products to market. The discoveries made by American inventors and research institutions, commercialized by our companies, and protected and promoted by our patent laws, have made our system the envy of the world. But in this global economy, it is not enough to have an effective domestic patent system; we must also help American inventors and businesses to protect their inventions and thrive in markets around the world. Consistent with last year's landmark patent reform legislation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, this legislation will benefit American inventors by implementing two measures to reduce application barriers around the world.

The Hague Agreement Concerning International Registration of Industrial Designs provides a simplified application system for U.S. creators of industrial designs who, by filing a single standardized application for a design patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, can apply for design protection in each country that has ratified the Treaty. American design patent applicants who previously had to file separate applications in numerous countries may now file a single, English-language application at the U.S. Patent Office, reducing the costs and burdens of obtaining international protections. The U.S. Patent Office may also receive applications that have been filed internationally, but its substantive examination process remains unchanged. The standard for obtaining a design patent is not affected. By simplifying the process for American businesses to obtain design patents overseas, the Hague Agreement will reduce barriers for small and mid-size companies to expand into foreign markets.

The Patent Law Treaty also streamlines the process for American businesses seeking patent protection overseas. It limits the formalities different countries can require in patent applications, which are often used to disadvantage American applications in foreign jurisdictions. American businesses and inventors will benefit from harmonized applications, reducing the cost of doing business and encouraging U.S. innovators to protect and export their products internationally.

In June, Director Kappos of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office testified before the Judiciary Committee about the important need for this implementing legislation, stating that the treaties are ``pro- American innovation, pro-global innovation, pro-jobs, pro- opportunity.'' I agree. I urge the Senate to act quickly on this final step so that the treaties can at last be ratified, and American innovators and businesses can benefit from them as U.S. products continue to thrive on the global stage.

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate worked together to advance bipartisan legislation that Senator Grassley and I introduced, and I thank all Senators for their support. I am very pleased that the Senate has agreed to pass this important legislation as it has been amended. I especially commend Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, Senator Conrad, and Senator Schumer for their collaboration. And I thank Senator Menendez for working with us to get this done in the Senate.

This legislation contains extensions for four long-standing immigration programs for another 3 years. These programs, last authorized in the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations law, are set to expire on September 30, 2012. Today's actions are a step toward avoiding that result, and maintaining the progress and benefits that these programs provide to many American communities and constituencies.

A program that I have long supported with Senators on both sides of aisle, the EB-5 Regional Center Program, has brought tens of thousands of jobs and billions in capital investment to communities across the United States at no cost to the taxpayer. This program represents one small corner of our overall immigration system, yet it results in enormous benefits for so many communities, including Vermont, where our Governors across administrations and business leaders have put it to use to make Vermont a better place for its citizens. The economic transformation we have seen in some Vermont communities as the direct result of this program is profound. Over the last several years, Vermonters who might have been out of work in a struggling economy found themselves working to build up Vermont companies, building Vermont products, and supporting economic activity in their communities. And so today, business leaders and entrepreneurs in Vermont, along with Vermont's Governor Peter Shumlin and his economic development team will continue to have this tool to help raise the capital Vermont needs to continue its innovation and economic growth.

Job creation and capital investment in America is something I know we can all support, and today I am proud to say we have done just that. I want to give my thanks to the Association to Invest in the U.S.A., the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and all of the entrepreneurs and businesses large and small across the United States that have realized the economic benefits of this program and that have so strongly supported my efforts.

The bill we pass today also continues programs important to Senator Hatch and Senator Conrad. Today we take a step toward carrying on Senator Conrad's program to encourage foreign doctors trained in the United States to practice medicine in medically underserved rural areas. And today we move to continue Senator Hatch's program to give United States religious institutions the ability to invite foreign citizens of shared faith to their communities to carry out good works and to help others.

And this legislation reauthorizes the E-Verify work authorization program, which I know is very important to the Judiciary Committee's ranking member and other Senators. This program gives American employers a tool to ensure that those they hire are legally authorized to work in the United States. Yet it maintains its status as a voluntary program for employers, and maintains that choice for our businesses large and small to participate if they choose.

I regret that it has been such a long road for us to get to this point today. These measures should be the easy ones. The politics of immigration continue to make our progress difficult not only on the broader measures that America needs, but on the smaller ones that Congress has supported for many years. So I am pleased the Senate has

acted in support of all of these programs today. I would have liked to see these programs made permanent after the many years they have been in existence they should be. But I also understand that with permanence, the Senate should look at ways to improve them where possible so that they are more secure and more effective. I am prepared to do that.

Though we take a small step forward today with these reauthorizations, I remain as committed today to tackle comprehensive immigration reform as I was when I supported President Bush in 2006 and 2007 in his efforts to make real change in our laws. I expect we will be there again soon and I look forward to the day we will once again begin the effort to strengthen and protect our entire immigration system.

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

Madam President, more than eight months ago, Senator Crapo and I, two Senators from very different parts of the country with very different political perspectives, joined together to introduce the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. We put aside our political differences, listened to the law enforcement and victim services professionals, and drafted a bill that put victims first.

It has been more than 3 months since an overwhelming majority of the Senate joined us in our bipartisan effort to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 with 68 votes, more than two-thirds of this body, including every woman Senator, Republican and Democratic. In doing so, the Senate sent a very clear message. We said stopping domestic and sexual violence is a national priority, and we are going to stand together, Republicans and Democrats alike, to protect all victims from these devastating crimes--all victims. It was very clear. If you are a victim of domestic and sexual violence, we are passing laws to help protect you, no matter who you are or where you live in this country.

Having sent such a strong bipartisan message from this body, I was--I don't know whether to say bewildered or shocked to see the House Republican leadership abandon the bipartisan approach that was so successful in the Senate. Instead of allowing a vote on the Senate- passed bipartisan bill that has the support of more than 1,000 national, state, and local victim service organizations, they insisted on crafting a new, partisan measure that intentionally stripped out protections for some of the most vulnerable victims and weakened existing protections for others. They refused to allow votes on amendments as we had done here in the Senate, choosing to stifle a full and honest debate about how to best meet the needs of victims.

This overtly political approach was too much even for some in their own party. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, including the chair of the crime victims' caucus, stood up and voted against the inadequate and harmful House bill. That opposition was not surprising since a similar provision offered during the Senate debate was rejected by 61 Senators, including nine Republicans.

The House Speaker's recent announcement naming as conferees only

Republicans who supported that misguided and deeply partisan effort is hardly a step forward. Instead, I wish the Republican House leadership would do what it should have done four months ago--take up, debate, and vote on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. I have no doubt we could reauthorize this life-saving bill in short order if they would just allow their members a straightforward vote on the merits.

Instead, Speaker Boehner continues to hide behind a procedural technicality, called a ``blue slip,'' as an excuse to avoid debating the bipartisan Senate bill. He acts as if he has no choice, but this is nonsense. The Speaker can waive the technicality and allow the House to vote on the Senate bill at any time. He is choosing to hold up this bill, and those efforts must stop.

Since the Senate bill passed, I have been consistently calling for House action on the legislation. Earlier this summer, Senator Murkowski and I wrote a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner, urging him to allow an up-or-down vote. Two weeks ago, five House Republicans followed suit, calling on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to take up the Senate-passed bill to resolve the ``blue slip'' problem. And yesterday Republican Representatives Biggert and Dold again urged the House to work with the Senate to get this vital legislation signed into law.

But if the Speaker and the Republican leadership in the House insist on ignoring victims and the voices of the professionals in the field, and those in their own party, and continue to delay this crucial legislation on a technicality, a technicality which has been waived over and over and over again since I have been in the Senate, I think the Senate should once again lead by example.

We can solve this problem tonight--tonight, within the next few hours. If the Senate Republican leadership wants to get VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, done, it can be done. We could take up a House revenue bill, substitute the bipartisan Senate VAWA bill, and send it to the House immediately.

To those who are watching and listening, this may sound like, what are these legislative moves? What they are is a simple thing I have seen done hundreds of times since I have been here. It would be our way of saying we want to stop violence against women. We have passed a bill that had Republicans and Democrats come together across the political spectrum. Now we are sending it to the other body, saying follow our example.

Majority Leader Reid proposed this path forward nearly 2 months ago, but he was blocked by the Republican side. There is no good reason for their objection. Just this year, Republican Senators unanimously agreed to a similar procedure in order to overcome blue slip issues with both the transportation bill and the FAA reauthorization bill. Let's be clear about this--with just a little cooperation from Senate Republicans, we can move VAWA now. What I am saying is that just as 68 of us, Republicans and Democrats, came together before to pass this bill, I would urge the Republican leadership to join us and stop blocking it from moving forward.

We have only a precious few days left in this Congress to get this bill passed. The procedural excuses must stop. Partisan politicking must end, just as Senator Crapo and I, two Senators of different political philosophies, came together when we started this process so many months ago, we came together to focus on the victims but also to make good on our promise to stop domestic and sexual violence in all its forms against all victims.

I have said so many times on this floor, this matter is deeply personal. I went to a lot of these crime scenes as a young prosecutor, a young prosecutor with a young family. I would see a victim of violence, sometimes a bloodied and barely conscious victim being taken in an ambulance to the hospital--but sometimes seeing a bloody corpse on the floor and then we would find out, as we unraveled the case, that we could have intervened and stopped this death if we had only had the tools. Well, now those early detection and intervention tools exist and we can stop this violence. Those tools, critical resources to reduce domestic violence homicide, are in the Senate-passed VAWA bill but they will not become law unless we act to pass this legislation now.

What I also learned is that the police officers who came to help investigate and help get the perpetrator, they never asked: Was this victim a Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, white or black, gay or straight, Native American or immigrant. They just said, as I have said so many times on the floor and the distinguished Presiding Officer, who herself was a prosecutor, has said: A victim is a victim is a victim.

I do not want to just be able to arrest people after the victim is dead. I want programs to stop the person from being abused in the first place. I want to protect victims before they become victims. If there is anything in this country that should unite all of us, it should be this, just as it united us before. Let's send it on to the other body. Let's get it passed. Let's get it on the President's desk, and let's hope we save the lives of people.

Helping these victims--no matter who they are--must be our goal. Their lives depend on it, and they are waiting on us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jasper Craven of my staff be given the privileges of the floor for the rest of today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeanette Quick, a detailee on the Banking Committee staff, as well as Ingianni Acosta and Georgina Cannan, two interns on Senator Johnson's staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad we can continue this partnership today.

Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals.

The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act. This legislation will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. Senator Grassley and I have a long history of working together on whistleblower issues, and I am glad we can continue this partnership today.

Whistleblowers are instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing. In many cases, their willingness to step forward has resulted in important reforms and even saved lives. Congress must encourage employees with reasonable beliefs about criminal activity to report such fraud or abuse by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals.

The legislation we introduce today was inspired by a recent report and recommendation from the Government Accountability Office which, based on interviews with key stakeholders, found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. It is modeled on the successful anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and is carefully drafted to ensure that whistleblowers have no economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

I have long supported vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws, which have been called the ``Magna Carta of free enterprise.'' Today's legislation is a necessary complement to them. It has bipartisan support and was recommended by the Government Accountability Office. I urge the Senate to quickly take up and pass this important legislation.

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

Madam President, I want to speak very briefly about recent events in El Salvador which is in the midst of a constitutional and political crisis involving the composition and power of the Supreme Court.

Essentially what happened is that in June the Supreme Court ruled that the National Assembly had abused its power by naming justices to the court on two separate occasions, and ordered a new judicial selection process with which the National Assembly then refused to comply. A majority of the deputies took the extraordinary step of appealing the Supreme Court's decision to the Central American Court of Justice, and a final ruling is expected in a matter of days.

Last week, Congressman Jim McGovern, who is probably more knowledgeable about El Salvador than anyone else in Congress, and I commented on the situation. We said:

We are encouraged by the commitment by President Funes and

representatives of El Salvador's political parties to resolve

this crisis expeditiously. We agree with the Department of

State that this is a matter to be resolved by Salvadorans

through dialogue, and we reaffirm our support for U.S.

assistance for El Salvador which addresses a range of mutual

interests, from improving law enforcement to combating

poverty.

Over the past 30 years, El Salvador has faced many

challenges, from civil war, to corruption, to cyclones. This

constitutional political crisis is the latest test of whether

the country's governmental institutions can emerge stronger,

the rule of law strengthened, and its people more united.

Since then, there has been further progress towards a resolution of this crisis. As a former prosecutor, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations that funds international aid programs, I can think of few things as important to any society as an independent judiciary. Like free and fair elections, it is a cornerstone of democratic government. Sometimes I agree with the decisions of our Supreme Court and sometimes I disagree. But we comply with its decisions because we know the alternative is chaos and the erosion of the checks and balances that protect our 226 year old democracy.

I suspect the people of El Salvador feel similarly, and I am hopeful that however their representatives resolve this matter the independence of the Salvadoran judiciary will be preserved and strengthened.

Last week, the Judiciary Committee considered S.3276, a bill reauthorizing the surveillance provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is set to expire at the end of this year. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have both stated that reauthorization of these important national security authorities is the ``top legislative priority of the Intelligence Community.''

After the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported its reauthorization bill, I asked for a sequential referral. Senator Grassley joined me in that request. It was for a limited time and had we not completed our markup last Thursday, time might well have expired for this committee to act on it. I was surprised last week and since to be criticized for seeking to improve the

bill within its four corners. I thought that was why we sought the sequential referral, in order to consider and improve the bill where we could.

I worked with Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. We came to an understanding and she supported the substitute amendment I offered to shorten the sunset and add more accountability and oversight protections. I thank her for that. I am always willing to work with the Senator from California, who is so diligent in her efforts on the Intelligence Committee. We reached a good compromise and agreement.

I had circulated the core of my amendment, to shorten the sunset, back on July 11, before the bill was to be considered. At the request of Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, the bill was held over. I protected their right to do so under our rules. We finally proceeded to the bill last Thursday, July 19. Despite the delay, no Republicans spoke to me about any potential amendments to the bill.

Instead, the evening before the delayed markup, for the first time, Republican offices circulated scores of amendments. It is unfortunate that there have been mischaracterizations of our committee process. Contrary to the statements of some on the other side, no one was precluded from offering an amendment. In fact, a number were offered by Republican Senators. The committee proceeded to vote on Senator Kyl's amendment, for example, to create a new material support of terrorism offense in title 18, and rejected it after Senator Feinstein argued against including it on this important measure, despite her support for the substance of the amendment. We proceeded to vote on Senator Lee's amendment, which was about FISA surveillance, and it, too, was defeated. So despite the misstatements to the contrary, the committee proceeded to consider and reject amendments.

There came a point during our initial 2-hour markup when Senator Feinstein urged that amendments about matters not involving the FISA Amendments Act extension be considered on other vehicles at other times, and moved to table amendments. Those motions prevailed. We have had such motions before and sometimes they succeed.

After 2 hours, as Republican Senators left, we lost a quorum and had to reconvene to vote on reporting the bill as amended to the Senate. I thank those Senators from both sides of the aisle who reconvened. The committee voted to report the measure and was able to do so within the short timeframe of our sequential referral.

The FISA Amendments Act legislation is a top priority of the administration and our intelligence community. We have all acknowledged that. The ranking member acknowledged that it is ``a program vital to our national security.'' A number of Republicans proclaimed last week that they were ready to expedite consideration of the measure and would not offer amendments. Then, when the committee adopted the June 2015 sunset date instead of one of the 2017 dates in other versions of the bill, they changed position and sought to use it as a vehicle for extraneous matters and to offer a number of riders to it that were rejected. I do not understand that logic and why the change in the sunset date or the addition of oversight provisions should change the character of the bill or its importance to our national security. The bill is needed to continue the authority to conduct electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons overseas under certain procedures approved by the FISA Court.

The Justice Department and DNI have told us:

[It] is vital in keeping the Nation safe. It provides

information about the plans and identities of terrorists,

allowing us to glimpse inside terrorist organizations and

obtain information about how those groups function and

receive support. In addition, it lets us collect information

about the intentions and capabilities of weapons

proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten the

United States. Failure to reauthorize Section 702 would

result in a loss of significant intelligence and impede the

ability of the intelligence community to respond quickly to

new threats and intelligence opportunities.

The committee agreed with Senator Feinstein when she asked us not to open the bill up to ``extraneous amendments.'' As it was, the committee considered half a dozen amendments offered by Republican Senators. I appreciated Senator Kyl volunteering to have his staff convene a meeting to consider amendments to our terrorist statutes that he does not think will be controversial.

Notably, the vast majority of the amendments filed and offered by the Republicans would not have changed or added a single word to either the underlying bill or the underlying statute. Senator Lee's amendment was the only Republican amendment that dealt in any way with the relevant FISA authorities. That amendment received an up-or-down vote by the committee, and most Republican members voted against it.

Once it became clear that the Republican Senators intended to offer a series of extraneous amendments, Senator Feinstein moved to table amendments that were not germane to her bill. She has that right. I protect the rights of all members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats. Four such amendments were tabled, but notably they were tabled by a vote of the full committee, not simply through a ruling by the chairman or my making up rules, as Republican chairmen have done in the past. Indeed, although a motion to table is typically not subject to debate, I asked the committee's indulgence to permit such discussion. No Senator was cut off from offering amendments or engaging in debate.

It is telling that the two amendments that Senator Grassley offered during the committee's consideration of the FISA Amendments Act had absolutely no connection whatsoever with the provisions of title VII of FISA. The first amendment that Senator Grassley offered would have added the death penalty as a punishment to certain crimes involving weapons of mass destruction. The second amendment that he offered would have required a Department of Justice Inspector General audit of criminal wiretap applications from 2009 to 2010. This amendment may be important to Senator Grassley in the context of the Fast and Furious controversy, but it certainly is not relevant to the FISA Amendments Act. Senator Feinstein moved to table both amendments and the motion carried each time.

Let us be accurate, Republican members of the committee were afforded the opportunity to offer amendments, even ones outside the scope of the legislation. The committee has a process, and we followed that process.

I understand that Republican Senators are disappointed that they were not able to use the FISA Amendments Act legislation as a vehicle to carry other legislation. I am disappointed that, as with so many good bills the committee has reported, there was so little Republican support for a measure that everyone concedes is vital to our national security. Like the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which received no Republican vote on this committee; and the Second Chance Act, which received no Republican votes on this committee after a number of Republican amendments were considered and even though it had been a program strongly supported by Republicans historically; the FISA Amendments Act Sunsets Extension Act was not supported by a single Republican Senator on this committee.

Let me remind Senators, again, that the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General have emphasized that the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act is the intelligence community's ``top legislative priority.'' I encourage any Senator who has not yet done so to review the classified information that the administration has provided to Congress about the implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. This is a measure that requires serious debate and swift action not partisan bickering or baseless accusations. I sincerely hope that we can set aside the election year posturing and press ahead with consideration of this important national security measure. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. President, I know we are soon going to be voting on other matters, and I see the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, who wishes to speak, so I will not take long. However, there is one area I don't want people to forget about; that is, the Violence Against Women Act.

Eight months ago Senator Crapo and I joined together to introduce the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. We decided to put victims first, not politics first. So we set aside any partisan differences the two of us might have. We did this so we could tell the Senate that even though we come from entirely different political philosophies, we are united on the need to protect victims. At a time when we hear people say this body is deeply divided, an overwhelming majority of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, joined us in that effort, and we passed this commonsense legislation with a remarkable 68 votes. That is a rare feat in the Senate today and it sent a clear message--stopping domestic and sexual violence. There are some who say we couldn't get 51 votes to say the Sun rises in the east. We got 68 votes to protect victims. We sent a clear message that stopping domestic violence is a priority and we will stand together to protect all victims from these devastating crimes.

Most of us here hoped the House Republicans would follow our demonstration of bipartisanship. We gave them an excellent bill and a chance to quickly take it up and pass it. Instead, unfortunately, they put politics first. They drafted a new bill, and they are within their right to do that, but here is what they did. They intentionally stripped out protections for some of the most vulnerable victims, including immigrants, LGBT victims, and Native women. They took out the key provisions to make campuses and public housing safer. They rejected the input of law enforcement and victims' services professionals who tell us these protections are desperately needed to save lives. In other words, they said: If you have two victims who are subjected to the same kind of abuse, we might protect this one, but by law we won't protect this one. I can tell my colleagues that there is no one in law enforcement in this country, no matter what their political background, who wants to be put in that position. They believe that a victim is a victim is a victim, and they want to protect all of them.

In fact, it was so obvious that the acts of some of these House Republicans were too much even for some of their own party. Nearly two dozen House Republicans, including the chair of the crime victims caucus, stood up and voted against this restrictive House bill.

We can talk about numbers and all of those things, but I wish those who came up with this restrictive House bill could have been with me last Thursday to hear from Laura Dunn, a courageous survivor of campus sexual assault who told us of her own horrendous experience. She said: I come before you to tell you about this because I want you to include the Senate provisions the House stripped out. She made an impassioned plea for that and for Congress to do all it can to protect all students on campus from the kind of unspeakable violence she encountered--the kind of violence that I pray my daughter and my granddaughters will never have to face.

More than 200 survivors of campus violence at 176 colleges and universities came forward publicly and joined her in an open letter to Congress calling for the immediate passage of this critical legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Now the House Republican leadership is hiding behind a procedural technicality as an excuse to avoid debate on the Senate bill. That is nonsense. We all know the Speaker of the House could waive the technicality, called a blue slip and allow the House to have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate bill at any time. He could do it this afternoon.

I have been consistently calling for House action on this legislation since we passed it overwhelmingly 3 months ago. In fact, last month Senator Murkowski and I wrote a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner. We asked him to allow an up-or-down vote. Last Thursday five House Republicans followed suit. They called on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor to take up the Senate-passed bill and resolve the blue slip problem.

The Speaker's hands are not tied in this matter. He has to stop choosing to hold up the bill and instead choose to let these efforts to pass the bill go forward. A New York Times editorial earlier this week entitled ``Delay on Domestic Violence'' put it well:

Mr. Boehner's leadership could break the logjam--but that,

of course, would also require his Republican colleagues to

drop their . . . opposition to stronger protections for all

victims of abuse.

I ask unanimous consent that both letters and the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, victims shouldn't be forced to wait any longer. The problems and barriers facing victims of domestic and sexual violence are too serious for Congress to delay. I think of my home State of Vermont and the very small State that it is, but more than 50 percent of homicides are related to domestic violence--50 percent. That is simply unacceptable. We know how to identify these cases early. We know how to intervene. We know how to stop these needless deaths. The Senate-passed bill includes important new tools for law enforcement in communities all over Vermont and every other State to do just that. But until the House Republican leadership stops playing games, those resources will not reach the people who need them now and lives will be lost.

Enough is enough. Let's stop this fiction of saying we will stand together to protect this victim but not this other victim, as though somebody who has been victimized, somebody who has faced this violence should be treated differently. It is time to put aside the politics. We need to stop picking and choosing which victims of abuse get help and which are ignored. We will not find a single police officer who has gone to a scene of domestic violence or abuse who will tell us: Well, I don't want to catch the person who did this, but the person who did this, we will go after them. No. Police officers want to protect us all. That is what the Leahy-Crapo bill does. This is to protect us all. So I hope the House will take up and vote on the bipartisan Senate bill because our bill protects all victims. Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republicans and Democrats and Independents. They are rich and poor. They are gay and straight. They are immigrant and citizen alike. A victim is a victim. Helping these victims, all these victims--whether they are from Vermont, California, Alaska, Iowa, Oregon, Florida, or anywhere else--that has to be our goal because their lives depend upon it.

Mr. President, we live a privileged life in this Senate, just as the House Members do. They are not facing this kind of abuse. But the lives of millions of Americans do face it. Their lives are depending upon us not to play partisan games but to give law enforcement and all the various organizations that help prevent abuse the tools they need. We have done that in the Senate. It is time for the House to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank, of course, the majority leader and the Republican leader, friends with whom I have served for years--and we have always been friends--for their kind words.

I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, another dear friend. Our careers have paralleled in many areas--from the time he was the mayor of our largest city, to being our lone Representative in the House of Representatives, to now being my partner here in the Senate.

Of course, as to my dear friend Dick Lugar, we have worked together so many times. We alternated between being the chair and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He did a great deal on the environment, passed an organic farm bill, did so many things, all the time when he was doing his invaluable work to protect our Nation against nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, I value the Senate. I love the Senate. It has been a major part of my life. But I was glad to hear both leaders mention the true love of my life, my wife of nearly 50 years. There is nothing I have accomplished throughout my whole public career that I could have done without Marcelle's help. Not only has she raised three wonderful children and is helping to raise five wonderful grandchildren, every single day I have been a better person because of her. When we first started the race for the Senate in 1974, few people said I could win. Marcelle and I campaigned together. She always said I could. And we did.

None of us know how long we might be in the Senate, but I have valued every single moment here, and I will value every single moment as long as I am here.

I am glad Marcelle is here. She is joined by my dear and valuable friend Peter Welch, our Congressman from Vermont, and his wife Margaret, but also so many members of my staff. I feel that I have been blessed with the finest staff any Senator has ever had. Again, they are the ones every day who, if I look good and do something well on this floor, I give the credit. I joke that I am a constitutional impediment to them totally running everything. But thank goodness they are there. I will speak more about this at another time.

But it is a special feeling to be here with my friend Dick Lugar, to hear the kinds words of my friend and colleague Bernie Sanders, to know that the other Member of our delegation--we are a huge delegation; all three Members--Peter Welch is here. But especially I acknowledge Marcelle and Kevin, Alicia, and Mark, and their families. How wonderful it is to be here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Vermont boasts many talented artists, creators, composers and authors. Not least among them is Chris Bohjalian of Lincoln, an accomplished writer whose recent novel, The Sandcastle Girls, is drawing the praise and accolades of critics and readers alike. Marcelle and I were inspired by the story Chris has committed to the printed page; it is a novel that I believe will secure his place among the most accomplished writers of the 21st Century.

I read with interest an interview with Chris published in Vermont's Burlington Free Press on July 15. Like many artists and authors, Chris drew from his own heritage in his case, Armenian--to pen a moving story of compaslion and perseverance amid horror and tragedy. Perhaps this is why he has called The Sandcastle Girls the ``most important book'' he will ever write.

Chris is a longtime friend, and I have always enjoyed reading his works. The Sandcastle Girls is an achievement that stands apart and will deeply affect its readers.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article, ``The

Most Important Book I Will Ever Write.''

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