Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2013. It is identical to the bill that she and I have introduced in prior years, and I commend her for her persistence on this important humanitarian issue. I come to this issue having devoted much effort over many years to shining a spotlight on and doing what can be done to help innocent victims of war. In the last century, and continuing into this new century, noncombatants increasingly have borne the brunt of the casualties in armed conflicts across the globe. Limiting the use of weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, such as landmines, and that have indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions, are tangible, practical, meaningful things we can do to reduce these unnecessary casualties. Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have some military utility. But anyone who has seen the indiscriminate devastation that cluster munitions cause over wide areas understands the unacceptable threat they pose to noncombatants. These are not the laser guided weapons the Pentagon showed destroying their targets during the invasion of Baghdad. To the contrary. Cluster munitions can kill and maim anyone within the 360 degree range of flying shrapnel. There is the horrific problem of cluster munitions that fail to explode as designed and remain as active duds, like landmines, until they are triggered by whoever comes into contact with them. Often it is an unsuspecting child, or a farmer. Even now, in Laos today people are still being killed and maimed by millions of U.S. cluster munitions left from the 1970s. That legacy, resulting from years of secret bombing of a peaceful, agrarian people who posed no threat to the United States, contaminated more than a third of Laos' agricultural land and cost countless innocent lives. It is shameful that we have contributed less in the past 35 years to clean up these deadly remnants of war than we spent in a few days of bombing. Current law prohibits U.S. sales, exports and transfers of cluster munitions that have a failure rate exceeding 1 percent. The law also requires any sale, export or transfer agreement to include a requirement that the cluster munitions will be used only against military targets. The Pentagon continues to insist that the United States should retain the ability to use millions of cluster munitions in its arsenal which have estimated failure rates of 5 to 20 percent. It has pledged to meet the 1 percent failure rate for U.S. use of cluster munitions in 2018. Like Senator Feinstein I reject the notion that the United States can justify using antiquated weapons that so often fail, so often kill and injure innocent people including children, and which many of our allies have renounced. That is not the kind of leadership the world needs and expects from the United States. If we have learned anything from Afghanistan it is that harming civilians, even unintentionally, creates enemies among those whose support we need, and undermines the mission of our troops. Senator Feinstein's and my bill would apply the 1 percent failure rate to U.S. use of cluster munitions beginning on the date of enactment. However, our bill permits the President to waive the 1 percent requirement if the President certifies that it is vital to protect the security of the United States. I would hope the Pentagon would recognize that this is in its best interest, and will work with us by supporting this reasonable step. Since December 3, 2008, when the Convention on Cluster Munitions opened for signature in Dublin, at least 111 countries have signed the treaty including Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Norway, Australia and other allies of the United States. However, the Bush Administration did not participate in the negotiations that culminated in the treaty, and the Obama Administration has not signed it. Some have dismissed the Cluster Munitions Convention as a pointless exercise, since it does not yet have the support of the United States and other major powers such as Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel. These are some of the same critics of the Ottawa treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, which the United States and the other countries I named have also refused to sign. But that treaty has dramatically reduced the number of landmines produced, used, sold, and stockpiled--and the number of mine victims has fallen sharply. Any government that contemplates using landmines today does so knowing that it will be condemned by the international community. I suspect it is only a matter of time before the same is true for cluster munitions. It is important to note that the United States today has the technological ability to produce cluster munitions that meet the requirements of our bill, as well as of the treaty. What is lacking is the political will to act. There is no excuse for continuing to use cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. I urge the Obama administration to review its policy on cluster munitions and put the United States on a path to join the treaty as soon as possible. In the meantime, our legislation would be an important step in the right direction. I want again to thank and commend Senator Feinstein, who has shown such passion and steadfastness in raising this issue and seeking every opportunity to protect civilians from these indiscriminate weapons.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for allowing me to go first. I assure him I will be very brief. I know the distinguished Senator from Washington State is here. She has an interest in what I am going to say because of her very strong support of the Violence Against Women bill. Earlier this month, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the chamber to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with a strong bipartisan vote. I am happy to report that the House of Representatives just passed the Senate-passed bill. This vital legislation will now go to the President, and it will be signed into law. It will help victims of rape and domestic violence and victims of human trafficking who could not wait another day for us to act. This action of Congress will prevent terrible crimes and help countless victims rebuild their lives. Today Congress showed that we still can act in a bipartisan way. I thank Senator Crapo for being my partner on this legislation from the beginning, and I was glad when he and Senator Murkowski, another steadfast supporter, joined me on a bipartisan letter earlier this week asking Speaker Boehner to pass this legislation to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence. Today, the House followed the Senate's example, and listened to the call from thousands of survivors of violence and law enforcement by passing this fully-inclusive, life- saving legislation with a bipartisan vote. We made the Violence Against Women Act our top priority this Congress but it should not have taken this long. Our bill was written with the input of law enforcement, victims, and the people who work with victims every day to address real needs. None of the commonsense changes it included should have been controversial. Still, at a time when we face gridlock and stonewalling on even the most compelling issues, I am glad to see that we could find a way to cut through all of that to help victims of violence. This new law will make lives better. It will encourage and fund practices proven to help law enforcement and victim service providers reduce domestic violence homicides. It will lead to more investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual assault crimes and more services provided to victims of those crimes. It will also help eliminate backlogs of untested rape kits to help those victims receive justice and security promptly. This reauthorization, like every VAWA reauthorization before it, takes new steps to ensure that we can reach the most vulnerable victims whose needs are not being met. For the first time, it guarantees that all victims can receive needed services, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This law strengthens protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures that colleges and universities will do more to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization also takes important new steps to combat the appalling epidemic of domestic violence on tribal lands and to ensure that no perpetrators of this terrible crime are above the law. The bill that the President will sign also includes the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which continues and strengthens effective programs to help us take on the scourge of human trafficking. It is unacceptable that 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the evils of sex trafficking and labor trafficking, forms of modern day slavery, still exist around the world and even in the United States. It has been too difficult, but I am glad that Congress is finally acting once again to address trafficking. I will never forget going as a young prosecutor to crime scenes at 2:00 in the morning and seeing the victims of these awful crimes. As we worked on this bill, I heard the moving stories in hearings and rallies and meetings of those who survived true horrors and had the courage to share their stories in the hopes that others could be spared what they went through. We have finally come together to honor their courage and take the action they demanded. I thank the many Senators and Representatives of both parties who have helped to lead this fight, and the leadership of both Houses who have prioritized moving this vital legislation. I thank Representative Cole for his steadfast dedication to help preserve the protections for Native women. But most of all, I thank the tireless victims, advocates, and service providers who have given so much of themselves to ensure that this legislation would pass and that, when it did, it would make a real difference. Lives will be better because of their work and because of this law. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this week, I shared with the Senate the consequences of sequestration for the budget of the Department of State and foreign operations and its impact on the security of the United States. Funding for the entire Department of State and foreign operations budget amounts to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget, not the 15 or 20 percent some mistakenly believe. That 1 percent includes funding to operate our embassies and consulates in over 290 countries, to carry out diplomacy in dangerous environments like Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, respond to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with security and trading partners. Sequestration would harm these efforts by cutting assistance for diplomatic security at a time when everyone agrees we need to do more to protect our Foreign Service officers overseas. On the development side, sequestration will mean cuts to global health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for vaccines for children, protect maternal health, and combat malaria and tuberculosis. It will also mean reductions for funding for disaster and refugee aid at a time when an increasing number of victims of drought, famine, and extremist violence around the world need assistance. As has been pointed out repeatedly, sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it would have such catastrophic consequences that rational minds would replace it with a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction. That has not happened. To the contrary, just 1 day before the sequester is to take effect, our friends on the other side of the aisle, who favor cutting government programs and particularly those that help the neediest, seem to have decided that they would rather see sequestration take effect rather than close tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and pad growing corporate profits. However, as President Obama and others have been warning for weeks, allowing these Draconian cuts to go into effect tomorrow will have a tremendously negative impact on jobs all across the country and on essential services provided by our government. The American people elected us to come to Washington to work together and make tough decisions. It is well past time for a certain amount of reasonableness to come back to Congress. I have always believed that a balanced approach of pairing decreased spending with increased revenues is a far better way to deal with our budget deficits than sequestration. That is what we did with President Clinton in the 1990s, and we saw record budget surpluses. We simply cannot cut our way out of this deficit. We created this situation partly by putting two wars on the Nation's credit card. We already have reduced the debt by $2.5 trillion, with the vast majority of those savings coming from spending cuts. Just as most private businesses adjust their prices prudently over time, we cannot finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. We must understand that even in these difficult budgetary times we cannot sacrifice the future of critical Federal programs in education, in health care, and in national security that affect hard-working families across the country, every single day. The American people want and expect us to take a balanced approach. They know it isn't wise to protect endless corporate loopholes and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in our schools, our factories, our roads, and our workers. Yes, they want us to get our books in order-- but in a balanced way where everyone pulls equally. Today the Senate has the opportunity to avoid this devastating sequester by voting for the American Family Economic Protection Act, which does just that. This balanced legislation will delay sequestration by replacing it with a combination of new revenues and targeted spending cuts. These spending cuts would reduce the deficit in a responsible way, eliminating unnecessary direct payments and farm subsidies and implementing reasonable and responsible defense spending reductions beginning when the war in Afghanistan is expected to end. This legislation would also generate revenue, equal to the amount of spending cuts included, by eliminating oil industry tax loopholes, denying deductions to companies that ship jobs overseas, and ensuring that millionaires do not pay a smaller share of their incomes in taxes than the typical middle-class family. The American Family Economic Protection Act provides us with a clear, balanced proposal that would avoid the devastation of sequestration. I look forward to the opportunity to support this responsible approach to deficit reduction and hope all Senators will join me in doing the same. If we choose to not act responsibly and do not pass this legislation today, I am afraid sequestration will go forward and would mean devastating cuts around the country and for Vermont. Without action, sequestration would mean that Vermont schools would lose more than $2.5 million for primary and secondary education and the education of children with disabilities, while putting the jobs of teachers and aides at risk. Vermont would stand to lose more than $1 million in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. Vermont would lose roughly $2.6 million in funding for medical research and innovation funding from NIH and $400,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation, costing the State 53 jobs. Vermont would lose funding for the grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. Sequestration would mean Vermont would lose $101,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning 3,700 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment, just when they need it most. In Vermont, sequestration would impact public health. Fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations. Across-the-board cuts mean Vermont will lose about $270,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 500 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Vermont Department of Health will lose about $55,000 resulting in around 1,400 fewer HIV tests. Sequestration would mean the state would lose funding used to provide meals for seniors and services to victims of domestic violence. If we do not pass the American Family Economic Protection Act today, our States will lose funding for community development block grants and housing vouchers helping to put a roof over families' heads, we will lose funding for cancer screenings, childcare, and Head Start programs helping to get our Nation's children ready for school. We cannot afford to allow this self-inflicted devastation move to forward. The bottom line is that getting our fiscal house in order must go hand in hand with policies that promote economic growth, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class--all things that President Obama and Democrats in both Houses of Congress are eager to do if only we had more cooperation from our friends across the aisle. We simply cannot cut our way out of this. We cannot allow an unbalanced approach that would once again require that deficit reduction be achieved solely through spending cuts, and would disproportionately impact low-income Americans and middle-class families. And we should not allow politics and posturing to dictate our actions here today. The American people expect more from us. I hope the Senate will end the filibuster of this legislation and allow an up-or-down vote so that we can show our constituents that we are capable of putting the interests of the Nation first.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, tomorrow we will begin commemoration of Women's History Month--an annual occasion to celebrate and honor the many contributions of women to American history, culture, and society. Since our Nation's founding, generations of women have fought injustice and broken down barriers at home, in the workplace, and in their communities in pursuit of the American dream. During Women's History Month, we remember these struggles, celebrate our collective progress, and renew our commitment to protecting the rights of all women. Earlier this month, the Senate came together in the best tradition of the Chamber to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with a strong bipartisan vote. This bill would not have passed without the strong leadership and support of every woman currently serving in the Senate. And today the House of Representatives passed our bipartisan bill to help survivors of rape, domestic violence, stalking, and human trafficking. On the eve of Women's History month, Congress's actions will prevent terrible crimes and help countless victims rebuild their lives. A few days from now, on March 3, 2013, we will mark the centennial celebration of the 1913 women's suffrage procession--a watershed moment in the struggle for women's right to vote. On March 3, 1913--the eve of the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson--more than 5,000 women from every State in the Union assembled in Washington, DC, to march for the right to vote. They did so in the face of widespread opposition to their cause, and some were hospitalized after violence erupted along the parade route. A century later, this courageous public act is recognized as the key turning point that led to the ratification of the 19th amendment to the Constitution, giving women the right to vote in 1920. In the coming days, we will witness the arc of American history, as thousands of women retrace the steps of the heroines of 1913, by reenacting the Women's Suffrage March. This ``Centennial Women's Suffrage March'' will be led by the women of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated--the only African-American women's organization to participate in the 1913 march. I commend Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, UniteWomen.org, the American Association of University Women, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the many other women's organizations that will join forces to reenact this historic event. I also commend the many government and private sector institutions that will support this event, including the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Park Service, the National Women's History Museum, and the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Like the many Americans who will commemorate the women's suffrage march this weekend, I celebrate the progress that we have made towards justice, fairness, and equality for women--and for all of our citizens. But, while we have made remarkable strides towards gender equality, gender discrimination still exists. According to a recent study by the American Association of University of Women, full-time working women who are recent college graduates earn, on average, just 82 percent of what their male counterparts earn in the workplace. This gender wage gap directly affects the economic stability of American families. A Center for American Progress report on women in the workplace found that in 2010 nearly two-thirds of all American mothers were either the primary breadwinner for their family or shared that financial responsibility with a spouse or a partner. As we celebrate Women's History Month, the courageous acts of the American heroines of 1913 should inspire us all to work to eliminate the gender inequalities that still exist in our society today. I join all Americans in celebrating the countless contributions of women to our Nation's history and culture and in working towards a more just and fair society for future generations of American women and girls.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland and commend the very energetic way she has taken on her new responsibilities as Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She has played a leading role in educating other Senators and the American people about the real impacts of sequestration. While most of the media has focused on the projected consequences for programs and jobs here at home, there are also consequences for the budget of the Department of State and foreign operations, which is directly related to the national security of the United States. It might interest people to know that the entire Department of State and foreign operations budget amounts to one percent of the Federal budget, not the 15 or 20 percent many mistakenly believe. That one percent is what we have to operate our embassies and consulates in over 290 countries, to process visas, carry out diplomacy, respond to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with security and trading partners. There are dozens of examples of how sequestration would harm these efforts, but I will mention just three: Cuts in diplomatic security at a time when everyone agrees we need to do more to protect our Foreign Service Officers overseas. Funding for local guards, diplomatic security personnel, and embassy security would be reduced by $181 million from the current level. This would force the Department of State to choose between reducing the number of local guards at overseas posts, delaying maintenance at existing facilities, or postponing construction of secure facilities to replace those that do not meet current safety standards at a time of increasing attacks against U.S. overseas diplomatic posts. Global Health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for vaccines for children, women's health, and to combat malaria and tuberculosis, would be cut by $468 million from the current level. A reduction of this size would end life-saving drugs to more than 165,000 people infected with the AIDS virus. It would result in thousands more deaths from malaria. Tens of thousands of people infected with TB will not receive treatment. And the health of millions of Americans who travel, study, work, and serve in our Armed Forces around the world would be put at greater risk. Funding for disaster and refugee aid would be cut by $156 million from the current levels. With 750,000 Syrian refugees and 5,000 fleeing the country each day, now is not the time to cut these programs. Other funds to help victims of drought, famine, and extremist violence in Mali, Somalia, and Sudan, and to prevent those crises from getting worse, will also be cut. These are just a few examples of the real world consequences, not only for the people of those countries but for the security of the United States. People need to know what is at stake. As has been pointed out repeatedly, sequestration was included in the Budget Control Act as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it would have such catastrophic consequences that rational minds would replace it with a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction. That has not happened. To the contrary, just days before the sequester is to take effect our friends in the minority party whose only answer is to slash government programs and particularly those that help the neediest, have apparently decided that sequestration is not so bad after all. Military Construction and Veterans Programs

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I have often said, Mr. President, that the Senate is supposed to be, it can be, and often is the conscience of the Nation. Well, we became the conscience of the Nation 2 weeks ago when Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to pass the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. We made protection of these victims our top priority. After compromise and extensive negotiations, we set partisanship aside and came together. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act will provide immeasurable help to all victims of domestic violence and of rape throughout our country and to victims of human trafficking in the United States and around the world. The Senate passed it with an appropriate show of bipartisan unity. A majority of Republican Senators voted for our bill, as did every woman elected to this body and every single Democratic Senator and the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. My amendment adding significant human trafficking legislation passed with the support of 93 Senators. Senators from across the political spectrum have shown that stopping domestic and sexual violence in the most effective way possible is an issue above politics. I mention this not to pat ourselves on the back but to say that, in contrast to this action where Republicans and Democrats came together to protect women in this country, the House leadership is poised to once again take a different route. Tomorrow they are scheduled to substitute our bipartisan bill with a partisan alternative that leaves vulnerable victims without protection and mires our efforts in partisan politics, which delays getting help to victims. I hope they reconsider this ill- conceived approach. The overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate for the VAWA reauthorization Senator Crapo and I introduced sent a powerful message to survivors of violence. But this bill is about so much more than sending a message. It includes real, meaningful additions to the law to fill gaps and address needs that law enforcement, victims, and the service providers who work with victims every day have identified for us. None of these provisions are about politics. They are about preventing terrible crimes and helping the survivors of violence. The Senate-passed bill takes new steps to prevent domestic violence homicides. It will increase the focus of law enforcement and victim service providers on rape and sexual assault crimes that too often slip through the cracks. It will take needed steps to address the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities and to increase protections for vulnerable immigrant victims. It ensures access to services for LGBT victims who experience domestic and sexual violence at rates at least as high as the rest of the population but often have no place to go for help. Our bill strengthens protections on campuses, where too many students experience devastating violence instead of the wonderful experience of learning and growth that we all wish for our children. It includes new bipartisan measures to ensure that rape kits are promptly tested so that victims no longer live for years in fear when the perpetrators could be identified and taken off the streets. Our bill would give law enforcement and service providers new tools to crack down on sex trafficking and labor trafficking and help the victims of these appalling crimes. These common sense provisions will make a real difference in so many lives. The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is putting forward once again takes a tragically different approach. Instead of taking up legislation developed over years of work with victims and those who help them, they have presented a version put together by a few here in Washington. For reasons I cannot understand, they have jettisoned the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act altogether and stripped provisions developed by Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and me to take meaningful steps to reduce the backlog of untested DNA evidence in rape kits. Those provisions could help victims and could help law enforcement keep our communities safe. The House substitute drastically weakens protections for vulnerable victims. It eliminates key protections intended to keep college students safer. It fails to include meaningful language to ensure that LGBT victims can get the same help as any other victims. For immigrant victims, the House substitute actually adds new hurdles that would make it harder for victims to help law enforcement and receive assistance. It adds new burdens and loopholes to protections for Native women who experience domestic violence at horrific rates. The House substitute would continue to allow the most aggressive abusers of native women to escape justice since the most that could be charged in tribal courts would be a misdemeanor. That is not justice for the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence. I have been working on this legislation for years. During the last year we have amended and tweaked its language many times to accommodate the requests of various Republicans who support the effort. I stand ready to work with House leadership and have reached out to Speaker Boehner several times. I have not heard from House leadership once this year. I appreciate the efforts of such conservative House Republicans as Congressmen Tom Cole and Darrell Issa, who have tried to find common ground with reasonable compromise approaches to the tribal provisions. I know there are many others in the House of Representatives who believe that we must reauthorize and reinvigorate the Violence Against Women Act so that it protects all victims. It is not too late for others in the House to follow their lead and come together to pass a meaningful reform that protects all victims. The poor substitute the Republican House leadership is proposing will disappoint the community of violence survivors and those of us who are trying to prevent further violence by passing needed protections. If the House leadership were serious about getting the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and protecting our most vulnerable victims against rape, sexual violence, stalking, and human trafficking, they would simply take up the Senate bill. So many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents here support it and passed that bill. I don't understand this picking and choosing about who is going to be considered a victim. I have said this so many times on this floor, I almost wonder if anybody hears it, but, as many other Senators have, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor before I came here. I went to a lot of very violent crime scenes at 2 and 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and some of them I remember almost as graphically as if it were yesterday, with a victim of severe violence, often dead, there on the floor. The police never said: Well, we have to find out if this victim is gay or straight, if this victim is Native American or an immigrant. No, they knew that a victim was a victim was a victim. If somebody has been treated that way, a crime has been committed, and the police want to find out who committed the crime and stop them before they do it again. Back then, we didn't have anything like the Violence Against Women Act--an act which has protected so many people before they could become a victim, and which provides the tools to prevent this sort of victimization. I think of some of the victims I saw, sometimes in the morgue, and I know if we had something like our Violence Against Women Act at that time, they would be alive today. So let's put aside gamesmanship and let's worry about the real victims in this country. None of us here will face the horrendous things these women go through, but we can help stop these horrendous things from happening to them, and we should do that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. This week, the country is facing indiscriminate across- the-board cuts from sequestration if Congress does not come to an agreement. The automatic cuts that will otherwise occur are in the tens of billions of dollars at a time when our economy is finally recovering but remains fragile. Among those who will have to endure these cuts are the overburdened Federal courts that are already suffering from longstanding vacancies that number almost 90. Budgetary cuts will mean more difficulty for the American people to get speedy justice from our Federal justice system. According to the sequestration report released by the Office of Management and Budget, the sequestration would lead to a $555 million reduction for our Federal courts. Despite their higher caseloads and the needs of the American people, the courts' funding will be capped at a level last utilized 6 years ago. This could result in elimination of nearly one third of the courts' staff, as many as 6,300 employees, or month-long furloughs system wide. The sequester will result in cuts that will force courts to hear fewer cases and hear them more slowly. Court proceedings will be delayed. Some 30,000 civil cases have already been pending for more than 3 years and this will only exacerbate the problems of delay. Sequestration cuts could even result in the suspension of civil jury trials in some courts. And consider that if probation and pretrial services offices are affected, that can mean that defendants in pretrial release and those convicted but not in prison may not be properly supervised. Sequestration is bad for the courts, bad for the economy and bad for the American people. Today, after an unprecedented filibuster, Senate Republicans will finally allow a vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judge Bacharach should be a consensus nominee. He received the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest possible rating of well qualified. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last year and, again, this year. Despite his experience, qualifications and bipartisan support, he was filibustered by Senate Republicans since July last year. The filibuster of his nomination, which was supported by the Oklahoma Senators who had previously supported the nomination and who will likely reverse themselves again and support confirmation today, was the ne plus ultra of an unprecedented campaign of obstruction Senate Republicans have waged against President Obama's judicial nominees. That obstruction has spread to executive nominees, as well, including the nomination of Chuck Hagel, a recent Republican Senator from Nebraska whose nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense was filibustered earlier this month. Judge Bacharach is the kind of nominee who every Senator should support. Over his 13-year career as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Oklahoma, he has handled nearly 3,000 civil and criminal matters, presided over 400 judicial settlement conferences, and issued more than 1,600 reports and recommendations. As an attorney in private practice, he tried 10 cases to verdict, argued two cases before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and briefed scores of other cases to the Tenth Circuit and the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Judge Bacharach's judicial colleagues in the Western District of Oklahoma stand strongly behind his nomination. Vicki Miles-LaGrange, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, has said of Judge Bacharach: He is an outstanding jurist and my colleagues and I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend him for the Tenth Circuit position. . . . We knew that we were lucky to have Bob as a Magistrate Judge, and he's been remarkable in this position for over 12 years. He is an absolutely great Magistrate Judge. His research and writing are excellent, his temperament is superb, his preparation is top-notch, and he is a wonderful colleague to all of the judges and in general to the entire court family. . . . All of the other judges and I--Republicans and Democrats alike--enthusiastically and wholeheartedly recommend Judge Bob Bacharach for the Tenth Circuit position. All of us believe very strongly that Judge Bacharach would be a superb choice for the position. Throughout the careful and deliberate process in which Judge Bacharach has been thoroughly vetted, considered, and voted on by the Judiciary Committee, I have not heard a single negative word about him. There is no Senator who opposed his nomination on the merits. He was praised extensively by his home State Senators. Senator Inhofe has said of him: I believe Judge Bacharach would continue the strong service Oklahomans have provided the Tenth Circuit. Throughout his career and education, he's distinguished himself. In 2007, the Oklahoma City Journal Record profiled Judge Bacharach as an example of leadership in law, where he simply stated that as a future goal he intends to improve. Always working to improve has defined Judge Bacharach. . . . [H]is colleagues have characterized his service as remarkable, demonstrating superb judicial temperament, and a real asset to the Western District court family and legal community. Senator Coburn said: Judge Bacharach is well qualified for this position and has received widespread praise and hearty recommendations from Oklahomans, including members of academia and fellow members of the bar. . . . I believe that Judge Bacharach will uphold the highest standards and reflect the best in our American judicial tradition by coming to the bench as a well-regarded member of the community. At a time when our country seems as divided as ever, it is important that citizens respect members of the judiciary and are confident they will faithfully and impartially apply the law. . . . I believe Judge Bacharach would be an excellent addition to the Tenth Circuit. Unfortunately, along with 42 other Senate Republicans, Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn filibustered Judge Bacharach since last July. The people of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming have been needlessly denied his service as a Tenth Circuit judge for 7 months. Republican Senators in Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming could have prevented the filibuster but went along with the obstruction that served no good purpose and established another damaging precedent: Judge Bacharach is the first circuit court nominee to be filibustered who had received bipartisan support before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Coburn was quoted last year admitting: ``There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' There was none other than the obstruction of Senate Republicans. Their partisan obstruction was wrong, and it is damaging to our Nation's courts and the American people. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republicans' partisan obstruction. This obstruction has contributed to the damagingly high level of judicial vacancies that has persisted for over 4 years. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to speedy justice. While Senate Republicans delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 89 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration. The circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last four years fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term. Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's most extreme circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators as they unfairly short-circuited the process of consideration over and over again. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home state Senators and their rights have been fully protected in a fair consideration process. Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The average district court nominee is stalled 4.3 times longer and the average circuit court nominee is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. No other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Senate Republicans have also forced the Majority Leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already in 4 years 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's eight years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Fewer than 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's nominees at this point in their Presidencies. The record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies . . . This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads . . . There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address longstanding judicial vacancies, Senate Republicans have continued their unwarranted obstruction of judicial confirmations. In the case of Judge Bacharach, there was not even a pretense of any substantive concern--Senate Republicans just decided to shut down the confirmation process and contorted the ``Thurmond rule.'' At a time when judicial vacancies have again risen to almost 90, we must do more for our overburdened courts. It is past time for the partisan obstruction to end. We have a long way to go. After 4 years of delay and obstruction, we remain far behind the pace of confirmations we set during President Bush's administration, and there remain far too many judicial vacancies that make it harder for Americans to have their day in court. During President Bush's entire second term, the 4 years from 2004 through 2008, vacancies never exceeded 60. Since President Obama's first full month in office, and as far into the future as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. The Senate must do much more to fill these vacancies and make real progress. The Senate today will finally vote on the nomination of Robert Bacharach. He has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma since 1999. Previously, from 1987 to 1999, he was in private practice at the Oklahoma City law firm of Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. From 1985 to 1987, he served as a law clerk to Judge William J. Holloway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the same court to which he has been nominated. Judge Bacharach was twice reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote--last June and again this month. The Judiciary Committee has been working to vet, consider, and report nominees, and just before the recess we reported another dozen circuit and district nominees, all of whom had to be renominated from last year. The longest pending of these nominations is that of Caitlin Halligan, who the President first nominated to the D.C. Circuit back in 2010. At that time, there were already two vacancies on that court, a number which has now doubled to four. The purported justification for the partisan Republican filibuster of the Halligan nomination was that the circuit did not need another judge. The circuit is now more than one-third vacant and needs several, including Caitlin Halligan. I urge that the Senate act quickly on long-pending nominations. Further delay does not serve the interests of the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. If there is time remaining, I ask the time be equally divided.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Less than 7 years ago, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives joined together to reauthorize key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We explained and documented our findings that this landmark civil rights law was still needed because of continuing discrimination and to preserve the progress that had been made. Because of this extensive record and the acceptance of the Voting Rights Act's importance in our country, our 2006 reauthorization of this crucial law was marked by Members of Congress from both parties and from every corner of the Nation coming together to renew one of the cornerstones of American Democracy. It is a sad irony that on the same day we will be honoring Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks by unveiling her statue in the U.S. Capitol, the first full statue of an African American to stand in the halls of Congress, across the street the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments from those challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization named in part for her. In the pending case, the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge. Neither the words of the Constitution nor the importance of these critical provisions for protecting the right to vote has changed in the last four years. Under the specific words of the 14th and 15th Amendments, Congress has the power to remedy discrimination and enforce the Amendments by enacting laws that address racial discrimination in connection with voting. That is what we did nearly unanimously less than 7 years ago. And over the past year lower courts have repeatedly upheld both its constitutionality and its protections. In light of the lengthy court findings from just the last year, there can be no doubt that the operation of the Voting Rights Act is continuing to protect American voters from discrimination. In his historic ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed: ``When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.'' The Voting Rights Act is one of our most important means for enforcing this promise and upholding the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights and equal protection of the law. Reauthorizing and restoring the Voting Rights Act was the right thing to do, not only for those who fought and bled for its passage but also for those who come after us--our children and our grandchildren. We owe it to them to continue our commitment to this vital Act. No one's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America. As we celebrate Black History Month and the significant progress we have made as a Nation, let us not forget the promissory note to future generations and the continuing need for civil rights laws such as the Voting Rights Act. Our Nation has grown stronger since its Founding as more Americans have been able to exercise their right to vote. The actions taken by previous generations--through a Civil War, through Constitutional amendments, and through the long struggles of the civil rights movement--have worked to break down barriers that stood in the way of all Americans participating in our Democracy. It has not been an easy road. The pervasive discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. As a nation, this effort to ensure equal protection dates back more than 140 years to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. Yet, it took 95 years from the passage of the 15th Amendment and a historic struggle for civil rights for people of all races to begin the effective exercise of the rights guaranteed by that Amendment. The struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, when state troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were trying to exercise their civil rights. The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were a catalyst to the passage of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which finally ensured a century after the enactment of the Civil War amendments that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the political process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices. Prior to the Voting Rights Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. Section 5 provides a remedy for unconstitutional discrimination in voting by requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to ``pre-clear'' all voting changes with either the Justice Department or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This remedy combats the practice of covered jurisdictions shifting from one invalidated discriminatory voting tactic to another, which had undermined efforts to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment for nearly a century. In 2006, congressional leadership stood together on the steps of the Capitol to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act--an historic announcement in an era of intense partisanship. We came together in recognition that there are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. In sharp contrast to the tremendous resistance and bitter politics which met the initial enactment of the Voting Rights Act, our efforts in 2006 overcame objections through discussions, the hearing process and by developing an overwhelming record of justification for extension of the expiring provisions. The legislation contained specific findings about the need for reauthorization and concluded that without reauthorization the gains we have made would be undermined. Our efforts reached completion when President Bush signed the bill into law after a unanimous vote in the Senate and nearly unanimous vote in the House. At that time, I was the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the lead Democratic Senate sponsor of the reauthorization. Over the course of 19 hearings, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees developed a comprehensive record supporting the continuing need for a reauthorized and reinvigorated Voting Rights Act. In the Senate Judiciary Committee alone we received testimony from 46 witnesses, including a range of constitutional scholars, voting rights advocates, and Supreme Court practitioners, regarding the need for reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In addition, the Committee gathered and considered thousands of pages of testimony, articles, letters, and other evidence from these witnesses and other sources discussing these issues. This evidence, along with voluminous evidence gathered in the House--under the leadership of then-Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Mel Watt, John Conyers and John Lewis-- provided an overwhelming demonstration that Section 5 continues to be an effective and necessary tool for protecting minority voting rights. At the time the Senate voted, we had before us the House Committee Report, the full debate from the floor of the House of Representatives, including debate surrounding four substantive amendments to H.R. 9 that were all rejected, leading up to final passage of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization. Before we voted, I also provided the Senate with some of the extensive evidence received over several months of hearings in the Judiciary Committee about the persistence of discriminatory practices in Section 5 covered jurisdictions. The record gathered by the Judiciary Committee included three categories of evidence supporting the continuation of Section 5. First, we found evidence that even with Section 5 in place, covered jurisdictions continued to engage in recurring discriminatory tactics, often in subtle forms that play on racially polarized voting to deny the effectiveness of the votes cast by members of a particular race. Second, we found evidence that Section 5 provides an effective deterrent against bad practices in covered jurisdictions. Finally, we found evidence that Section 5 plays a vital role in securing the gains minority voters have achieved against the risk of backsliding. Most importantly, of course, at the time we voted, all Senators had before them the detailed findings in Section 2 of the legislation based on the record and all Senators endorsed those findings with their votes. For example, those findings explicitly include: Evidence of continued discrimination includ[ing] . . . the hundreds of objections interposed, requests for more information submitted followed by voting changes withdrawn from consideration by jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and section 5 enforcement actions undertaken by the Department of Justice in covered jurisdictions since 1982 that prevented election practices, such as annexation, at-large voting, and the use of multi- member districts, from being enacted to dilute minority voting strength; . . . the number of requests for declaratory judgments denied by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; [and] . . . the continued filing of section 2 cases that originated in covered jurisdiction . . . By passing the legislation, Congress adopted and reaffirmed these detailed findings, including Congress' determination that: [t]he continued evidence of racially polarized voting in each of the jurisdictions covered by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 demonstrates that racial and language minorities remain politically vulnerable, warranting the continued protection of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now some suggest that Section 5 should be a victim of its success. In my view abandoning a successful deterrent just because it works defies logic and common sense. When Congress finds an effective and constitutional way to prevent violations of the law, the courts must uphold it. In fact, since 1966, whenever the Supreme Court has reviewed or even cited to the Voting Rights Act, it has affirmed the Act as a valid exercise of congressional authority. That is what the Court rightly did again in 2009. Nothing we have seen in the time since Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 or since the Supreme Court again upheld Section 5 in 2009 has invalidated Congress' determination to reauthorize that critical remedy for racial discrimination in voting. In fact, the events of last year's election only serve to remind us anew of the continuing need for Section 5. Last year, panels of judges appointed by presidents of both parties found that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters in redistricting, and that Texas failed to demonstrate that its voter ID law does not impose greater burdens on minority voters. A separate panel of three Federal judges approved South Carolina's voter identification law under Section 5 starting this year, with judges appointed by Republican and Democratic Presidents noting that South Carolina legislators passed a less restrictive law than they desired specifically in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Without Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, worse laws would be in place and the fundamental rights of many Americans would be diminished. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important laws ever passed by Congress, transforming America by ushering the nation out of a history of discrimination into an era of greater inclusion. The Act has been a tremendous source of protection for the voting rights of those long discriminated against and a great deterrent against discriminatory efforts cropping up anew. As we celebrate Black History Month, we should reflect not only on how far we have come, but how far we still must travel to truly secure the guarantees of the Constitution for all Americans. Ensuring that all Americans are able to vote and have their vote counted should be an issue of concern to Democrats and Republicans, and a matter of conscience for all of us regardless of political party. That is how it was in 2006, when members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, stood together on the Capitol steps to reaffirm our commitment to full democratic participation by reauthorizing the key expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am confident that this week when the Justices review the substantial record relied upon by America's elected representatives in Congress, they will again do the right thing. Congress is at the height of its power when giving enforceable meaning to the 14th and the 15th amendments. That is what Congress did when passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and what we did when we voted nearly unanimously to extend the vital remedies of Section 5 in 2006. Now the Supreme Court is called upon to respect the role of Congress by upholding this vital civil rights legislation as it rightly did in 2009. There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for the protection of the Voting Rights Act. Now is no time for backsliding. Now is the time to renew our commitment to the right to vote for all Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud what Senator Levin has said about Senator Hagel. If you made a list of the qualifications of the perfect Secretary of Defense, it would look like the resume of Chuck Hagel. If you look past the partisan posturing of some, I think the American public supports his confirmation as Secretary of Defense. I worry that this partisan posturing adds to the low opinion Americans have of both the House and Senate. This is not the way we should be doing the country's business. I strongly support the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense and urge all Senators to support him. We are at a time of fiscal austerity. We all understand that. But we need a leader at the Pentagon, one who understands what it takes to maintain the strongest military force in the world. Senator Hagel is a former enlisted soldier. He understands defense policy and practice from the ground up. He is the leader we need as Secretary of Defense. He is experienced by any measure. Like thousands of people he will lead at the Pentagon, he has earned a combat infantryman's badge. These qualifications are not abstract. He has two Purple Hearts from combat service in Vietnam. He still carries shrapnel in his body from those injuries. On any issue having to do with the U.S. military, I have long valued the firsthand experience of Chuck Hagel. But this service alone is not what makes him qualified. He has been a leader in the public and private sectors. He cofounded Vanguard Cellular Systems, a successful cellular carrier in the 1980s and 1990s. He was president and CEO of the USO and the chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit. He served as president of an investment bank, on the boards of some of the world's largest companies, and as a two-term U.S. Senator. He is clearly a qualified nominee. Since his nomination was announced last month, some have questioned Senators Hagel's position on a number of issues--notably, his support for Israel. Well, as recently as his confirmation hearings, he has reaffirmed his long record of support for Israel. In January, Danny Ayalon, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, affirmed what he sees as Senator Hagel's commitment to the unique U.S.-Israeli relationship. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Hagel supported the authorization of almost $40 billion in aid to Israel. In a 2008 book, Senator Hagel wrote that, ``there will always be a special and historic bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel's defense.'' He also wrote that that there can be no compromise on Israel's identity as a Jewish state. He has affirmed the U.S. commitment to Israel's security and Israel's right to defend itself against aggression. These are just a few examples, but by any objective measure, Senator Hagel is committed to the mutual interests of the United States and Israel. Attacks suggesting that Senator Hagel is soft on Iran are also baseless. Through all my conversations with Senator Hagel, I have never once doubted his belief in the President's responsibility to build alliances and exhaust all available means to achieve our foreign policy goals through diplomacy. But he also believes that aggressive actions by us against a foreign government should be strategic. There is not a shred of evidence to support claims that he supports a nuclear Iran, or that he does not support the President's efforts--unilateral or multilateral--to bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear program. He has reaffirmed that he believes in keeping all options on the table, including force if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Senator Hagel supports the sanctions against Iran already in place. He has affirmed the need to keep military action on the table. He supported the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006. Any assertion that Senator Hagel accepts Iran's nuclear program is false. Then there are the bogus, inflammatory claims that Senator Hagel is soft on terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has not hesitated to call Hezbollah and Hamas what they are--terrorist organizations. He condemned Iran's support of Hezbollah and cosponsored the Senate resolution demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. He also supported the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, a multilateral effort to force Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm itself, and accept prior agreements with Israel. I have traveled with Senator Hagel to different parts of the world, combat areas and areas of great security concern to the United States. I have sat in meetings with him as he spoke with our military and intelligence officials. Please excuse me if I am somewhat vague, since most of these meetings were of a highly classified nature, but I can say this: he asked tough questions and always kept the security interests of the United States foremost at hand with both U.S. security officials and also with the leaders of other countries. Senators who were with us of both parties commented to me afterward how impressed they were with the way Senator Hagel conducted these meetings. In this time of talk of across the board budget cuts, some have suggested that Senator Hagel would recklessly weaken the defense budget. Nothing in Chuck Hagel's record supports that. He resigned as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration over what he considered to be inappropriate budget cuts. He opposes cuts that would weaken our security. He vigorously opposes sequestration, which has been rightly compared to cutting with a meat cleaver. Like Secretary Panetta and Secretary Gates, Chuck Hagel believes the Pentagon has a role to play in deficit reduction but not at the expense of keeping our military the preeminent fighting force in the world. He says that reductions must be smart and strategic. I agree. I am confident that our men and women in uniform will have no stronger advocate and that our Nation will have a solid defender in Chuck Hagel. Senator Hagel, who has seen combat from the perspective of an enlisted member of our Armed Forces, sees our military as the last resort, not the first resort in international relations. Those who have been in combat, from President Eisenhower on until today, have taken that same position. No matter what any detractor may say, his is sound policy. Matters of war and peace are matters of life and death. Those who sit in boardrooms or in easy chairs and say: Let's commit our soldiers here and our soldiers there--they are not the ones going. By and large, it is not their family members risking their lives. We need a Secretary of Defense who knows what it is like to go and to face combat and to be wounded. Should we commit our troops when it is necessary for our defense? Of course. That is why we have troops. But let's recognize that such decisions come at great human cost. Senator Hagel, a decorated veteran who still walks with the shrapnel from his wounds in Vietnam, understands that a decision to go to war is a decision to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers into harm's way. It is his deep, visceral understanding of this fact, his record of experience, his patriotism, and his dedication to this Nation that qualify him to be the next Secretary of Defense. We should have the vote and confirm this patriotic American hero. Let's not hide behind a filibuster. Let's have the courage to vote yes or vote no. Do not hide behind parliamentary tricks. Do not vote maybe. The American people elected us to vote yes or vote no. When you want to set up a filibuster rule on something, you are basically saying: Let's vote maybe. That is hardly a profile in courage and certainly not the kind of courage we would expect from a Secretary of Defense. So vote yes or vote no. But however you vote, let's do it without delay. I will vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont, you will find any number of successful family-run businesses. Today, I want to recognize the Cochran Family and their Cochran Ski Area. This family, which has spent 50 years on a hillside in the town of Richmond, VT, has seen 10 of its own compete in the Olympic Games and has brought thousands of local youth together to share in Vermont's rich tradition of winter sports. The Cochran Ski Area is truly a remarkable place in Vermont, where the rewards of family togetherness, community support, and shared knowledge have been reaped to the fullest for half a century. In the 1960s, the Cochran slope was a skiing family's dreamland, but Mickey Cochran, alongside his wife Ginny and family, chose to open their home and their hearts to the community. Since then this slope has become a source of skill not only for the Cochran Olympians, but for every Vermonter who, with their guidance, has been helped to master the art of skiing. The Cochrans intensified their skiing talent and dedication through the application of math and physics, complementing a classroom education with a thrilling hands-on experience unlike any other. This Vermont family and their legacy are a model of community building and achievement. Their charity has enriched Vermont and the Cochran Ski Area has been cherished in return as a haven for families to enjoy winter traditions. Today, a new generation of Cochrans preserves their relationship with the land Mickey and Ginny Cochran sought to make their home years ago, by founding Slopeside Syrup, a maple syrup business. Each spring Cochran's taps more than 20,000 maple trees around the ski slope and opens its doors of the Slopeside Syrup sugarhouse to visitors and neighbors alike. I am proud to share the Cochran family's story with the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a recent article from The New York Times about this incredible family be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Maine for her kind words, and I would note both for William Kayatta and for the people of Maine she has fought long and hard for this nomination. She did last year and she has this year. I am glad we are going to be finally voting on it because every time I would meet her anywhere in the halls or anywhere else it would be: What about Kayatta? She knows he, of course, had my strong support, as did another New Englander, former Justice and now judge, David Souter. I am sorry it has taken so long. I look at a nominee like this, where the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, her former colleague, Senator Snowe, and now her current colleague, Senator King, have all supported this person from Maine. In the past, especially with somebody extraordinarily well qualified, as he is, a nomination like that would be out of the committee and off the floor within a week. We have to go back to those times. If we have a contentious nominee, if we have somebody who needs to be debated, let's debate them. But when we have a person strongly supported by their home State Senators and who has the advantage of being highly qualified by anybody's standards--Republican, Democrat, or anybody else--then they ought to get a vote. It makes no sense for Senate Republicans to have stalled nominations like that of William Kayatta, but this is their track record and their pattern over the last 4 years. Senate Republicans used to insist that the filibustering of judicial nominations was unconstitutional. The Constitution has not changed, but as soon as President Obama was elected they reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial nomination. Judge David Hamilton of Indiana was a widely-respected 15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit and was supported by Senator Dick Lugar, the longest- serving Republican in the Senate. They delayed his confirmation for 7 months. Senate Republicans then proceeded to obstruct and delay just about every circuit court nominee of this President, filibustering 10 of them. They delayed confirmation of Judge Albert Diaz of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 11 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Jane Stranch of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit for 10 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Ray Lohier of New York to the Second Circuit for 7 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Scott Matheson of Utah to the Tenth Circuit and Judge James Wynn, Jr. of North Carolina to the Fourth Circuit for 6 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Andre Davis of Maryland to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Henry Floyd of South Carolina to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Stephanie Thacker of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit for 5 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Beverly Martin of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Mary Murguia of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Bernice Donald of Tennessee to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, Judge Thomas Vanaskie of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit, Judge Joseph Greenaway of New Jersey to the Third Circuit, Judge Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, and Judge Chris Droney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit for 4 months. They delayed confirmation of Judge Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Higginson of Louisiana to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch of New York to the Second Circuit, Judge Susan Carney of Connecticut to the Second Circuit, and Judge Kathleen O'Malley of Ohio to the Federal Circuit for 3 months. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has reported that the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican obstruction. This obstruction is also why a damagingly high level of judicial vacancies has persisted for over 4 years. While such tactics are bad for the Senate, they are also bad for our Nation's overburdened courts. Persistent vacancies force fewer judges to take on growing caseloads, and make it harder for Americans to have access to justice. While they have delayed and obstructed, the number of judicial vacancies has remained historically high and it has become more difficult for our courts to provide speedy, quality justice for the American people. There are today 90 judicial vacancies across the country. By way of contrast, that is more than double the number of vacancies that existed at this point in the Bush administration. The 173 circuit and district judges that we have been able to confirm over the last 4 years fall more than 30 short of the total for President Bush's first term. Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from Senate traditions in their efforts to delay and obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Until 2009, Senators who filibustered circuit court nominees generally had reasons to do so, and were willing to explain those reasons. When Senate Democrats filibustered President Bush's controversial circuit court nominees, it was over substantive concerns about the nominees' records and Republicans' disregard for the rights of Democratic Senators. On the other hand, Senate Republicans have filibustered and delayed nearly all of President Obama's circuit court nominees even when those nominees have the support of their Republican home State Senators. At the end of each calendar year, Senate Republicans now deliberately refuse to vote on several judicial nominees who could and should be confirmed in order to consume additional time the following year confirming these nominees. At the end of 2009, they left 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar without a vote. Two of those nominations were returned to the President, and it subsequently took 9 months for the Senate to take action on the other eight. This resulted in the lowest 1-year confirmation total in at least 35 years. For the next 2 years, Senate Republicans left 19 nominations on the Senate executive calendar at the end of each year. It then took nearly half the following year for the Senate to confirm these nominees. Last year they insisted on leaving 11 judicial nominees without action and another four have had hearings but they refused to expedite their consideration. William Kayatta is one of those judicial nominees who should have been confirmed last year. Until 2009, when a judicial nominee had been reported by the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support, they were generally confirmed quickly. Until 2009, we observed regular order, usually confirmed nominees promptly, and we cleared the Senate Executive Calendar before long recesses. Until 2009, if a nominee was filibustered, it was almost always because of a substantive issue with the nominee's record. We know what has happened since 2009. The median district nomination is stalled 4.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration, and the median circuit court nomination is stalled 7.3 times as long as it took to confirm them during the Bush administration. Nor has any other President's judicial nominees had to wait an average of over 100 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Senate Republicans have also forced the majority leader to file cloture on 30 nominees, which is already more than 50 percent more nominees than had cloture filed during President Bush's 8 years in office. Almost all of these 30 nominations were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Barely 80 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees were confirmed during his first 4 years compared to almost 90 percent of President George W. Bush's first term nominees. While this is not even close to a full account of the precedents broken in the last 4 years, the record is clear: Senate Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented effort to obstruct President Obama's judicial nominations. Pretending it has not taken place is an insult to the American people. The American people know better. Chief Justice Roberts, in his year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary in 2010 pointed to the ``[P]ersistent problem [that] has developed in the process of filling judicial vacancies . . . This has created acute difficulties for some judicial districts. Sitting judges in those districts have been burdened with extraordinary caseloads . . . There remains, however, an urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term solution to this recurring problem.'' Despite bipartisan calls to address the judicial vacancy crisis, Senate Republicans have continued their obstruction of judicial confirmations. Today, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote on one of the nominees held over from last year. Judicial vacancies right now stand at 90. And I mention that because during President Bush's entire second term--the 4 years from 2004 through 2008--the vacancies never exceeded 60. I worked very hard to keep the vacancies down, but since President Obama's first full month in office, as far as we can see, there have never been fewer than 60 vacancies, and for much of that time many, many more. This is a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people. It means people who come to our courts looking for impartial justice can't get it because there are no judges. This is hurting the integrity of the judicial system. I hear this from judges nominated by Republican Presidents and those nominated by Democratic Presidents. They say these delays politicize the courts and destroy the impartiality the Federal courts have to have. I commend President Obama for nominating such a diverse group of qualified judges. In his first 4 years, President Obama has appointed as many women judges as President Bush did during his entire 8 years in office. In just 4 years, President Obama has also nominated more African Americans, more Asian Americans, and more openly gay Americans than his predecessor did in 8 years. Americans can be proud of President Obama's efforts to increase diversity in the Federal judiciary and to ensure that it better reflects all Americans. I hope that this year and over the coming 4 years, Senate Republicans will end their misguided and harmful obstruction and work with us in a bipartisan manner to do what is right for the country. President Obama has nominated qualified, mainstream lawyers, and the Senate should consider them in regular order, without unnecessary delays. That is what we had done for as long as I have served in the Senate, whether the nominations came from a Democratic or a Republican president. We should work together to restore and uphold the best traditions of the Senate. Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported three judicial nominees, William Kayatta, Robert Bacharach, and Richard Taranto. They are all superbly qualified, consensus nominees. All have received the highest possible rating of unanimously well qualified from the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, and with last Thursday's Judiciary Committee votes, all have twice now received overwhelming, bipartisan support from members of the Judiciary Committee from both sides of the aisle. All have something else in common too: Their nominations were stalled before the Senate for at least 7 months last year without a vote. That is why they each had to be re-nominated by the President this year. This is sadly typical of how Senate Republicans have treated President Obama's consensus judicial nominees. Even nominees who are supported by Republican home state Senators and by all the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are stalled for months for no good reason. They are delaying votes on all nominees, including nominees they support. This is unprecedented. For example, Senator Coburn said that ``[Judge Bacharach] has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' That was before Senator Coburn joined a filibuster against voting on his nomination last year. Last year's filibuster of the Bacharach nomination was the first time in the history of the Senate that a circuit nominee reported with bipartisan support had been successfully filibustered. When I say unprecedented, I mean unprecedented. I am glad that William Kayatta is finally getting a vote. The nominee spent the entirety of his 32-year legal career in private practice in the Portland, ME, law firm Pierce Atwood LLP, where he is currently a partner. Over his career, he has personally argued over three dozen appeals, including two before the United States Supreme Court. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he served on the Harvard Law Review. Upon graduation, he clerked for Chief Judge Frank Coffin on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court to which he is nominated. William Kayatta has held a prominent leadership role in numerous professional organizations, including serving as the lead investigator for the American Bar Association Standing Committee of the Federal Judiciary during its review of Justice Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. He was also appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court to serve as Special Master in an interstate dispute, where he was charged with managing proceedings and submitting a report and recommendation to the Court. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Kayatta well qualified to serve on the First Circuit, its highest possible rating. While it is good that William Kayatta will finally receive a vote today, it is also well past time for the Senate to vote on Robert Bacharach and Richard Taranto. Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Mr. Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time that the other two circuit nominees who were renominated and considered again by the Judiciary Committee and again reported to the Senate, be given an up- or-down vote. The Senate could confirm all three nominees this week. In June 2005, the Senate confirmed four circuit court nominees of a Republican President in just 2 days, including highly controversial nominees such as Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit and William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. In July 2006, the Senate confirmed Bobby Shepherd to the Eighth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch and Jerome Holmes of the Tenth Circuit within 1 week. There is ample recent precedent for confirming Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto without further delay. Neither is controversial. William Kayatta is strongly supported by both of Maine's Senators, Republican Senator Susan Collins and Independent Senator Angus King. When George W. Bush was President, Senate Democrats worked quickly to hold votes on consensus circuit nominees. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, half of President Bush's circuit nominees received a confirmation vote within just 18 days of being reported by the Judiciary Committee. Not a single one of President Obama's circuit nominees has received a vote so quickly. In fact, the median wait time for President Obama's circuit nominees is more than seven times that for President Bush's circuit nominees. This continued obstruction is one of the reasons we remain so far behind the pace set during President Bush's time in office. By February of President Bush's fifth year, the Senate had confirmed 205 of his circuit and district nominees, and judicial vacancies stood at 40. In contrast, just 173 of President Obama's circuit and district nominees have been confirmed, and the vacancy rate has risen again to 90, or more than 10 percent of the Federal bench. Judicial vacancies are nearly back at historically high levels. Perpetuating these vacancies on the Tenth and Federal Circuits, and preventing Judge Bacharach and Richard Taranto from getting to work on behalf of the American people, does not benefit anyone. The Judiciary Committee has again done its work to vet, consider, and vote on these nominations. It is time for the Senate to act to confirm them. I will speak more on nominations as we go along, but I do want to congratulate not only the senior Senator from Maine but also Senator King and the people of Maine, and the people of the First Circuit. The circuit needs to have its vacancies filled, and I am glad we have such a good person. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the great privileges in serving in the U.S. Senate is the ability to make recommendations to the President with respect to important nominations for posts in our States. I was pleased 4 years ago to recommend to President Obama the nomination of David Demag to be Vermont's U.S. Marshal, and to help move his nomination through the Judiciary Committee and Senate confirmation. In fact, he was the first U.S. Marshal to be confirmed during the Obama administration. Since his confirmation, Marshal Demag's tireless devotion to reducing crime rates in Vermont has helped make my home State a safe and comfortable home for its residents. Marshal Demag began his career in 1971 as a patrol officer for the Burlington Police Department, where he rose through the ranks as corporal, detective, sergeant, lieutenant, and later, commander. I have known Marshal Demag throughout his career. He served as chief of police for both the Essex and St. Albans Police Departments. He also was a member of the Burlington Police Department. He has been a leader in Vermont in the fight against rural crime, and has spent his life and career devoted to public service. As a U.S. Marshal for Vermont, Dave Demag has remained dedicated to arresting the State's most wanted fugitives and sex offenders and his work in establishing the Vermont Violent Offender Task Force has expanded the ability of the U.S. Marshal's office to catch violent and habitual sex offenders. The task force has not only served as a tool for bringing law enforcement officials throughout the State together, but has also improved Vermont's track record for fugitive arrests to 70 percent while reinvesting assets seized from criminals to address the needs of State and local law enforcement. These results are making a real difference in the lives of Vermonters across the State and should serve as a model for how Federal and State law enforcement can work together around the country. One of Vermont's local news stations, WCAX, recently ran a story highlighting these accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that story be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with state and local law enforcement in Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. I look forward to Marshal Demag's continued partnership with State and local law enforcement in Vermont. Exhibit 1 [WCAX--Vermont, January 28, 2013] U.S. Marshals making an impact in Vermont (By Jennifer Reading) Burlington, VT.--Five faces represent Vermont's most wanted. Two have been caught, but the remaining three fugitives are prime targets for the U.S. Marshals Service. ``It's a real good area to attack to make our communities safer here in Vermont,'' said David Demag, who was appointed by President Obama to head the U.S. Marshals Service's Vermont Division. Three months ago he created the Vermont Violent Offender Task Force. The operation expanded the Marshals' mission to include tracking down violent and habitual sex offenders. Statistically--these criminals pose a greater risk to the public. ``The ones who are out of compliance top that list and are more likely to re-offend,'' Demag said. Demag said dedicating a full time team to taking down non- compliant sex offenders--on top of its regular fugitive finding mission--meant adding a state trooper and a UVM police officer to the task force. But he said the plan is working. Since October they've arrested 39 federal and 40 state fugitives. In 2012 fugitive arrests for state offenses jumped by 70 percent. ``This is not a place where fugitives or sex offenders can come and hide,'' said Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Bill Gerke. That's the message the task force sent to three high profile out-of-state fugitives on the run in Vermont. The Marshals found Philip Barr hiding out in Hardwick. He was wanted for a Florida murder. Robert Mulkern was arrested in Windsor for a Maryland sex assault and 149 counts of child pornography. And Clifford Moore was nabbed on his way to the airport, fleeing murder, sex assault and terrorism charges. Although the task force gives priority to federal fugitives identified as the ``worst-of-the-worst,'' they'll also adopt state and local cases if there's a violent component to the crime. The Marshals have the tools, expertise and time that their state counterparts lack. ``We are here as a resource for them,'' Demag said. Two weeks ago they helped local authorities locate Shane Phillips, a Johnson man wanted for more than a decade for various violent crimes. He was hiding behind a false wall in his family's home. ``The spirit and the actual cooperation has never been better than it is presently,'' Gerke said. The life-long Deputy Marshal said interagency cooperation is the key to slowing down the state's ongoing violent crime and preventing out-of-state organized crime from getting a foothold in Vermont. ``Vermont will not harbor that type of activity,'' he added. The task force is funded by the federal government. Assets seized from the criminals are then reinvested in state and local law enforcement--paying overtime if they help with compliance checks--as well as outfitting them with critical safety equipment and vehicles.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is easy from our perch on Capitol Hill to sometimes forget about the city that surrounds us. Like so many communities across the country, urban and rural, Washington, D.C. wrestles with a population in poverty. Soon, those people will have a new advocate at the head of one of the Nation's capital's leading organizations focused on ending the cycle of poverty among local youth and adults. Starting in April, Patty Stonesifer will become the new C.E.O. and President of Martha's Table. Patty devoted 9 years of her life to the work of the Gates Foundation. As its chief executive officer, she helped the foundation become the largest philanthropic institution in the world while taking no salary for herself. After her time at the Gates Foundation, Patty's passion for change led her to become part of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions on AIDS, and was later appointed by President Obama in 2010 to chair the White House Council for Community Solutions. We have become friends through our shared service on the Smithsonian Board of Regents, and she is active on the board of the Center for Global Development, and is a member of the Circle of Allies and Champions for the National Council of Youth Leaders. Patty's dedication to philanthropy aligns perfectly with the mission of Martha's Table. This nonprofit is more than a food pantry. Not only does Martha's Table supply more than 1,000 meals each day to hungry Washingtonians, it also works to develop long-term solutions to hunger and nutrition issues, seeking an end to poverty. Martha's Table helps to break the cycle of poverty by providing education, nutrition, and family support services to hundreds of children and families. Martha's Table is lucky to have someone like Patty at the helm. I have no doubt she will successfully prepare the next generation of young people for a bright future. Patty's self sacrifice and dedication to ending poverty and hunger in our Nation's Capital is to be commended, and I wish her the best of luck in her new role. I ask unanimous consent that an article from The Washington Post entitled, ``Patty Stonesifer, former CEO of Gates Foundation, to lead D.C. food pantry,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Uniting American Families Act, UAFA, which grants same-sex bi-national couples the same immigration benefits heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. This is the sixth Congress in which I have introduced this legislation, and I am proud to be joined this year by Senator Collins, a strong champion for American families. She cosponsored this bill last Congress, and I thank her for her leadership as she joins me as an original cosponsor today. Preserving family unity is central to our immigration policy. President Obama understands that, which is why I was so pleased to see that he included UAFA as a core tenet of the immigration principles he outlined last month. Even as American attitudes are changing about the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act forces many Americans to choose between the country they love and being with the people they love. This destructive policy tears families apart and forces hardworking Americans to make the heart-wrenching choice no American should have to make. Families from Maine to California experience this hardship. In Vermont, I have seen firsthand the unfairness that couples have endured as a result of our current laws and have spoken at length on their struggles in this Chamber. I have heard from a number of Vermonters who have had to make the difficult decision to leave their work and homes in Vermont in order to be able to live with their spouses in more welcoming countries; some whole spouses are legally in the U.S. temporarily but worry daily when they will be required to leave the U.S.; and some who suffer the heartbreak of a long-distance marriage when their spouses are denied even a visitor visa to spend some time with their spouses in the U.S. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard directly from families like these as well. Over the past decade, Americans have begun to reject the notion that U.S. citizens who are gay or lesbian should not have their committed relationships recognized by the law and the protections that provides. As of last month, the District of Columbia and nine states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, and my home state of Vermont, have legalized same-sex marriage. At the end of the 111th Congress, bipartisan votes in both the Senate and the House reversed the Military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, a 17-year-old stricture that barred gay and lesbian service men and women from openly serving in the military. Consistent with the repeal of the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, just last week the Pentagon signaled that it will begin providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of military personnel. As they have many times in our past and will continue in the future, prevailing American attitudes are progressing toward fairness and justice. The Supreme Court is poised to decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether that law, which deprives same-sex couples of over 1,000 Federal benefits and responsibilities, is consistent with our constitutional values. Many of our friends around the world have embraced immigration equality for same-sex families. Today at least 25 nations, including some of our closest allies, offer immigration benefits to same-sex couples. America should join Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in leading on this issue of civil rights and respect for the dignity of all families. I hope that Senators who supported this important advancement in our military policy will join me in calling for similar fairness and equality in our immigration laws. Some opponents of the United American Families Act have argued that it would increase the potential for visa fraud. Of course I share the belief that all immigration applications should be screened for fraud, but I am confident that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will have no more difficulty identifying fraud in same-sex relationships than they do in heterosexual marriages. The penalties for fraud under this bill would be the same as the penalties for marriage fraud. These are very strict penalties: a sentence of up to 5 years in prison, $250,000 in fines for the U.S. citizen partner, and deportation for the foreign partner. In addition, in order to qualify as a bi-national couple under UAFA, petitioners must prove that they are at least 18 years of age and in a committed, lifelong relationship with another adult. The advancement of American ideals that respect human relationships and family bonds need not and should not be impeded by such fears. Among developed countries with cultures of respect for human rights and fairness, the United States policy in this regard is not living up to our great traditions of equal treatment under the law. We can and should do better. I hope all Senators will agree that the United States should not have a policy that forces Americans to choose between their country and the ones they love, and I urge members of this body to join Senator Collins and me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.