Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time run until 5:30 p.m. on the nominees, which would be approximately 50 minutes, but that time be divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the remaining time between now and 5:30 be equally divided.

Madam President, I was fortunate to be able to attend the argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the provision in the affordable care act providing that individuals should take personal responsibility for paying for their health care by obtaining health insurance or pay a fine. I have watched a lot of arguments in the Supreme Court. Obviously, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee I pay close attention--as do all Members--to what goes on there. I heard a great deal of instant analysis from commentators after the argument, including their predictions on how the Court will rule. I didn't hear much devoted to the role of the Chief Justice of the United States.

When I watched the arguments, I saw a Chief Justice that day who I thought seemed well aware of the significance of this decision. Chief Justice Roberts had not been appointed when the Court intervened in the Presidential election of 2000, but he certainly saw the reaction to that decision in Bush v. Gore, a 5-to-4 decision that the country viewed as partisan. In fact, many in the country felt that five people on the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election that was actually for the person who got less votes than the one they said lost. That decision was unprecedented. In a shocking admission, the Court itself said that it should never be considered precedent or cited in the future. That decision shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court and, as Justice Stevens observed at the time, the loser in that decision was ``the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.'' That activism undermined the reputation of the Court as fair and impartial.

But the Chief Justice did participate in the Court's recent 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United that divided along ideological lines and continues to engender a significant backlash. That decision was one in which the Supreme Court reached out to decide a matter not argued initially and in which it made a broad constitutional ruling that reversed nearly 100 years of progress in the country to control the corrupting influence of money in our elections and politics. That decision led directly to the super PACs and campaign excesses that are now plaguing our Democratic elections, and actually plagued this year's Republican Presidential primaries. As bad as its effect is on both Republicans and Democrats and elected offices, I believe it has contributed to the further erosion of the public's confidence in the Supreme Court to be an independent arbiter.

The constitutional challenge to the affordable care act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and also to overturn the actions of the people who are elected to represent all Americans in both the House and the Senate. I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress and of how dismissive they were to the months of work that included dozens of hearings, or the committee actions and the debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted, how that was almost summarily dismissed by some.

Their actions will not help restore Americans' confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law. According to a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the affordable care act mainly based on their ``partisan political views,'' while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case ``on the basis of the law.'' That has contributed to the historically low percentage of Americans, fewer than half, that said in a recent poll that they approve of the Supreme Court.

I am not going to be offended if some of the Justices don't like us personally or disagree with the policy judgments reflected in the law as individuals, as citizens, or as human beings; they are entitled to their personal views just as we are. But as Justices, they are supposed to put those petty personal views and feelings aside. They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people as reflected in the work of Congress and to defer to Congress unless the laws we pass violate the Constitution. However, during the argument, it seemed that the Justices were second guessing the policy judgments that were made during the extended legislative process. That is not the purpose or proper exercise of judicial review. Acting out based on their personal views in this matter would be the height of conservative judicial activism. Let me repeat that. Acting out based on their personal views in this matter would be the height of conservative judicial activism.

The Chief Justice seemed to understand that deference to the elected branch is fundamental to the proper exercise of judicial review. I was struck that more than once he commented on the extreme arguments coming from other Justices by noting they were not being fair. Chief Justice Roberts was right in that regard.

I thought I saw--at least the day I watched--a Chief Justice who understands the importance of this case to all Americans, including those millions who would otherwise continue without health care insurance and access to affordable health care--the kind of health care insurance and access to affordable health care each one of us in this Chamber has and each member of the Supreme Court has. This case is also significant because of the impact it will have on the American people's view of the Supreme Court.

We all remember when the Chief Justice was nominated, and he testified that if confirmed, he would act with judicial modesty, he would honor precedent, and he would acknowledge the

limited role of the judiciary and seek to bring the Court together. When I voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States--and many of my Democratic colleagues voted the other way, and I respect them for that--I said that I was voting with hope and faith. I credited his testimony. I trusted that he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the Senate.

I said then that if I thought he ``would easily reject precedent'' or ``use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism,'' I would not have supported his confirmation. I contrasted the technical reasoning and unjust holding of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case with the leadership that Chief Justice Warren provided in the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. I spoke about the need to curtail the current activism of the Supreme Court and for appropriate deference to congressional action taken by the people's elected representatives, which is precisely what should happen in the matter currently before the Supreme Court.

I was encouraged by the assurances he gave during the confirmation process that he would respect congressional authority. Well, this case is a fundamental test. After all, he relied heavily during the hearing on the recent Gonzales v. Raich decision as controlling precedent in upholding congressional authority to act under the Commerce Clause. He also assured us that despite his previous record of advocacy, as Chief Justice he would not continue to urge additional restrictions on Congress's Spending Clause powers.

I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party; not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives but the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us. The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.

Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce. This case should not become an instance in which a conservative, activist majority on the Supreme Court intervenes by way of another 5 4 decision driven by ideology to rewrite the law. The law is consistent with the understanding of the Constitution the Court and the American people have had for the better part of a century, and should be upheld. To do otherwise would undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Last month's Supreme Court argument gave me reason to hope the Supreme Court will do the right thing. The authority of Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act is firmly rooted in what previous Congresses enacted and the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional over the last century to protect hardworking Americans. Working Americans have long been required to pay for Social Security and Medicare by the deduction of taxes reflected in their paychecks every month. I said at the time that, after all, if they could overturn the Affordable Care Act, why couldn't they overturn Social Security or Medicare? There would be just as much reason to overturn those.

The key to the test for constitutionality under the Commerce Clause is whether the law substantially affects interstate commerce. That is the long-established constitutional test supported time and time again by the Supreme Court. As a law passed by Congress passed to regulate a market that makes up one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the Affordable Care Act is well within the limits set by the Supreme Court's own precedent on Congress's Commerce Clause power.

The personal responsibility requirement that is the focus of the legal challenge is necessary to ensure that Americans who have paid for their health care by buying health insurance are not stuck with paying the $43 billion in health care costs incurred by millions of Americans who do not buy health insurance and then must rely on expensive emergency health care when inevitably faced with medical problems. That is what Congress concluded after extensive study and debate and what we included in the text of the law itself. There is no question this act by Congress regulates matters undeniably affecting interstate commerce.

Even though this law easily meets the tests established by the Supreme Court's own precedent on the limits of the Commerce Clause, partisan opponents of President Obama want judges to override these legislative decisions properly made by Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. They want to challenge the wisdom understood by generations of Supreme Court justices from the great Chief Justice John Marshall in upholding the constitutionality of the national bank nearly 200 years ago to Justice Cardozo in finding Social Security constitutional early in the last century.

The outlandish examples of hypothetical laws Congress has not passed reduce these matters to ridiculous absurdities. That may be popular in Federalist Society circles or on political blogs or to those who want to bind the Constitution enough to be on a bumper sticker slogan, but they have no place in the Supreme Court's determination. There may come a time when Congress passes a law that is law at the edge of its authority, when the boundary of what should be seen as affecting commerce needs to be more closely considered. That time may come. I hope it doesn't. That time may come, but this is not the time and this is not the case. The Affordable Care Act is squarely within longstanding constitutional lawmaking to deal with an important national problem.

For years, we have heard Republican Senators say that they do not want judges making law from the bench. That is precisely what they are asking the Supreme Court to do in this case. Republican opponents lost in Congress. Their opposition and obstruction delayed but did not prevent enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Now they want conservative activists on the Supreme Court to intervene and turn their policy disagreements into law by reading them into the Constitution. That is wrong.

In his efforts to reach out to Republicans, the President adopted a model Republicans proposed in the 1990s so as not to replace private insurance with a program of Government insurance like Medicare, but to rely on personal responsibility to obtain private insurance in the marketplace or pay a tax penalty. What is telling about the partisan nature of these challenges is that many of those who now claim that this is unconstitutional are the very ones who proposed it. Senate Republicans were in favor of ensuring personal responsibility with an individual mandate until President Obama was for it, and now they are against it. Their views may have changed, their partisan interests may have shifted, but the Constitution has not.

Americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are starting to receive help when trapped within a coverage gap known as the ``donut hole.'' Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, young adults in Vermont and around the country have gained health insurance coverage by being able to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until their 26th birthdays. Americans are receiving preventative screening coverage with no deductible or co- pay. The law is making possible more and better care while controlling costs.

The Affordable Care Act builds on some of the cornerstones of American economic security built over the last century. I believed that when it passed, and I still believe it today, that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to enact laws to help protect all Americans. Just as some in this country disagreed when Congress passed Social Security, the Court agreed that we acted within our authority to do so. One may agree or disagree with parts of the Affordable Care Act, but the fact is that Congress acted within its authority. I hope and have faith that the Supreme Court will not overstep the judiciary's role by substituting policy preferences for the legislative determinations of Congress.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise on the Senate floor today to pay tribute to Mary Leahy, director at the Central Vermont Adult Basic Education--sister, friend, and lifetime educator--who is retiring this month.

For 40 years, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education has provided free literacy services for adults and out-of-school youth. Thirty-seven of those years, Mary Leahy has been at the helm. In her role as codirector at Central Vermont Adult Basic Education, Mary dedicated herself to preparing lower skilled workers to meet the demands of the shifting economy.

Whether it was attending townhalls, community centers and libraries, or knocking on doors directly, Mary has spread the word. She has recruited members for this program all over the State.

I have seen the joy in the face of a grandfather able to read a children's story to a grandchild--something the grandfather was not able to do for that child's parent because he could not read when they were a child.

In a recent article honoring Mary in the Times Argus, Vermont Poet Laureate Sydney Lea said these kind words about Mary:

This has been way beyond a job for Mary; it's really a

vision of humanity that she's been dedicated to. I have an

admiration for her that is pretty close to boundless.

I agree with my friend Sydney. Mary's lifelong passion for learning has enabled countless Vermonters to gain the critical skills needed to participate in today's workforce. In our country today, 88 million adults face at least one educational barrier, such as no high school diploma or no college, and only 3 to 4 percent of the workers with the most limited literacy proficiencies receive the basic skills training from their employers. Under Mary's guiding hand, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education has allowed Vermonters, young and old, to reach their full potential and to be successful both in the classroom and in the workforce--I might add parenthetically, also just in their everyday lives.

As her older brother, I have known Mary all her life. She is a loving, intelligent, and hard-working person. She has the soul and talent of an artist and the generosity of a saint in sharing her talent and commitment.

I am so proud of Mary, and I ask unanimous consent that the Times Argus article ``Closing a Chapter'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coons for a second time on the passage of legislation that will reauthorize 30 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in districts around the country. I was pleased to support Senator Coons' very strong and persistent efforts on this important legislation. The Judiciary Committee reported this legislation favorably on December 15, 2011.

The Senate passed the first version of this legislation on April 19. Despite the good intentions of everyone involved, a technical error was discovered after transmittal to the House of Representatives. Senator Coons worked quickly with the House Judiciary Committee to resolve that technical issue and, on May 9, the House took up and passed a perfected bill.

As I noted the first time the Senate acted on this legislation, the bill we pass today, when enacted, will reauthorize 30 temporary judgeships in 14 States and Puerto Rico. All of these positions have already expired, and without this legislation, upon retirement or departure of the judges in these positions, they could not be filled again. Needlessly reducing the resources of our bankruptcy courts does nothing but put more pressure on Americans who are already navigating a difficult economic environment. This legislation should help avoid that and provide some small degree of relief to overburdened bankruptcy courts around the country. Quite frankly, I think we should be doing more and hope we will continue to make sure the Federal Judiciary has the resources it needs to serve all Americans.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will note once again my concern with a portion of the legislation the Senate passes today. In order to secure passage of this legislation, Senator Coburn insisted upon adding a section to the bill that purports to tell future Senate and House Judiciary Committees how to conduct their business. Unfortunately, the perfected bill we pass today retains this provision. Senator Coburn's amendment would dictate that before any of these 30 judgeships could be reauthorized again, the Senate and House Judiciary Committee's would be required to take certain steps and require a report from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, AO. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Coburn knows that this is precisely what committees do in the ordinary course of

the consideration of legislation and what was done during the development of this legislation. Senator Coons worked with the AO, which made recommendations, and with bankruptcy judges in a variety of districts to determine where need was greatest. To codify an unenforceable mandate nominally imposed on future Congresses is unnecessary and unwise.

Once again I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate Senator Coons for his hard work and attention to this issue. This would not be passing again without his diligence, focus, and legislative skill. He has now done twice what has seemed impossible to do once.

Mr. President, I commend the Senate for agreeing to this resolution to honor the men and women who serve in law enforcement and to officially recognize May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Despite the progress that has been made in improving officer safety, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make serving their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do all it can to support officer safety.

To recognize these sacrifices, as they do every year, law enforcement officers and their families from across the United States will come to Washington to pay tribute and honor the men and women who have lost their lives. And as I do each year, I will stand with them.

In 1962, President Kennedy designated May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Once again I am proud to have introduced a resolution officially recognizing that designation and honoring these men and women, and all of those that came before them. I am glad we passed this official recognition today.

The safety of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. I hope the quick passage of this resolution will foreshadow future bipartisan work on behalf of the men and women who work day after day to protect all of us.

Today the Senate will vote on a vital piece of legislation that I am proud to cosponsor, to prevent the rise in interest rates on need-based student loans. Without action, millions of students across the country will see their interest rates double on their subsidized Stafford loans on July 1. At the very least, these students deserve a debate on this vital pocketbook question that affects millions of young Americans and their families.

I have always strongly believed in the importance of a college education. I was the first in my family to have the opportunity to go to college. Every young person should have the chance to pursue higher education. Education is a path out of poverty, a road to personal growth, and an access ramp to

professional accomplishment and economic security. Everyone wins when access to education expands.

It should go without saying that student loan costs should not rise so high that students cannot repay. Yet in recent years, average college tuition rates have increased faster than inflation, far outpacing student financial aid. Since 1985, the cost of attending college has increased by 559 percent, and last schoolyear alone, instate tuition and fees at public 4-year institutions averaged 8.3 percent higher than the previous year.

I hear from Vermonters constantly about their struggles to afford college and their concerns about student loan debt after they graduate. Skyrocketing tuition is making it increasingly difficult for families to afford higher education. Many students are forced to take on significant debt, and too often they are not able to complete college because of soaring costs. For those students who do go on to graduate, record student loan debt has made getting ahead in today's job market next to impossible for many students. Unfortunately, along with the pressure from student loan debt has come an increase in default rates among borrowers, which will affect a student's financial stability for decades.

Especially during these difficult economic times we need to be doing more to address the rising costs of higher education and the growing need for student financial aid. We have made significant investments in higher education and making college more affordable in recent years through historic investments in the Pell Grant Program, moving to a universal system of direct loans, and through the President's recent Executive order to reduce monthly payments for low-income borrowers. While these measures have certainly helped students, more must be done to ensure every American has access to a college education.

While there is agreement on the need to prevent the interest rate increase, division remains on the way to finance the yearlong extension. The House passed a bill largely along partisan lines that would fund the student loan measure by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, created under the affordable care act. Prevention funding is vitally important in helping to lower health care costs and improving the health of Americans through chronic disease screenings, tobacco education, and immunization programs. An estimated 15 percent of college seniors have chronic diseases and could benefit from this funding. We should not force on students a choice made by Congress, not by students, between disease prevention and lower interest rates.

The solution we offer is far better for students and for the Nation. The bill to which I hope we proceed today would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling by closing a loophole in the Tax Code. Right now, certain businesses can avoid paying employment taxes on their employees' paychecks. This measure would ensure that businesses employing individuals making over $250,000 would be subject to the same Medicare and Social Security taxes every business must pay. This is a commonsense reform that we should all support.

Each opportunity for a young American to earn a college education is also an opportunity for the Nation's future. Our country's ability to compete in the global marketplace in the future depends on our children's ability to finance their education. This does not need to be a partisan issue and should be one where we can find widespread agreement.

We must not tell the 7.4 million students who rely on subsidized Stafford loans that their interest rates will double because protecting a tax loophole is more important than their ability to afford college. I urge every Senator to help us move ahead today to support our students, their futures, and our country's future.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the last 4 months, the Senate has been forced to slowly work its way through the backlog created by Republican objections at the end of last year to consensus nominees. Finally, with consideration today of the long-delayed nomination of Judge Nguyen to fill a longstanding judicial emergency vacancy on the overburdened Ninth Circuit, the Senate will have completed the confirmations that could and should have taken place last year.

Today, 5 months into the year, is the first time the Senate is considering judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee this year. Confirmations of the nominations of Kristine Baker to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of Arkansas and John Lee to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Northern District of Illinois have been delayed for nearly 3 months. These nominees have the support of their home state Senators and of a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee. Yet these consensus nominees have been delayed for months for no good reason.

The nominations we consider today are but three of the 22 judicial nominees available for final Senate action. Most are by any measure consensus nominees who could and should be confirmed without further delay. That would go a long way toward getting us on track to make real progress in reducing judicial vacancies that have plagued the Federal courts around the country.

I want to share with the Senate and the American people a chart comparing vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and President Obama. This chart shows that the lack of real progress during the last 3\1/3\ years is in stark contrast to the way in which we moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican presidency.

During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As Chairman, I worked with the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. See how sharply the line slopes as we reduced vacancies in 2001 and 2002.

We continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans and confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004, a presidential election year. At the end of that presidential term, the Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. The chart notes where we stood in May 2004, having reduced judicial vacancies under 50 on the way to 28 that August. By comparison, see how long vacancies have remained near or above 80 and how little comparative progress we have made during the 4 years of President Obama's first term. Again, if we could move forward to Senate votes on the 22 judicial nominees ready for final action, the Senate could reduce vacancies to less than 60 and make progress.

Today also marks the first Senate action this year to address the needs of the Ninth Circuit, by far the busiest Federal appeals court in the country. The Senate should have voted on the long-delayed nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit over 5 months ago, after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Her nomination is one of three Ninth Circuit nominations currently pending and awaiting a Senate vote to fill judicial emergency vacancies plaguing that circuit. With nearly three times the number of cases pending as the next busiest circuit, we cannot afford to further delay Senate votes on the other two nominations to the Ninth Circuit, Paul Watford of California, reported favorably by the Committee over 3 months ago, or Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona, reported favorably over 2 months ago.

There is no good reason for Senate Republicans to further delay votes on these Ninth Circuit nominees. The 61 million people served by the Ninth Circuit are not served by this delay. The circuit is being forced to handle double the caseload of any other without its full complement of judges. The Senate should be expediting consideration not only of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, but also of Paul Watford and Justice Andrew Hurwitz, not delaying them.

The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, along with the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, wrote to the Senate months ago emphasizing the Ninth Circuit's ``desperate need for judges,'' urging the Senate to ``act on judicial nominees without delay,'' and concluding ``we fear that the public will suffer unless our vacancies are filled very promptly.'' The judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit are harming litigants by creating unnecessary and costly delays. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that it takes nearly 5 months longer for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion after an appeal is filed, compared to all other circuits. The Ninth Circuit's backlog of pending cases far exceeds other Federal courts. As of the end of 2011, the Ninth Circuit had 13,913 cases pending before it, far more than any other circuit.

If caseloads were really a concern of Republican Senators, as they contended last year when they filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit, they would not be delaying the nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Ninth Circuit. If caseloads were really a concern, Senate Republicans would consent to move forward with votes on Paul Watford and Justice Hurwitz and allow for up or down votes by the Senate without these months of unnecessary delays.

Given that all three are superbly qualified mainstream nominees with bipartisan support, the long delays that have plagued these nominations are hard to understand. Judge Nguyen, whose family fled to the United States in 1975 after the fall of South Vietnam, was confirmed unanimously to the district court in 2009 and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported her nomination to the Ninth Circuit last year. When confirmed, she will be the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve on a U.S. Court of Appeals in our history. She is the kind of nominee who should have been confirming in 5 days, not 5 months.

We still await Republican agreement to vote on the other two nominees, neither of whom would have been considered controversial by past Congresses. Paul Watford was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating possible. He clerked at the United States Supreme Court for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and on the Ninth Circuit for now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. He was a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. He has the support of his home State Senators and bipartisan support from noted conservatives such as Daniel Collins, who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration; Professors Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr; and Jeremy Rosen, the former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federalist Society.

Justice Hurwitz is a respected and experience jurist on the Arizona Supreme Court. He also received the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest rating possible, unanimously well qualified. This

nomination has the strong support of both his Republican home State Senators, Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl.

We have much more work to do to help resolve the judicial vacancy crisis that has persisted for more than 3 years. Today the Senate finally votes on 3 of the 22 judicial nominations that have been reported by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough review. Despite vacancies in nearly 1 out of every 10 Federal judgeships, Senate Republicans continue to delay votes and are stalling action on nearly 20 current judicial nominations on which the Senate could be taking final action. If confirmed those judges would serve 150 million Americans.

When the majority leader and the Republican leader came to their interim understanding in March, it resulted in votes on 14 of the 22 judicial nominations then awaiting final consideration. Because the arrangement took months to implement what the Senate could have done in hours, the backlog of judicial vacancies and judicial nominees continues. Today we are right back where we started with 22 judicial nominees awaiting action. I know that the majority leader is working to continue seeking Republican agreement to debate and vote on the remaining judicial nominees. It should not require overcoming filibusters and political standoffs for the Senate to do its job of promptly considering judicial nominations, especially when so many of them have bipartisan support and are consensus nominees.

The backlog of nominations ready for final action is not necessary or typical. It is an artificial backlog created by the refusal of Senate Republicans to consider judicial nominees at the end of each of the last 2 years and their insistence of delays of months before confirmation of consensus nominees. These practices have meant that the Senate's confirmations have barely kept up with attrition on the Federal bench. When Republicans refused to consent to consider 19 judicial nominations at the end of 2010, it took us until June of last year to work through those nominations. When they did so again at the end of last year, it took us until today, a week into May, to catch up with last year's nominations. That is not how to reduce judicial vacancies.

The Senate needs to continue working and continue consideration of judicial nominees recommended by the Judiciary Committee if we are to make real progress in reducing the burden of judicial vacancies. That is what we did in the most recent presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 and what we should be doing this year. Before we hear any more talk of slowing down or shutting off judicial confirmations, we have a long way to go. We need to work to reduce the vacancies that are burdening the Federal judiciary and the millions of Americans who rely on our Federal courts to seek justice.

At this same point in the Bush administration, we had reduced judicial vacancies around the country to under 50. Today they stand at nearly 80. And by August 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to just 28 vacancies. Despite 2004 being a presidential election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies.

In 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked to reduce judicial vacancies and by October we were able to reduce judicial vacancies back down to 34 vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 2008.

We lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly during President Bush's first term as Senate Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. The vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. The Senate is 30 behind the number of circuit and district court confirmations at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are 63 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year.

Today's consensus nominees are examples of those who have been unnecessarily stalled for months.

Kristine Baker, nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eastern District of Arkansas, has spent nearly 15 years in private practice after graduating with honors from the University of Arkansas School of Law and clerking for Judge Susan Weber Wright on the court to which she has been nominated. Ms. Baker's nomination has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators. Her nomination was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee with the support of nearly every Senator on February 16.

John Lee, nominated to fill one of three judicial emergency vacancies on the Northern District of Illinois, has worked in private practice for almost 20 years. His personal story is remarkable. Born to a coal miner and a nurse of Korean descent, Mr. Lee immigrated to the United States when he was 5 years old and went on to graduate from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. If confirmed, he will become the second Korean-American to serve as a Federal district court judge, and the second Asian-American to serve as a Federal judge in the courts encompassed by the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Lee's nomination has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators. They both also support the confirmation of John Tharp, a former nominee of President George W. Bush, to another judicial emergency vacancy in that district. With Republican consent we could also be voting on the Tharp nomination. Both Illinois nominations were favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee with only one Senator dissenting on February 16.

Today's votes must be a starting point for considering this year's judicial nominations if we want to bring down judicial vacancies and hope to match the progress we were able to make in 2004 and 2008, both Presidential election years in which we considered the nominations of a Republican President and continued to reduce judicial vacancies. I hope that Senate Republicans will stop blocking prompt confirmation of consensus nominees. That is a destructive development and new practice that has contributed to keeping the Senate behind the curve, keeping Federal judicial vacancies unfilled, overburdening the Federal courts, and keeping Americans from securing prompt justice. The American people deserve better.

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

Madam President, May 3 was World Press Freedom Day. In this country, we recognize freedom of expression as our most cherished right. It forms the foundation for every other freedom, and an independent press is essential to its exercise. Yet in many countries expression is often censored and punished. Journalists are threatened, imprisoned, and killed for exposing official corruption and criticizing government repression. Not only is the media targeted and silenced, the entire population is denied access to accurate reporting.

The Senate was in recess on May 3, but I would like to call other Senators'

attention to troubling events that currently pose one of the gravest threats to freedom of expression in this hemisphere. I am speaking about the actions of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and officials in his government to silence independent broadcasters and publishers and watchdog organizations, undermining the fundamental right of free expression in ways that resemble what we have come to expect in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

There is no institution more fundamental to democracy than a free and independent press. A free press helps protect the rule of law, to ensure that no person or group is above the rules and procedures that govern a democratic society. A free press helps ensure transparency to prod governments to be honest and accountable to their citizens.

Unfortunately, recent events in Ecuador suggest a deliberate shift away from these democratic traditions, and this could pose grave consequences for democracy in Ecuador.

Although wavering at times, Ecuador has a history of democratic government of which its citizens can be proud. Ecuador's first Constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Ecuador's 1998 Constitution guarantees the right of journalists and social communicators to ``seek, receive, learn, and disseminate'' events of general interest, with the goal of ``preserving the values of the community.'' Even Ecuador's latest constitution, ratified just four years ago, protects each citizen's right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations.'' However, it appears that these protections--a vital part of Ecuador's history of democratically elected, representative government--now only apply at the discretion of President Correa.

During President Correa's term in office, the number of state-owned media organizations has exploded--growing from just one government-run news outlet to a media conglomerate that today is made up of more than a dozen outlets. He has pursued criminal charges against columnists and newspaper owners, including legal actions aimed at El Universo, one of Ecuador's most respected newspapers. In the El Universo case, President Correa won a $42 million award, and several journalists were sentenced to 3 years in prison following a hearing before a temporary--and recently appointed--magistrate. Although President Correa later pardoned the journalists, an Ecuadoran court rejected his pardon, and their fates remain unresolved. The fear of being charged and dragged through the expensive legal system also silences many other journalists or compels them to temper criticism of the government.

President Correa and his government are not only targeting journalists. Some 200 activists, many of them indigenous people protesting environmentally destructive mining projects, have been criminally charged and detained. The pattern of arresting or threatening to arrest social activists has suppressed the free flow of information in Ecuador, silencing dissenting voices either by legal action or self-censorship.

Perhaps most insidious to the principles of democracy, President Correa's government has ushered in new reforms that could make illegal almost all reporting about electoral campaigns. All censorship is bruising to a democracy, but electoral censorship is a fatal blow. With Presidential elections occurring in Ecuador in the next year, there is growing concern that President Correa's actions represent an attempt to influence the democratic process to his own political and personal benefit.

Dr. Catalina Botero, the special rapporteur for freedom of expression at the Organization of American States, OAS, has rightly criticized President Correa's crusade against the press. In response, President Correa has expanded his campaign of censorship beyond Ecuador's borders and targeted Dr. Botero's office, proposing to the OAS earlier this year a plan that would have restricted the ability of Dr. Botero's office to issue independent reports and cutting off some of its funding. Although the plan was rejected by the member states of the OAS, President Correa's intent remains clear. No longer content to silence his political opponents in Ecuador, he is now targeting his critics elsewhere.

President Correa has tried to cloak his actions in populist vocabulary, declaring that his censorship is motivated by a desire to free the public from the corrupt interests of the business organizations that often ran newspapers before the establishment of a law forbidding anyone with a significant stake in a media company from owning other businesses. Challenging viewpoints expressed in the media of course is legitimate, common, and healthy in any society, but preventing those views from being heard is not.

Mr. President, we should denounce attacks on the press in Ecuador and elsewhere in this hemisphere. We should strongly support Dr. Botero and her office. Protecting freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is everyone's concern and responsibility. In doing so, we stand with the people of Ecuador and their right to be heard and for the future of their democracy.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act.

I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer have joined me in this effort. When enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice, provides financial assistance to State law enforcement agencies to help purchase bulletproof vests. This program is an important part of the Federal Government's overall policy to assist and support State and local law enforcement partners around the country.

In February, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this program and the need for reauthorization to emphasize just how important and effective this program has been. At that hearing, a representative from the Government Accountability Office testified that since 1987, data shows that body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones. The BVP Program has assisted State and local jurisdictions with the purchase of nearly one million bulletproof vests since 1999. That is a measure of success all Senators should be proud of. I hope we can support the continuation of this program unanimously, as the Senate did most recently in 2008.

Despite the progress that has been made in the improvement of lifesaving equipment and training, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives and thousands were injured or disabled in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make in the service of their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do its part to help reverse the trend of the last several years.

The safety and support of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. As we look toward National Police Week this month, Senators have an opportunity with this legislation to help make a difference and to show the thousands of law enforcement officers and their family members who will be in Washington that the Senate stands with them. I encourage their support and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act.

I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer have joined me in this effort. When enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice, provides financial assistance to State law enforcement agencies to help purchase bulletproof vests. This program is an important part of the Federal Government's overall policy to assist and support State and local law enforcement partners around the country.

In February, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this program and the need for reauthorization to emphasize just how important and effective this program has been. At that hearing, a representative from the Government Accountability Office testified that since 1987, data shows that body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones. The BVP Program has assisted State and local jurisdictions with the purchase of nearly one million bulletproof vests since 1999. That is a measure of success all Senators should be proud of. I hope we can support the continuation of this program unanimously, as the Senate did most recently in 2008.

Despite the progress that has been made in the improvement of lifesaving equipment and training, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives and thousands were injured or disabled in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make in the service of their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do its part to help reverse the trend of the last several years.

The safety and support of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. As we look toward National Police Week this month, Senators have an opportunity with this legislation to help make a difference and to show the thousands of law enforcement officers and their family members who will be in Washington that the Senate stands with them. I encourage their support and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I will speak further about the Violence Against Women Act because I believe the Leahy-Crapo, et al, bill has the best balance possible to protect the most people possible.

Mr. President, today we are finally going to vote on the nominations of Gregg Costa and David Guaderrama to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Western Districts of Texas. Both of these nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies have the support of their home state Republican Senators. Their nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over four and a half months ago. Senator Cornyn, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly supports both of these nominees. The senior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, supports these nominees. There was a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. Still it has taken another four and one-half months to get them before the Senate for final consideration.

These are judicial emergency vacancies. I mention that because these are more examples of what I have been concerned about for the last few years. Senate Republicans have refused to move promptly to confirm consensus nominees. These are not ideologically driven nominees. These are nominees, like so many of President Obama's nominees, who are highly qualified. They enjoy bipartisan support, but they are made to wait and wait before finally being able to be confirmed.

This is a destructive development. It is a new practice in the Senate. I can say this as one who has served here during the Presidencies of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now President Obama. This new practice has kept the Senate behind the curve. It has kept Federal judicial vacancies unfilled. It has overburdened the Federal courts and has kept Americans from getting prompt justice.

It should not have taken this long for these two nominees to receive a vote. They could and should have been confirmed last year. It is nearly May, and the Senate is still only considering judicial nominations that should have been confirmed last year. There are 24 judicial nominees ready for final Senate consideration. Several are still pending from last year. That means 150 million Americans affected by more than 80 judicial vacancies would see a vacancy in their district or circuit court filled if the Senate would only be allowed to vote on those 24 nominees.

The lack of real progress during the last three and one-third years is in stark contrast to the way in which we moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican presidency. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As Chairman, I worked with Senate Republicans to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. We expedited consideration of consensus nominees and ended the vacancies crisis. In contrast, despite his selecting qualified nominees and working with Senators from both sides of the aisle, President Obama has seen judicial vacancies remain above 80 for nearly three years.

At this same point in the Bush administration, we had reduced judicial vacancies around the country to 45. Today they stand at 81. And by August 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to just 28 vacancies. Despite 2004 being an election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies.

In October 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked to reduce judicial vacancies and were able to get back down to 34 vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 2008.

We lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly as Senate Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. The vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush.

The Senate is 32 behind the number of circuit and district court confirmations at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are 65 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year.

I wish to share with the Senate and the American people a chart. This compares vacancies during the terms of President Bush and President Obama. I mention this because, look at where the vacancies were when President Bush came in. For a short time, I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Bush was President. Even though 60 nominees had been pocket-filibustered of President Clinton's, I said we were going to change this routine. Look how quickly I brought the vacancies way down under President Bush. I then worked with Republicans to bring them down further, even though they didn't move as fast on President Bush's nominees as I had. When I was chairman, I continued to bring it down.

Then what happened when President Obama came in? All of a sudden they said: This was great that you brought down the vacancies under President Bush. We are glad to have the vacancies under President Bush come down, but now the vacancies are going to come back with President Obama.

This is another way to demonstrate what I have been saying. See how sharply the line slopes as we reduced vacancies in 2001 and 2002, when I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. See where we were in April 2004 having reduced judicial vacancies to 45 on the

way to 28 in August. By comparison, see how long vacancies have remained above 80 and how little comparative progress we have made. Again, if we would just be allowed to vote on the 24 judicial nominees ready for final action we could reduce vacancies to under 60 and make instant progress.

The American people deserve better. Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait three years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.

Some Senate Republicans seek to divert attention by suggesting that these longstanding vacancies are the President's fault for not sending us nominees. Let me remind my colleagues that of the 81 current vacancies that exist, several of them are without a nomination because this President is trying to work with home state Senators, including 27 vacancies involving a Republican home state Senator who has refused to either recommend a candidate or agree to a judicial nominee. There are seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot proceed because Republican Senators have not returned blue slips.

More importantly, there are 24 outstanding judicial nominees that can be confirmed right now who are being stalled. Let us act on them. Let us vote them up or down. When my grandchildren say they want more food before they finish what is on their plate, my answer is to urge them to finish the food already on their plate before asking for seconds or dessert. To those Republicans that contend it is the White House's fault for not sending us more nominees, I say let us complete Senate action on these 24 judicial nominees ready for final action. If we could vote on the 24 judicial nominees ready for final action there are more nominees working their way through Committee, and the Senate can act responsibly to help fill more of the vacancies plaguing some of our busiest courts.

Today, we can finally fill two emergency vacancies with superbly qualified nominees. Gregg Costa is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where he is already well-known and well-respected for his service as a Federal prosecutor. Prior to becoming a Federal prosecutor in 2005, Mr. Costa worked in private practice in Houston, Texas, was a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General, and clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Costa ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating.

Judge David Guaderrama is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where he has served as a Magistrate Judge since 2010. He previously served four terms as a state court judge in El Paso, Texas, and for seven years as the Chief Public Defender in El Paso County. While on the state bench, Judge Guaderrama implemented the first adult criminal Drug Court and the first Access to Recovery program in El Paso County. Judge Guaderrama began his legal career in 1979 as a solo practitioner and from 1980 to 1986 was a partner with the firm of Guaderrama and Guaderrama.

These are two qualified nominees from Texas. They were passed out of our committee last year. They should have been confirmed before we recessed last year. Even typical consensus, noncontroversial nominees like these two have been delayed for no good reason. In fact, we have 24 judicial nominations currently before the Senate.

I have heard them say the President has to send up more nominees. Why don't we confirm the 24 who are on the calendar? Then we have others working through the committee process. In fact, 10 of those nominations that have been pending the longest are all to fill judicial emergency vacancies. Every single Democrat in this body has signed off on them.

Again, I show this chart to show how quickly Democrats moved, while Republicans did not move as quickly as they did for President Bush's nominees. We did that with President Ford. We did that with President Carter. We did that with President Reagan. We did that with the first President Bush and also with President Clinton--except for the 60 who were pocket-filibustered by the Republicans. And we did that, as I have shown here, with President Bush. Why does it have to be a different situation for President Obama? Why can't we treat President Obama the way we did all these other Presidents I have mentioned, since I have been here--the way we did President Ford's nominations and all the others?

I cannot understand what it is or why President Obama has to be treated differently. It is not fair to him. More important, Mr. President, it is not fair to the Federal judiciary. These vacancies mean there are millions of Americans--150 million Americans who are in districts or States with judicial vacancies. That means justice delayed. If justice is delayed, justice is denied.

We can and should do better. Maybe some believe there is an advantage to taking partisan shots at President Obama. I disagree. They should do as we have done in the past and help the Federal judiciary. That should be kept out of partisan politics. It is to all of our advantage. When people go before a court in this country, they are not asked whether they are a Republican or Democrat. They are coming to seek justice. They should be allowed to have that. Let's speed up.

I will vote for these two judges. The Senator from Texas will vote for these two judges. But they were ready to be voted on way last year. It is time to get moving.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I know we are about to vote on these judges, but I wish to make a few remarks about the VAWA reauthorization before we do so.

There are few tools more important in the fight to end domestic and sexual violence than the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation has fundamentally changed the way society views these horrible crimes, and it has resulted in a more than 60 percent decrease in domestic violence offenses. We have been successful because we have learned from experience and adapted our efforts to better meet the needs of victims.

Each reauthorization of VAWA has played a critical role in this process. As we learn more about the needs of victims, VAWA has been carefully modified to meet those needs. The bipartisan bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced last year continues that important process. The Republican substitute amendment does not.

The Leahy-Crapo bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country. We listened when they told us what was working and what could be improved. We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our legislation to respond to those needs. We made additional modifications and reached carefully crafted compromises through what was an open process. We also shared our draft with Senators from both sides of the aisle and proceeded openly to introduce the bill so that it could be reviewed and improved as the Judiciary Committee considered and voted on it.

Senator Crapo and I purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or divisive and selected only those proposals that law enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day told us were essential. Our reauthorization bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations. They include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many, many more. There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices of millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country.

The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and organizations.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country says:

The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input

or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged

in this work every day. The substitute includes damaging and

unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs,

and create unnecessary inefficiencies.

Although well-intentioned by its lead sponsors, the Republican proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with victims and advocates from all over the country.

I regret to say the Republican proposal undermines core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims--including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex relationships. The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--and I know we will be getting back onto this matter and I will be seeking time, I certainly do not object to my two friends taking time now.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work the leadership has done, and I know Senator Murray has been very involved with that too, and I appreciate her help in getting us to a point where we now have a unanimous consent to get to votes and we can finally pass this bill.

I think sometimes a bill like this is an abstract matter. It is not an abstract matter to the women's organizations that support it. It is not abstract to law enforcement who support it. And if I might speak personally for a moment, it is not an abstract matter to me.

The distinguished Presiding Officer and I come from probably the safest, lowest crime State in the country, but we both know that crimes do happen. We also know that in a rural State, oftentimes domestic violence is not reported. We don't talk about this outside the family. And I know that in some of those instances, when I had the privilege of serving as a prosecutor in Vermont, they didn't talk about it. I first heard about it usually in the morgue or at the great Fletcher Hospital. I learned about it because when the body was picked up, either the undertaker or the police or the ambulance driver realized this was not a natural cause, and then we would sort of roll the clock back. In rolling the clock back, we found that all these warning signals were there. There was nowhere for the victim to go. The things we now have were not there then.

I was able to prosecute a number of these people. In fact, I probably brought some of the first successful domestic violence prosecutions we had. But police and prosecutors will say that those are always after the fact.

So how do we stop this from happening in the first place? That is what the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is about. It is there to stop the crime before the crime happens. This bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country, of all political persuasions. I never knew a time

when somebody would come to a crime scene and say: Is this victim a Democrat or Republican, gay or straight, immigrant or not? We would say: How do we catch the person who did this?

We listened to what the survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers told us. They told us what worked, what did not work, and what could be improved. Then we carefully drafted the legislation to fit these needs, and that is why our bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations, service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many more.

There is one purpose, and one purpose only, for the bill Senator Crapo and I introduced and others cosponsored: It is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voice of millions of survivors and advocates across the country. The same cannot be said with the Republican proposal brought forward in the last couple of days. That is why that proposal is opposed by such a wide spectrum of people and organizations.

Domestic and sexual violence knows no race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Its victims can be your next door neighbor, your colleague, a fellow church member, or your child's teacher at school. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act seeks to ensure that services to help victims of domestic violence reach all victims, no matter who they are. That is why civil and human rights organizations like the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and End Violence Against Women International have urged Congress to act to reauthorize VAWA. I ask consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

These organizations recognize the impact VAWA has in reducing incidences of sexual and domestic violence in our country. Since its initial passage in 1994, no law has done more to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. Because of VAWA, victims have access to life-saving services. It is time that we ensure that all victims have access to these resources.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations across the country, says the substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day.

The substitute includes damaging, nonworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies. I know it may be well-intentioned, but it is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with the people across the country to bring this bill that is before us. Unfortunately, it undermines the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It resolves in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims, including immigrants, Native women, and victims in same-sex relationships. Again, a victim is a victim is a victim. We don't say: We can help you if you fit in this category. But sorry, battered woman, you are on your own because you fit in the wrong category. That is not the America I know and love.

The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are taken out, and the Republican proposal is no substitute. It does nothing to meet the needs of victims. It undermines the focus of protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word ``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. They are still victimized at far higher rates and with far greater impact on their lives than men. Shifting this focus away from women is unnecessary and harmful, and it could send a terrible message. There is no reason to turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out, to eliminate the focus on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect.

By contrast, our bipartisan bill does not eliminate the focus against women but increases our focus to include all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

I see others on the floor. I have far more I am going to say about this, and I am about to yield the floor in case others wish to speak.

Remember, this bill is the Violence Against Women Act. Let's not go away from that. It has been carefully put together with the best input we could get from law enforcement, from victims organizations, and, I must say, from some victims themselves. This is to protect those people. I have seen some crime scenes that I still have nightmares about decades later, and I can guarantee my colleagues that every prosecutor in this country and every police officer in this country who deals with these matters probably have the same kinds of nightmares.

Are we going to stop all violence against women with this act? Of course not. But as a result of having had this legislation in effect for years, the numbers have come down because there is a place to go, there are people to help, and there are people to stop the violence. That is what we want to do--not to be, as I was during those nights in the morgue, saying to the police: Let's find out who did this so we can catch them, but, rather, to stop them before it happens and to protect the people so they live. That is what we are trying to do. That is what this bill does.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not believe I will object, is this based on the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into by the two leaders? I ask, through the Chair, the Senator from Texas, is this amendment No. 2086?

I do not object.

Mr. President, one of the hallmarks of the Violence Against

Women Act is the success it has had reducing violence against women across the country. Because we have made much progress over the past 18 years on domestic violence but have had less success with combating sexual assault, our bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill takes important steps to increase the focus on sexual violence. As we were writing this bipartisan legislation, we consulted with the men and women who work with victims every day to develop a consensus bill that will help emphasize the need to further reduce the incidence of sexual assault. The administration and law enforcement groups like the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police understand and support our goals.

Unfortunately, while I do not doubt that Senator Cornyn shares our goals, the amendment he is offering can have the perverse affect of hindering progress on these issues. That is why there will be an amendment offering a better approach and a better way forward together. The alternative to the Cornyn amendment will allow us to make progress on to reduce the backlog in the testing of rape kits and other DNA samples, as I have always supported in the Debbie Smith Act. Accordingly, I will urge all Senators to reject the Cornyn amendment and support the alternative, which will complement the work we are doing by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

I point out that the provisions in the Cornyn amendment are duplicative of provisions in the Republican proposal offered by Senators Hutchison and Grassley. The Senate is already voting on those provisions.

Further, Senator Cornyn, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, did not offer his current amendment when the VAWA reauthorization was considered earlier this year. I offered an amendment on his behalf that the committee adopted on another issue.

Moreover, the separate issue of the Debbie Smith Act is part of a larger effort on which the Judiciary Committee is considering as we move to reauthorize the Justice for All Act that we passed with bipartisan support several years ago. Although we have made reduction of rape kit backlogs an additional use for which VAWA STOP grants funding may be used by State and local jurisdictions, this matter is on a separate legislative track.

I am not insisting or formality in this regard and have worked with other Senators on the alternative amendment that should be helpful to our goal of reducing the rape kit testing backlog. To make sure our work is successful, we will also need to pay careful attention to the standards for testing and the controversies surrounding those matters, however. Moreover, there is a risk of making money available that swamps the capacities for accurate testing. This is not as simply as throwing money at the problem. I have worked and remain hard at work on forensic reforms to ensure that our criminal justice system takes advantage of scientific advancements while remaining fair.

A concern with the Cornyn amendment is its mandating the diversion of 7 percent of Debbie Smith Act funding to create an unwieldy national database of rape kits. The amendment would also compel jurisdictions to undergo a burdensome process of entering information into that database without procedural safeguards to ensure its accuracy. These requirements would force state and local law enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous and illogical reporting requirements and divert their focus from their core law enforcement mission of actually responding to calls and investigating sexual assault cases. It is no wonder that the National Association of Police Organizations opposes the Cornyn amendment.

The amendment also contains a number of criminal sentencing mandates that have no place in our VAWA bill. Victims' advocates like the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women say its provisions ``would have a chilling effect on victim reporting and would not help hold perpetrators accountable.'' Victim advocates tell us that, particularly in cases where the perpetrator is known to the victim, these kinds of mandated sentences can deter victims from reporting the crimes and actually contribute to continuing abuse. Mandatory minimum sentences such as these also worsen prison overcrowding and budget crises at the Federal, State, and local level, and undermine our effective Federal sentencing system. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Association to End Sexual Violence, the National Council Against Domestic Violence, and the National Congress of American Indians Task Force oppose these sentencing provisions.

There could be an extended Senate debate about whether mandatory minimums are good policy and the unintended consequence they may have of worsening abuse in domestic violence situations. That would be a long debate with strongly held views. That is not what the Violence Against Women Act is about. We should not complicate passage of this bipartisan measure with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of the bill. Such debates are for another time and other bills.

Our VAWA reauthorization bill should not be seen as a catch-all for all criminal proposals or sentencing mandates. There are other bills and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass this year. Some may come up in the Justice for All Act is we are able to get Senate floor time for that measure. Some have come up on separate bills that are awaiting Republican clearance for Senate passage. Among those are a package of bills including the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act, along with Finding Fugitives Sex Offenders Act from which the Cornyn Amendment takes its administrative subpoena provisions.

Let me turn to the Debbie Smith Act and a woman I admire very much. Debbie Smith is a survivor of a terrible crime who had to wait in terror for far too long before evidence was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She has worked tirelessly to make sure that other victims of sexual assault do not have to endure similar ordeals. I have been a proud supporter of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program since its creation, and I have worked with Senators of both parties, including Senators Mikulski and Hutchison on the Appropriations Committee, to see that it receives as much funding as possible each year. As I noted, although its authorization does not expire until 2014, I included an extension of its reauthorization in the Justice For All Reauthorization Act I introduced earlier this year. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has been very successful in reducing evidence backlogs in crime labs, particularly in sexual assault cases. That is why I am glad that the alternative amendment will allow us to ensure that the program is authorized through 2017 at a level of $151 million a year.

Unfortunately, disturbing reports have emerged of continuing backlogs, with some cities finding thousands of untested rape kits on police department shelves. That means that there is more need than ever for the Debbie Smith Act but also that there must be increased emphasis on reducing law enforcement backlogs, where there has been less progress. That is why it is so important that alternative to the Cornyn amendment expands the Debbie Smith Act to allow law enforcement to obtain funding for the collection and processing of DNA evidence. Law enforcement burden is one of the key bottlenecks in the process at present. In contrast to the Cornyn amendment, the alternative calls for new national best practices and protocols for law enforcement handling of rape kits and for Justice Department assistance to law enforcement in addressing this continuing problem. This will help to make real progress in overcoming the last major hurdles in reducing backlogs of rape kits.

The amendment takes steps to ensure that more of the Debbie Smith Act funds are used directly for DNA evidence testing to reduce backlogs. That will make this key program even quicker and more effective in reducing backlogs. The Debbie Smith program is an important tool in the fight against sexual assault, and I hope all Senators will join us in reauthorizing and

strengthening it by rejecting the Cornyn amendment in favor of the alternative.

As I have said during this debate, we must do more to reduce sexual assault, and the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill focuses on that goal. I believe that Senator Cornyn's amendment will distract from the progress that is most helpful to victims, despite his good intentions. I urge Senators to vote against the Cornyn amendment and support the alternative to expedite improvements to the Debbie Smith Act to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and other DNA evidence.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on each side?

How much on the other side?

Mr. President, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country.

We listened when they told us what was working and what could be improved. We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our legislation to respond to those needs.

Our bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations. They include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many, many more.

There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices of millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country.

The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and organizations.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country says: ``The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day.

The substitute includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies.'' Although well-intentioned, the Republican proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with victims and advocates from all over the country.

I regret to say that the Republican proposal undermines core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims-- including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex relationships.

The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims.

The Republican proposal fundamentally undermines VAWA's historic focus on protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word ``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. Women are still victimized at far higher rates, and with a far greater impact on their lives, than men. Shifting VAWA's focus away from women is unnecessary and harmful.

The Republican proposal would send a terrible message. There is no reason to turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out and eliminate the focus on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect.

Our Leahy-Crapo bipartisan bill, by contrast, does not eliminate the focus on violence against women, but increases our focus to include all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The Republican proposal strips out critical protections for gay and lesbian victims. The rate of violence in same sex relationships is the same as the general population, and we know that victims in that community are having difficulty accessing services.

To strip out these critical provisions is to turn our backs on victims of violence. That is not the spirit of VAWA. We understand that a victim is a victim is a victim, and none of them should be excluded or discriminated against.

The Republican proposal would extend and institutionalize that discrimination. The Republican proposal should be rejected.

The Republican proposal also fails to adequately protect Tribal victims. Domestic violence in tribal communities is an epidemic. Four out of five perpetrators of domestic or sexual violence on Tribal lands are non-Indian and currently cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments.

If you need more convincing of this problem, listen to the senior Senator from Washington and the Senators from New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii who have spoken so compellingly to the Senate about these concerns and who strongly support the provisions in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill.

The Republican proposal is no real alternative to fix the jurisdictional loophole that is allowing the domestic and sexual violence against Native women to go undeterred and unremedied. Its proposal offers a false hope, a provision that purports to allow a tribe to petition a Federal court for a protective order to exclude individuals from tribal land. It does not even allow the victim herself to request the order, and it does nothing to ensure that a violent offender is held accountable.

This is a false alternative. It is not what the Justice Department has suggested. It is not what the Indian Affairs Committee has supported. It will do next to nothing and is no answer to the epidemic of violence against Native women.

The Republican proposal also abandons immigrant victims and disregards law enforcement requests for additional U visas, a law enforcement tool that encourages immigrants to report and help prosecute crime. To the contrary, the Republican proposal would add dangerous restrictions on current U visa requirements that could result in that tool being less effective.

The U visa process already has fraud protections. For law enforcement to employ U visas, law enforcement officers must personally certify that the victim is cooperating with a criminal investigation. The new restrictions the Republican proposal seeks to add will discourage victims from coming forward and will hinder law enforcement's ability to take violent criminals off the street.

I will be offering an amendment to offset the minimal additional costs associated with our increasing the number of U visas that can be used. With

that amendment the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill will not ``score'' and will be deficit neutral.

The Republican proposal also would add burdensome, unnecessary and counterproductive requirements that would compromise the ability of service providers to maximize their ability to reach victims. In contrast, the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo accountability provisions ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars without unnecessary regulatory burdens.

It is all the more ironic that the Republican proposal would add massive, new bureaucratic requirements to service providers who are understaffed and operating on shoestring budgets like most small businesses and nonprofits. These requirements are unnecessary and would add significant costs to victim service providers, undercutting their ability to help victims.

It is easy to call for audits, but without proper resources and focus, such demands could be counterproductive and lead to decreased accountability. The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, by contrast, includes targeted accountability provisions.

While I have been willing to accommodate improvements to this legislation from day one, I have also been clear that I will not abandon core principles of fairness. Regrettably, that is what the Republican proposal would result in doing. It would undermine the core principle of VAWA to protect victims--all victims--the best way we know how. Our bill is focused on VAWA and improvements to meet the unmet needs of victims.

It is not a catch-all for all proposals for criminal law reform, for sentencing modifications. There are other bills and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass this year. We should not complicate passage of this bipartisan measure with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of the bill. Such debates are for another time and other bills.

I urge all Senators to join together to protect the most vulnerable victims of violence, including battered immigrant women assisting law enforcement, Native American women who suffer in record numbers, and those who have traditionally had trouble accessing services.

A victim is a victim is a victim. They all deserve our attention and the protection and access to services the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill provides.

The path forward is to reject the Republican proposal, which is no alternative to the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill. Let us move forward together to meet the unmet needs of victims.

I would just say that the Leahy-Crapo bill does not eliminate the focus on violence against women; it protects women, unlike the Republican proposal which strips out so many aspects.

Our bill is inclusive. Theirs is exclusive. A victim is a victim is a victim. We do not exclude anybody. As the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said earlier today: They do not ask who the victim is when there is a victim.

With my remaining time, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and the remaining time to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

Madam President, we are about to vote. This is a time for both Republicans and Democrats to come together and say what we all know in our heart: We oppose violence against women. Let's say it not just in our heart, let's say it in legislation--good legislation.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Madam President, which is the first amendment to be considered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we have been able to get very good progress on the rape kit backlogs in the Leahy-Crapo bill. I wish we had passed the Klobuchar amendment. The Cornyn amendment is well intentioned, but it will undermine, rather than enhance, the progress we have made.

The Cornyn amendment will divert funding from the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog reduction program. Let me repeat: It will divert funding from the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog reduction program to create an unwieldy national database of rape kits. It could force State and local law enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous and illogical reporting requirements instead of actually responding to calls and investigating sexual assault cases.

Key victims' groups have opposed it, saying all the things it adds in here--the things we have taken care of to help victims--would actually hurt them. It creates new mandatory minimum penalties that victims' groups say will have the opposite effect of what we want by deterring abused women from reporting violence and sexual assault crimes. And I strongly oppose it.

Mr. President, the reason why so many people across the political spectrum support the Leahy-Crapo bill and the reason they oppose this amendment is it is going to remove the historic emphasis of women in VAWA. The improvements we have made in the bipartisan Leahy- Crapo bill are gone from the Republican proposal. There is only one real Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, and this is not it. It undermines core principles. It abandons some of the most vulnerable victims. It strips key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims, including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims of same-sex relationships.

I hope my colleagues will strongly and roundly defeat this alternative. It guts the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization.

Mr. President, I wish to commend and thank Senator Klobuchar, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, and Senator Cantwell for their outstanding statements earlier today in support of our bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Their contributions to the bill and their leadership have been essential. They have spoken often and consistently about this legislative priority. They bring their experiences and years of work on these matters to this effort.

I also wish to commend the statements made by Senators from both sides of the aisle yesterday as the Senate began consideration of the bill. I have always enjoyed working with the senior Senator from Texas and recall how we worked together to pass our Amber Alert legislation in record time. As I have said, we have included the Klobuchar- Hutchison provision updating Federal antistalking legislation in our bill from the outset. I appreciate her saying that she ``is going to support'' the Leahy-Crapo bill. Likewise, I

have supported giving the Republican proposal a Senate vote, although I have explained why I will vote against it.

I thought the statements by the majority leader, Senator Begich, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Tester, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Schumer, as well as Senator Heller were strong and compelling.

We now have the opportunity to consider our amendment to improve upon the bill. Our amendment continues to focus on protecting victims. By way of our amendment, we can fix a ``scoring'' problem by adding an offset for the measures in the bill that the Congressional Budget Office determined after its technical analysis would result in affecting budget. That amendment should keep the measure budget neutral. We also are pleased to include provisions suggested by Senators Murkowski and Begich to correct the manner in which Alaska is affected by the tribal provisions in the bill. We worked with them on the initial language and are pleased to continue that bipartisan cooperation. These are additional steps we can take to make sure we pass the best possible legislation we can.

It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Crapo over the last many months to reauthorize and improve the Violence Against Women Act. We have been committed to an open, bipartisan process for this legislation from the beginning. This amendment I am offering continues that process and incorporates further important suggestions we have received from both sides of the aisle.

The substitute makes modest changes to the tribal provisions to further protect the rights of defendants. These changes are in response to concerns raised by Senator Kyl and others, and I am happy to make them. The substitute also responds to concerns raised by Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich about the legislation's impact on Alaska Native villages. Again, I am pleased to be able to address those concerns. The bill is stronger for it.

The substitute also incorporates national security protections at the request of Senator Feinstein.

We also add a small fee for applications for diversity visas that will more than cover the modest costs of protecting additional battered immigrants who assist law enforcement. This addition renders the bill deficit neutral and alleviates budget concerns. It, too, makes the legislation stronger.

The amendment strengthens the campus provision of the legislation while responding to concerns that the bill might have inadvertently affected burdens of proof in campus proceedings. I thank Senator Casey for working with us on this aspect of the amendment.

These are very modest changes, but every one reflects our continued commitment to listening to those who work with victims of domestic and sexual violence every day and to working with Senators of both parties to make the legislation stronger. The legislation came to the floor with 61 Senators, including 8 Republicans, as cosponsors. These adjustments should make it even more of a consensus bill.

I have been heartened by the constructive tone of debate on the floor of the Senate and the near universal support for reauthorizing VAWA. Let's continue this consensus, bipartisan process by passing this amendment and then adopting the bill with these improvements. Let's pass this reauthorization. As Congress faces unrelenting criticism for gridlock and dysfunction, our reauthorizing VAWA in a bipartisan way that helps all victims of domestic and sexual violence is an example of the Senate at its best. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

As we proceed to vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, I look forward to a strong bipartisan vote. I thank the majority leader and the Republican leader for their work to bring us to this point. I commend the Senators from both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring us to this. In particular I thank my partner in this effort, Senator Crapo, and our bipartisan cosponsors. I also commend Senator Murray and Senator Murkowski who have been so instrumental in helping both sides arrive at a fair process for considering amendments and proceeding without unnecessary delays.

The Violence Against Women Act continues to send a powerful message that violence against women is a crime, and it will not be tolerated. It is helping transform the law enforcement response and provide services to victims all across the country. We are right to renew our commitment to the victims who are helped by this critical legislation and to extend a hand to those whose needs have remained unmet.

As we have done in every VAWA authorization, this bill takes steps to improve the law and meet unmet needs. We recognize those victims who we have not yet reached and find ways to help them. This is what we have always done. As I have said many times the past several weeks, a victim is a victim is a victim. We are reaching out to help all victims. I am proud that the legislation Senator Crapo and I introduced seeks to protect all victims--women, children, and men, immigrants and native born, gay and straight, Indian and non-Indian. They all deserve our attention and the protection and access to services our bill provides.

I have said since we started the process of drafting this legislation that the Violence Against Women Act is an example of what the Senate can accomplish when we work together. I have worked hard to make this reauthorization process open and democratic. Senator Crapo and I have requested input from both sides of the aisle, and we have incorporated many changes to this legislation suggested by Republican as well as Democratic Senators.

Our bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country and from all political persuasions. We worked with them to craft a bill that responds to the needs they see in the field. That is why every one of the provisions in the bill has such widespread support. That is why more than 1000 national, State, and local organizations support our bill.

I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill has had from the beginning, and I want to commend our 61 cosponsors. I commend our eight Republicans for their willingness to work across party lines.

I cannot overstate the important role played by Senators Murray, Murkowski, Mikulski, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Boxer, Hagan, Shaheen, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Collins, Snowe, and Ayotte in this process. The work these women Senators have done in shaping the legislation, and supporting it here on the Senate floor, as well as back home in their States, has helped create the urgency needed to get a bill passed. They are among the strongest supporters of our bill, and the bill is better for their efforts. I also appreciate the gracious comments Senator Hutchison made about the Leahy-Crapo bill, and I am encouraged by her now joining with us to pass the bill.

I also want to thank the many members of the Judiciary Committee who helped draft various provisions in the bill. Senators Kohl, Durbin, Schumer, Franken, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Coons, and Blumenthal offered significant contributions.

The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of many dedicated staffers. I would like to thank in particular Anya McMurray, Noah Bookbinder, Ed Chung, Erica Chabot, Liz Aloi, Matt Smith, Kelsey Kobelt, Tara Magner, Ed Pagano, John Dowd and Bruce Cohen from my staff.

I know the staff of Senator Grassley has put in significant time on this legislation as well. I thank Kolan Davis, Fred Ansell, and Kathy Neubel for their efforts.

I also commend the hardworking Senate floor staff, Tim Mitchell and Trish Engle, and the staffs of other Senators who I know have worked hard on this legislation, including Erik Stegman, Wendy Helgemo, Josh Riley, Ken Flanz, Susan Stoner, Nate Bergerbest, Kristi Williams, Stacy

Rich, Mike Spahn, Serena Hoy, Bill Dauster, and Gary Myrick.

Most importantly, I thank the many individuals, organizations, and coalitions that have helped with this effort. I thank the Vermonters who have helped inform me and this legislation, Karen Tronsgard-Scott of the Vermont Network to End Domestic and Sexual Violence and Jane Van Buren with Women Helping Battered Women. And I thank all those involved with the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, Casa de Esperanza, Futures Without Violence, Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Center for Victims of Crime, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, National Congress of American Indians Taskforce on Violence Against Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, SCESA, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Resource Sharing Project of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, YWCA USA, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, NAACP, Mayors of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, the National Sheriff's Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, FLEOA, National Center for State Courts, National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of Women Judges, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Faith Groups, and so many more for their focus on the victims and their unmet needs.

This is an example of what the Senate can do when we put aside rhetoric and partisanship. I believe that if Senators, Members of the House, Americans from across the country take an honest look at the provisions in our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, they will find them to be commonsense measures that we all can support. Sixty-one Senators have already reached this conclusion. I hope more will join us and the Senate can promptly pass and Congress can promptly enact the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

I thank the bipartisan coalition that has come together on this. Most importantly, the coalition across the political spectrum that is so opposed to violence against women will thank us for passing this bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back all time on our side.

I move to reconsider the vote.