Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Idaho for his comments. He has been not only a stalwart supporter, he actually has been essential in the drafting of this legislation. We all share this concern of finding ways to stop violence against women. I realize different parts of the country have different problems, different stresses. I am pleased to have a western view to go with this eastern view. But also, I think, it is a case of the best legislation in this body, legislation supported by both Democrats and Republicans. When we come together as Senators, things get done. That is one of the reasons we are turning to this bill, S. 47, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, as one of our first bills. It has bipartisan support. I thank Majority Leader Reid for making this unfinished business a priority for the Senate. Congressional enactment of our strong bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence is long overdue. Our bill has more than 60 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. I think this week we can finally finish what we started last year by passing the bill in the Senate, sending it to the other body, and having them take it up. I know I am deeply indebted--we all are--to the women and men around the country who have been working with us. They have been steadfast in their commitment to the victims and to our efforts to combat domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault. There is a pressing need to update the Violence Against Women Act. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence. One in five women has been raped in her lifetime. More than half of the homicides in my State of Vermont are related to domestic violence. Let me emphasize that just a bit. Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. But when I look at the source of the crime, more than half of the homicides are related to domestic violence. Those percentages are very high in almost every State. That is simply unacceptable. While the Judiciary Committee has been preparing to consider legislation on the subject of gun violence at the end of this month, we can act now, without delay, in the Senate to strengthen the protections of the Violence Against Women Act. All of the provisions in our bill passed the Senate last year. In fact, 9 months ago the Senate passed the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act with 68 votes. The Senate often has a hard time coming together with 51 votes, but here we had 68 votes from Members of both parties, across the political spectrum. Last December we worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley additional provisions to amend the Debbie Smith Act, which we passed, to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits in order to provide for additional audits and reporting, and increase the capacity of State and local law enforcement to perform DNA analysis. Those provisions are now incorporated into this VAWA bill. I hope those few Senators who opposed the bill last year will now join with us to enact VAWA reauthorization. I think we should act quickly and decisively to pass this bill, and send it to the House. I know if it reaches the President's desk, from what he has told me, he will sign it without delay. Our bill will support the use of techniques proven to identify high- risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It is going to increase VAWA'S focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. It will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities. A recent study found almost three in five native women had been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. Our bill will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a few weeks ago that found the rates of domestic and sexual violence in these communities are equal to or greater than those of the general population. We also have key improvements for immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. I did note when we reintroduced this bill at the outset of this year that we will be pressing the increase of U Visas for those victims who assist law enforcement in the context of comprehensive immigration reform. Last year, the House of Representatives refused to consider the Senate-passed bill because the U Visa provision, while fully offset, was seen technically to affect revenues. We removed it from the bill this year. I don't want this bill to be slowed up because of a technical excuse. When somebody is being abused, they don't need to hear about technicalities. They want us to stop it, and they want us to expedite action on this bill. I remain strongly committed to the U Visa increase. As I said, I will try to include it in the immigration legislation we will be considering in the next couple of months. The reason I will do that, of course, is it will benefit law enforcement and victims, and we should enact it. I have said so many times on the floor of the Senate that I remember my days as a prosecutor in Vermont--let me state it this way: I remember going to crime scenes at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. I remember seeing people being taken out in an ambulance, barely alive, battered to within an inch of their life. But I especially remember those who did not even get that far, lying on the floor, up against a wall, waiting for the medical examiner to come and pronounce the person dead and allow the police to collect evidence and move them. During that time no police officer ever said: Is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim an immigrant or Native American? They said, as I have said so many times on the floor: A victim is a victim is a victim. How do we stop this from happening to somebody else? How do we catch the person who did this? Law enforcement wants tools for after the fact. But even more, they want what we have in here: something to stop the abuse from happening in the first place. Every day we do not pass legislation to prevent this violence and assist victims, people are suffering. I hope all Senators--Democrats, Republicans, Independents--will join us. I have spoken of Senator Crapo's longstanding commitment to victims. But, also, I have spoken often of the support of Senators Mikulski and Murkowski and Murray and Klobuchar and Coons and Collins and Shaheen and Franken and Hagan and Casey and so many others who have joined to help to shape this legislation and work to pass it. I also appreciate the support and assistance of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women and its many member organizations whose insight has been so critical. I thank the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I am so proud of them. They have done great work helping victims in Vermont with support from the VAWA programs. They have been a leader in developing and supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement a letter organized by the National Task Force and signed by more than 1,300 local, tribal, and national organizations supporting this important bill.

Mr. LEAHY. Since we first passed the Violence Against Women Act nearly two decades ago, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have something here that has been a success. We have helped to provide victims with critical services, such as housing and legal protection. We have to remember, these are not just statistics. These are thousands of lives made immeasurably better. I might say because of this work these thousands of lives are still lives; they are not statistics of people murdered. All the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and those who assist them every day. They are commonsense measures. They will help real people. Every prosecutor, every support group--all will tell you it is past time for Congress to enact this bill to provide help for victims of domestic violence and rape. We can make these concrete, important changes in the law. We can do it this week. I have been involved in this for years, and I have seen the results of what we have done. I have seen the lives that have been made immeasurably better because of what we have done. I have seen the lives that have been saved because of what we have done. There is no excuse to delay further. Exhibit 1 National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, February 4, 2013. Senator, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: We, the undersigned local, tribal, and national organizations, represent and support millions of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking throughout the United States, American Indian Tribes and territories. On behalf of the victims we represent, the professionals who serve them and the communities that sustain them, we ask that you support the Violence Against Women Act's (VAWA) reauthorization by co- sponsoring and voting for S. 47. As you know, VAWA is slated to come to the Senate floor as early as next week and we are asking you to take a leadership role in ensuring that this landmark bi-partisan bill will continue its important work. VAWA's programs support state, tribal and local efforts to address the pervasive and insidious crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. These programs have made great progress towards reducing the violence, helping victims to be healthy and feel safe and holding perpetrators accountable. This critical legislation must be reauthorized to ensure a continued response to these crimes. Since its original passage in 1994, VAWA has dramatically enhanced our nation's response to violence against girls and women, boys and men. More victims report domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 64%. The sexual assault services program in VAWA helps rape crisis centers keep their doors open to provide the frontline response to victims of rape. VAWA provides for a coordinated community approach, improving collaboration between law enforcement and victim services providers to better meet the needs of victims. These comprehensive and cost-effective programs not only save lives, they also save money. In fact, VAWA saved nearly $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in just its first six years. VAWA has unquestionably improved the national response to these terrible crimes. Nonetheless, much work remains to be done to address unmet needs and enhance access to protections and services for all victims. We urge you to sponsor and vote for S. 47 in order to build upon VAWA's successes and continue to enhance our nation's ability to promote an end to this violence, to hold perpetrators accountable and to keep victims and their families safe from future harm. Thank you. Sincerely, * * *

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today I am pleased the Senate will pass the bipartisan Embassy Security Funds Transfer Act of 2013. This commonsense legislation will enact a provision similar to one passed overwhelmingly by the Senate last December as part of the Sandy Supplemental but that was stripped out by House Republicans. This bill simply provides authority to the State Department to transfer up to $1.1 billion in overseas contingency operations funds appropriated in Fiscal Year 2012 for operations in Iraq, which are no longer needed due to reduced State operations there, to be used for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas posts identified in the Department's security review after the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Making such resources available for these purposes is one of the recommendations of the Accountability Review Board chaired by Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. The bill permits the transfer of funds between the diplomatic and consular programs and embassy security construction and maintenance accounts. Such transfers would otherwise be precluded due to percentage limitations. To be clear, this legislation appropriates no additional funds. It costs the taxpayers no additional money. It has no scoring impact. It merely allows for the transfer of existing, appropriated funds for this critical purpose. There is nothing controversial about this bill. We all want to do what we can to prevent another tragedy like what occurred in Benghazi. The State Department has done a review, and these funds will be used to expedite construction of Marine security guard posts at overseas facilities and for the construction of other secure embassies. While it is impossible to guarantee the safety of our diplomats and aid workers, many of whom risk their lives daily in dangerous places, we should protect them as best we can so they can carry out their duties as safely as possible. As I mentioned, the Senate approved a similar provision last December, overwhelmingly, by voice vote. I thank Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Graham, and the other cosponsors for supporting this bill and for helping to expedite its consideration. I am confident that the chairwoman and ranking member of the House State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee share our view that this is an appropriate use of these funds. I hope the House will act quickly to send this bill to the President.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Would that this amendment were as simple as the junior Senator from Kentucky described. His amendment would hinder our military assistance program and licenses for commercial sales of all major military equipment, including aircraft, ships, tanks, other armored vehicles, and so on. Ending these contracts would not only mean a loss of thousands and thousands of American jobs, it would incur more than $2 billion in contract termination penalties for U.S. taxpayers. We would also put at risk our access to the Suez Canal, the overflights of the U.S. Air Force over Egyptian territory, cooperation on the Sinai, Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa--a part of the world where we need all the allies we can get--and our emphasis on the ability to keep the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement going. Do I have problems with the way the Morsi government is going? Certainly. But removing our ability to be involved with keeping that peace agreement and our ability to influence, this is not the way to do it. It is shortsighted and harmful to U.S. security arrangements. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to congratulate David Kappos, whose last day as the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, is today. Director Kappos's leadership of the PTO has been applauded by all segments of the intellectual property, IP, community. This is no easy feat. The IP community is as diverse as our economy, and the community's views on IP law are hardly uniform. I have known Director Kappos since well before he entered government service, and I was particularly pleased to chair his confirmation hearing in July 2009. Director Kappos was well suited to understand both how to manage a $2 billion office and meet the needs of inventors and innovators. He began his career as an engineer and worked in the IP law department of IBM in nearly all of its business units before finally managing all of IBM's IP law interests as vice president and assistant general counsel. IBM is a large employer in Vermont and one of the reasons that Vermont receives more patents per capita than any other State. Anyone who has met Director Kappos cannot help but be taken with his integrity and his clear passion for an intellectual property system that rewards inventors and creators. Those leadership qualities have motivated the PTO staff, which has reduced the time it takes to receive responses from the patent office on applications and, according to most experts, simultaneously improved the quality of patents that the PTO issues. Director Kappos played an instrumental role in the development and passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act--one of the few bipartisan, job-creating bills of the 112th Congress. Soon after being confirmed as Director in August 2009, he sat down to work with me and a bipartisan, bicameral group of Members to work out a consensus on patent reform legislation. Director Kappos's credibility within the patent community and his leadership was critical in bringing together the different interests to support the changes in the America Invents Act that will speed the time for high quality patents to issue from the PTO while providing more efficient methods for challenging low quality patents. Since enactment, Director Kappos and his team have set the PTO on course to implement the key provisions of the act, which will improve the patent system for decades. The America Invents Act was the highest profile law on which I worked with Director Kappos, but it was not the only one. Early in his tenure, the PTO recommended legislation that ultimately became the Trademark Technical Correction Act of 2010 and the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012. Director Kappos's full title is Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is one of the longest titles in government and underscores the vast responsibility he has had, and which is particularly important because IP is such a key driver of our economy. I am saddened that Director Kappos has decided to step down but heartened by how he has energized the PTO. The President and the Commerce Department have lost a valuable member of their economic team. I wish Dave all the best.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join privacy advocates, industry leaders and National, State and local government officials from across our Nation in celebrating Data Privacy Day--a day to recognize the need to better secure our privacy and security in cyberspace. I am also pleased to join Senators on both sides of the aisle in cosponsoring a Senate resolution to commemorate Data Privacy Day. In the Digital Age, Americans face new threats to their digital privacy and security as consumers and businesses alike collect, share and store more and more information in cyberspace. Data Privacy Day is an important reminder about the need to improve data privacy as we reap the many benefits of new technologies. Last year the Judiciary Committee approved digital privacy legislation that I authored to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, ECPA, to improve the privacy protections for Americans' email and other electronic communications. That bill would, among other things, require that the Government obtain a search warrant, based upon probable cause, before obtaining email and other electronic communications from a third-party service provider. When I and others in Congress authored ECPA in 1986, email was a novelty and most Americans had never heard of the Internet. Today, communication by email is commonplace and many of us store email and other electronic communications with service providers or ``in the cloud'' for extended periods of time. After 3 decades, it is essential that Congress update ECPA to ensure that this critical law keeps pace with new technologies and the way Americans use and store email today. Digital privacy is important to all Americans, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. That is why when Congress first enacted ECPA, we did so with strong bipartisan support. I appreciate the willingness of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte to work in partnership with me to examine and update this critical privacy law. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Goodlatte and others in Congress to update this law so that it keeps pace with the many new threats to our privacy. I again thank and commend the many stakeholders and leaders from across the Nation who are holding events to commemorate Data Privacy Day. I look forward to working with them and with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, in both Chambers, to enact reforms to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to commend President Obama for nominating Senator Kerry to be our next Secretary of State. There are few, if any, people in America today who have had the breadth of experience that Senator Kerry has had: as a military officer, as a highly decorated veteran, as a Lieutenant Governor, as a U.S. Senator, and as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He is exceptionally well qualified to be the next Secretary of State. John Kerry is a leader of extraordinary intellect, wisdom, and insight. To those of us who have watched him, worked with him, and traveled with him over the years, it is crystal clear that he is a natural diplomat. He lives and breathes the art of diplomacy. He is instinctively drawn to understanding and addressing the global security challenges of our time. He is also multilingual. I have heard Senator Kerry in meetings in other capitals of the world, and I have watched those who were there pay special attention to what he had to say as he conversed in their language. This is someone who does not need on-the-job training. He has been learning the job over the course of four decades of public service. I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations. In that role, I will look forward to working closely with Senator Kerry in his new position as Secretary of State, to provide the resources necessary to promote and protect U.S. interests around the world. It is a formidable assignment. We face daunting threats from religious extremism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, growing competition for energy, water, and other natural resources--all amid the obligations of deficit and debt reduction. But these threats and challenges present opportunities if we approach them intelligently. Some in Congress have an almost xenophobic attitude. They would have us retreat. They would slash our contribution to the United Nations and weaken our ability to build alliances, which would only embolden our adversaries. They would cut the State Department's budget at a time when our diplomats and consular officers, many of whom work long hours in dangerous places, already are stretched to the limit. Then they criticize and politicize when tragedies happen. We saw that yesterday, when members of the other body criticized Secretary of State Clinton for lapses in diplomatic security, only a week after they prevented passage of my amendment that would have allowed for the transfer of unused State Department funds to improve security at U.S. embassies around the world. Let's stop the hypocrisy. Some here would roll back funding for international development programs, which help to create political stability in conflict-prone regions and build markets for U.S. exports, on the grounds that these funds would be better spent at home. They miss the point. Ninety-nine percent of the Federal budget is spent on domestic programs. The notion that somehow the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth is an island, and that we can ignore what is happening in the world around us is foolhardy, and is dangerous. John Kerry understands this, and he knows that appropriations begin with Congress. In times of close scrutiny of all aspects of the Federal budget and fierce competition for funds among Federal agencies, he will need to make his case up here repeatedly, and I will work with him to do that. We have to convince Congress and the American people why the State Department's budget is important. As Secretary of State one can have the best policies and the best plans to implement them. But if you don't have the resources, if you don't have the people to do it, the best plans in the world don't go very far. Secretary Clinton has done an outstanding job. I have told her that I stand in awe of what she has accomplished throughout the world and within the State Department. We all owe her a debt of gratitude for her steady hand and tireless energy as Secretary of State. I have traveled with her to other countries. I have seen how she approaches problems, always prepared and with such energy. Every American should be proud to be represented by her. She has done an extraordinary job in reintroducing America to the world after the missteps following 9/11 that caused so much damage to our image and authority abroad. Her successor also has not only a hard act to follow, but he also understands, as we all do, that America must continuously demonstrate to the rest of the world what we stand for as a people. I believe the Congress and the American people, and I think, in a way, the world, is fortunate to have a nominee for the position as qualified as Senator Kerry. I will enthusiastically vote for him when his name comes before the Senate. Madam President, seeing no other person seeking recognition, as President pro tempore of this body, I am glad to see you in the role of Presiding Officer. I realize you can't respond to this, but in your first month in the Senate you are actually filling the pivotal role in this body, and I appreciate it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during my 38 years in the Senate, I have served with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, during Republican administrations and Democratic ones. Whether in the majority or the minority, whether the chairman or ranking member of a committee, I have always stood for the protection of the rights of the minority. Even when the minority has voted differently than I have or opposed what I have supported, I have defended their rights and held to my belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out and that the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans would do the right thing. Yet over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have come dangerously close to changing something central to the character of the Senate and threatening its ability to do its work for the American people. As a caucus, instead of trying to work with us on efforts to help the American people at a time of economic challenges, Senate Republicans have engaged in an across-the-board procedural barricade. On issue after issue, from the DISCLOSE Act to efforts to curb massive subsidies for big oil companies, from the American Jobs Act to the Paycheck Fairness Act, from legislation to help small businesses to providing support for our veterans, Senate Republicans have relied on the unprecedented use of the filibuster to thwart the majority from making progress. They have long since crossed the line from use of the Senate rules to abuse of the rules, exploiting them to undermine our ability to solve national problems. Filibusters that were once used rarely have now become a common occurrence, with Senate Republicans raising procedural barriers to even considering legislation or voting on the kinds of noncontroversial nominations the Senate once confirmed regularly and quickly by unanimous consent. The leader has been required to file cloture just to ensure that the Senate makes any progress at all to address our national and economic security, and a supermajority of the Senate is now needed even to force a vote on mundane issues. That is not how the Senate should work or has worked. The Senate is built on a tradition of comity, with rules that only function based on the kind of consent commonly and traditionally given. The rules are not built to aid and abet Senators using across-the-board filibusters and obstruction at every turn. The Senate does not function if an entire caucus takes every opportunity to use obscure procedural loopholes to stand in the way of a vote because they might disagree with the result. Without serious steps to curtail these abuses, the approach taken the last four years by Senate Republicans risks turning the rules of the Senate into a farce and calls into question the ability of the Senate to perform its constitutional functions. In an earlier period of Senate history, when the filibuster was widely regarded as having become too great an obstacle for long-overdue reforms--for which there was a wide and general national consensus--I had the honor of playing a small part as a freshman senator during Senator Walter Mondale's heroic and successful efforts to lower the cloture bar from 67 votes to 60 votes. Then, as now, reform came through arduous, bipartisan negotiation. I am hopeful that the agreement reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader represents that kind of serious step toward restoring the tradition of the Senate and its ability to work for the American people. I am hopeful that the Republican Senators who join today with Senate Democrats follow through on the commitment they are making to curtail the abuse of Senate rules and practices that have marked the last four years. The progress we are making today is a credit to Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others whose efforts to reform the Senate rules are justified by the abuses we have seen. The diligence and energy of these reformers provided the impetus for the agreement reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader. In my view the agreement does not go far enough to address abuses, and I wish it included more of the commonsense proposals put forward by the reformers to make the Senate run more efficiently. As I did at the beginning of the last Congress, I support their proposals to put the burden of maintaining a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct the Senate, rather than on those seeking to overcome the obstruction. However, I am willing to accept today's agreement as a meaningful compromise with concessions by both sides that will have the support of senators from both parties, rather than the support of only one party. I will support it because it can be adopted by a supermajority vote instead of the kind of extended and damaging floor fight over the rules that would undermine any progress we hope to make. With so many urgent issues to tackle for the American people, we cannot risk giving opponents of progress another excuse for inaction. I am encouraged by the verbal agreement between the majority leader and the Republican leader to change the practices of how the Senate handles filibusters. Under this agreement, the bill managers and leadership would call on Senators who are threatening a filibuster to come to the floor, which will properly put the burden of a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct, rather than those seeking to make progress. The leaders will also press that postcloture debate time be used for debate and will bring votes to produce a quorum to avoid delay. These commonsense steps will help build on today's rules changes to help curtail the abuses we have seen and restore the Senate's ability to work for the American people. I also believe the Standing Order that is part of today's agreement will give the majority leader new tools for overcoming the wholesale Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have been especially concerned about the damage being done by Republican obstruction to the Senate's unique responsibility for ensuring that the judicial branch has the judges it needs to do its job. Over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have abandoned this constitutional responsibility, using unprecedented filibusters to delay and obstruct President Obama from appointing to the Federal bench even judicial nominations that have bipartisan support. As a result of this brand of Republican obstruction, we begin President Obama's second term with the Judiciary nearly 20 percent below where it needs to be in terms of judges, and a prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that does not serve the interests of the American people. Senate Republicans have already forced the majority leader to file cloture on 30 of President Obama's judicial nominations, almost all of which were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed overwhelmingly. Yet the Senate rules give the minority the ability to demand 30 hours of floor time even after a supermajority of the Senate has voted to end the filibuster of a judicial nomination. This extended debate time is meant to give the Senate a chance to consider amendments that are germane to a bill so it serves no purpose for judicial nominations. Rather, it has been used by Senate Republicans as a threat to obstruct the Senate for days just to get to a vote on each of these noncontroversial nominations. Such an approach has made it easier for a silent minority of Senate Republicans to make the costs too high for the majority leader to push for votes on nominees and has led directly to the unnecessary and damaging backlog of judicial nominations we have seen for years on the Senate calendar. The agreement reached today has a good chance of curtailing this type of abuse of the rules in this Congress by reducing this extended debate time after the end of a filibuster on district court nominations from 30 hours to two hours. I believe this change will increase the ability of the majority leader to push for votes on district court nominations, where the threat by Senate Republicans of extended debate time has been particularly damaging. Federal district court judges hear cases from litigants across the country and handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal courts. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their States best and have been confirmed promptly with that support. Never before in the 38 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything like what has happened in the last 4 years, when we have seen district court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non- partisan positions, needlessly stalling them for months with no explanation. Until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W. Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court nominees, and the majority leader has been forced to file cloture on 20 of them, with many more left to linger month after month without a vote on the Senate calendar due to the threat by Republicans to require half a legislative week or more just to confirm one of them. As a result, it has taken the Senate more than three times as long to vote on President Obama's district court nominees as it did to vote on President Bush's. The agreement reached today will blunt the ability of Senate Republicans to block important legislation and district court nominations without accountability merely by the threat of burning so much Senate time. I wish that the proposal also applied to Federal circuit court or Supreme Court nominations, where the extended postcloture debate time also serves no purpose. But the progress I believe we will make as a result of this bipartisan compromise is a good first step towards helping us reduce the extended backlog of judicial nominations created by Republican obstruction and should result in more judges serving the American people. There is no question that the reforms sought by many Democratic Senators are justified by the extended and unprecedented abuse of the Senate rules and practices by Senate Republicans that began when President Obama took office. However, I hope that by reaching this bipartisan agreement we build a foundation for restoring the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the American people. Now the burden is on Senate Republicans to work with us rather than hide behind an abuse of the rules to block progress. The American people want Congress to be able to solve national problems like disaster relief, comprehensive immigration reform, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. They want us to work together on commonsense solutions to reduce gun violence and to ensure that all Americans have access to a working Federal court system. I hope that today's bipartisan compromise holds the promise of getting more done to help the American people. I look forward to working with those on both sides of the aisle in the coming months.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti- Retaliation Act. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues. Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives. The legislation we are introducing today is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. The antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on the first day for bill introductions this year I once again join with Senator Crapo and a distinguished, bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. This life-saving legislation should be a top priority of the new 113th Congress. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this strong, bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence. The Senate acted just 9 months ago to approve the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 with 68 bipartisan votes. Despite our best efforts, the House did not join in our bipartisan efforts and enact that bill into law. By now, the litany of VAWA's successes is familiar, but important. Since this historic legislation first passed in 1994, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have helped to provide victims with critical services like housing and legal protection. Those are just a few highlights. We need to remember that behind those numbers are thousands of lives made immeasurably better. Despite VAWA's success, there is a pressing need to update and strengthen its protections. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. These numbers are almost too awful to contemplate. Real life cases remind us that this reauthorization is long overdue. Last month, I read in the Burlington Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton, a woman from Thetford, VT. Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, beat her with a baseball bat, and poured industrial-strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said that she had suffered ``the most horrific injury a human being could suffer.'' Today, she is nearly blind, disfigured, and continues to experience pain from her injuries. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story. Stories like this one remind us that every day that we do not pass legislation that will help to prevent horrific violence and assist victims, more people are suffering. Late last year while Congress failed to act on our bipartisan bill, we saw tragic domestic violence- related murder-suicides in Missouri and Colorado. We also learned of harrowing new accounts of sexual assaults on college campuses. These are just more examples of the kind of tragedies that unfold every day across the country. The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It would increase VAWA's focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities, where one recent study found that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. It will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. Every VAWA reauthorization Congress has passed has taken steps to help immigrant victims of violence, who are often particularly vulnerable. Last year's bill included a modest increase in the number of U visas available to immigrant victims who help law enforcement, which is good for victims and for law enforcement. Unfortunately, that provision led to a technical objection from House Republican leaders. In the interest of making quick and decisive progress, we introduce the bill today without that provision in order to remove any excuse for House inaction. We have retained other important improvements for immigrant victims in the bill we introduce today as part of our commitment to ensuring that all victims are protected. I still believe strongly in the U visa increase that was in last year's Leahy-Crapo bill. I authored that provision after hearing from law enforcement and the experts in the field. I think it is needed to encourage assistance to law enforcement and to protect immigrant women and I remain committed to enacting it and ensuring that the needed U visa increase is adopted. I intend to work to include it in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that we should consider early in this Congress. It will be part of our immigration reform effort. We have included, as well, in this year's bill the specific provisions of the SAFER bill that I worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley last year and that then passed the Senate unanimously late in the session. I hope that Senators who opposed VAWA last year while supporting those provisions will now join with us in our effort to enact VAWA reauthorization that includes those provisions, as well. All of the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and with those who assist them every day. They are common sense measures that will help real people. It is past time for Congress to move beyond partisan politics in order to provide help to victims of domestic and sexual violence. We can make these concrete and important changes in the law that will prevent terrible violence and provide more help to victims. There is no excuse for delay. I hope all Senators will join me in quickly moving this bill through the Senate and that the House will quickly work with us to get a strong VAWA bill to the President. I thank Senator Crapo, the lead Senate Republican cosponsor of our bill and Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Ayotte, Collins, Coons, Durbin, Bennet, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kirk, Cantwell, Murray, Udall (CO), Casey, and McCaskill, who join us as original cosponsors and have all been strong supporters of VAWA. I look forward to many others joining us to move forward on this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation directed at combating the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. I thank the law enforcement partners who have contributed ideas and Senator Durbin for joining me in this effort. I hope that as Senators become familiar with the proposal, they will see it as a focused approach to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the illegal trafficking. This commonsense measure deserves the bipartisan support that will be critical to any effort in the Senate to reduce gun violence in America. I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort. When the President spoke last week about the need for legislative action in the wake of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, strengthening our law enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking was one of the key issues he proposed. This bill will answer that call to action. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first hearing of the 113th Congress on the issue of gun violence. I expect that part of that discussion will include examining various legislative proposals Senators have put forward. We need to move beyond platitudes and toward solutions. It is my hope that as the Committee proceeds we can find areas of common ground. There is now broad recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a firearm, and that self protection is an essential part of that right. To the extent there used to be a backdrop of uncertainty about the meaning of the Second Amendment, that time is past. I have long believed that the right to bear arms for protection is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. That is no longer questioned. So we can proceed now in this discussion with certainty that Americans' constitutional rights will be preserved while we seek solutions to prevent gun violence. There is broad agreement that keeping guns away from those suffering from mental illness and criminals is the right thing to do. I am a responsible gun owner. I know that other responsible gun owners will support better enforcement of the laws that exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. We cannot allow those who are barred from buying guns to circumvent our laws. That is just common sense. Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to effectively combat illegal firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress should have put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless''. If we are to address gun violence, we must respond to this clear vulnerability. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This practice typically involves a person who is not prohibited by Federal law purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. It is a problem that must be addressed. It not only results in the support of larger criminal organizations, but also in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. It puts both law enforcement officials and law abiding firearms dealers in a very difficult position but more importantly, this makes our citizens and communities less safe. Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as lying on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity. The bill I introduce today will add a new provision to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms, and establishes tough penalties for those who purchase firearms for, on behalf of, or with the intent to transfer the firearms to someone prohibited from making that purchase directly. Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in relation to criminal activity. The bill does contain important exemptions from the prohibition, namely, the transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest. This bill will complement existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States. The provisions laid out in this legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problem of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. The bill does not affect Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. As the Senate seeks a way forward to find national solutions to reduce gun violence, I hope Senators from across the political spectrum can work together to find common ground. We have a responsibility and a duty to refine our laws consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I am prepared to hear all ideas, listen to all views, and work with Senators from both sides of the aisle. The bill I introduce today is the first of several proposals I expect to support to reduce gun violence. I look forward to discussing it further with fellow Senators and witnesses at the upcoming hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on the first day for bill introductions this year I once again join with Senator Crapo and a distinguished, bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. This life-saving legislation should be a top priority of the new 113th Congress. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this strong, bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence. The Senate acted just 9 months ago to approve the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 with 68 bipartisan votes. Despite our best efforts, the House did not join in our bipartisan efforts and enact that bill into law. By now, the litany of VAWA's successes is familiar, but important. Since this historic legislation first passed in 1994, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have helped to provide victims with critical services like housing and legal protection. Those are just a few highlights. We need to remember that behind those numbers are thousands of lives made immeasurably better. Despite VAWA's success, there is a pressing need to update and strengthen its protections. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. These numbers are almost too awful to contemplate. Real life cases remind us that this reauthorization is long overdue. Last month, I read in the Burlington Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton, a woman from Thetford, VT. Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, beat her with a baseball bat, and poured industrial-strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said that she had suffered ``the most horrific injury a human being could suffer.'' Today, she is nearly blind, disfigured, and continues to experience pain from her injuries. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story. Stories like this one remind us that every day that we do not pass legislation that will help to prevent horrific violence and assist victims, more people are suffering. Late last year while Congress failed to act on our bipartisan bill, we saw tragic domestic violence- related murder-suicides in Missouri and Colorado. We also learned of harrowing new accounts of sexual assaults on college campuses. These are just more examples of the kind of tragedies that unfold every day across the country. The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It would increase VAWA's focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence. This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities, where one recent study found that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. It will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past. Every VAWA reauthorization Congress has passed has taken steps to help immigrant victims of violence, who are often particularly vulnerable. Last year's bill included a modest increase in the number of U visas available to immigrant victims who help law enforcement, which is good for victims and for law enforcement. Unfortunately, that provision led to a technical objection from House Republican leaders. In the interest of making quick and decisive progress, we introduce the bill today without that provision in order to remove any excuse for House inaction. We have retained other important improvements for immigrant victims in the bill we introduce today as part of our commitment to ensuring that all victims are protected. I still believe strongly in the U visa increase that was in last year's Leahy-Crapo bill. I authored that provision after hearing from law enforcement and the experts in the field. I think it is needed to encourage assistance to law enforcement and to protect immigrant women and I remain committed to enacting it and ensuring that the needed U visa increase is adopted. I intend to work to include it in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that we should consider early in this Congress. It will be part of our immigration reform effort. We have included, as well, in this year's bill the specific provisions of the SAFER bill that I worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley last year and that then passed the Senate unanimously late in the session. I hope that Senators who opposed VAWA last year while supporting those provisions will now join with us in our effort to enact VAWA reauthorization that includes those provisions, as well. All of the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and with those who assist them every day. They are common sense measures that will help real people. It is past time for Congress to move beyond partisan politics in order to provide help to victims of domestic and sexual violence. We can make these concrete and important changes in the law that will prevent terrible violence and provide more help to victims. There is no excuse for delay. I hope all Senators will join me in quickly moving this bill through the Senate and that the House will quickly work with us to get a strong VAWA bill to the President. I thank Senator Crapo, the lead Senate Republican cosponsor of our bill and Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Ayotte, Collins, Coons, Durbin, Bennet, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kirk, Cantwell, Murray, Udall (CO), Casey, and McCaskill, who join us as original cosponsors and have all been strong supporters of VAWA. I look forward to many others joining us to move forward on this vital legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti- Retaliation Act. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues. Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives. The legislation we are introducing today is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims. The antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation directed at combating the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. I thank the law enforcement partners who have contributed ideas and Senator Durbin for joining me in this effort. I hope that as Senators become familiar with the proposal, they will see it as a focused approach to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the illegal trafficking. This commonsense measure deserves the bipartisan support that will be critical to any effort in the Senate to reduce gun violence in America. I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort. When the President spoke last week about the need for legislative action in the wake of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, strengthening our law enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking was one of the key issues he proposed. This bill will answer that call to action. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first hearing of the 113th Congress on the issue of gun violence. I expect that part of that discussion will include examining various legislative proposals Senators have put forward. We need to move beyond platitudes and toward solutions. It is my hope that as the Committee proceeds we can find areas of common ground. There is now broad recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a firearm, and that self protection is an essential part of that right. To the extent there used to be a backdrop of uncertainty about the meaning of the Second Amendment, that time is past. I have long believed that the right to bear arms for protection is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. That is no longer questioned. So we can proceed now in this discussion with certainty that Americans' constitutional rights will be preserved while we seek solutions to prevent gun violence. There is broad agreement that keeping guns away from those suffering from mental illness and criminals is the right thing to do. I am a responsible gun owner. I know that other responsible gun owners will support better enforcement of the laws that exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. We cannot allow those who are barred from buying guns to circumvent our laws. That is just common sense. Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to effectively combat illegal firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress should have put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless''. If we are to address gun violence, we must respond to this clear vulnerability. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This practice typically involves a person who is not prohibited by Federal law purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. It is a problem that must be addressed. It not only results in the support of larger criminal organizations, but also in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. It puts both law enforcement officials and law abiding firearms dealers in a very difficult position but more importantly, this makes our citizens and communities less safe. Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as lying on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity. The bill I introduce today will add a new provision to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms, and establishes tough penalties for those who purchase firearms for, on behalf of, or with the intent to transfer the firearms to someone prohibited from making that purchase directly. Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in relation to criminal activity. The bill does contain important exemptions from the prohibition, namely, the transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest. This bill will complement existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States. The provisions laid out in this legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problem of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. The bill does not affect Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. As the Senate seeks a way forward to find national solutions to reduce gun violence, I hope Senators from across the political spectrum can work together to find common ground. We have a responsibility and a duty to refine our laws consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I am prepared to hear all ideas, listen to all views, and work with Senators from both sides of the aisle. The bill I introduce today is the first of several proposals I expect to support to reduce gun violence. I look forward to discussing it further with fellow Senators and witnesses at the upcoming hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know the distinguished majority leader is about to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the majority leader is not a person to praise himself, but I will. I totally agree with the comments he made about how the session has virtually ended. It is only in recent times that I find myself presiding as often as I have because of other circumstances, and I am glad I was here to open the Senate today to hear the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois speak about the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. We first met when he was running for the Senate seat at a campaign event in another State. We worked together at that time and became friends, and from that day on we have actually spoken many times with our wives about that meeting in Florida. I consider it a privilege that I was on the floor today to hear the words of the Senator from Illinois and I join in praising my friend from Nevada. He is a dear and wonderful friend. His wife and my wife are dear wonderful friends. We both married way above ourselves. But I feel privileged to serve every day with the Senator from Nevada. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I guess one of the advantages of being President pro tempore is I actually get to preside more than I had for a while and hear some of the speeches of my colleagues, which I appreciate. The Senate is a place I love, as I know the distinguished Presiding Officer does. It is, as I have often said, a place that should be considered the conscience of the Nation. There are only 100 of us representing over 300 million Americans. We should be able to stand and be their conscience. I worry, though--as I hear the debate on this so-called fiscal cliff and I hear some on the other side say, well, we are not prepared to vote or we don't want to vote--because that means they want to vote maybe. None of us were elected on a promise to vote maybe. If the other side wants to vote and give huge tax cuts to longtime millionaires, fine, then vote. Vote yes for that if they want. But don't say: We will not have any vote one way or the other; we will vote maybe. We are supposed to be willing to take the consequences of how we vote. Vote yes or vote no. If a Member wants to vote for keeping taxes lower for the middle class, for those who have hourly wages, for those who work hard in our economy, then stand and vote yes, we want to give them a tax break. If a Member doesn't want to give them a tax break, then vote no. But what is happening, by refusing to vote at all, whether it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, what they are doing with their ``maybe'' vote is they are going to dramatically increase taxes on the middle class. Then, in an effort to justify that, they say: We wanted to vote maybe because we wanted in the end run to protect millionaires. Well, millionaires do all right. I know a lot of millionaires. They have told me, as the Senator from Iowa said earlier this morning, they could afford the taxes they paid during the Clinton era because during that era, they made more money than they had ever made. So they paid some of the higher taxes. So what. The amount of money they had at the end of the year was greater than it ever had been. But we know what happened during that Clinton era. We balanced the budget--incidentally, not a single Republican voted for the plan. In fact, they gave speeches on the floor that the plan would bring about recession, even a depression. Instead, the economy grew faster than it ever had before. People had more money in their pockets than they ever had before. We balanced the budget, and we started paying down the national debt. When the next administration came in, they gave everybody, including millionaires, a big tax cut. But worse than that, they began a war in Iraq that never should have begun, against Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, even though we had the Vice President of the United States suggesting in his speeches it was connected with 9/11, claiming there were weapons of mass destruction, even though those who actually read the intelligence--as the former vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Graham of Florida, did, and I did--realized there were no weapons of mass destruction. But they voted for this war. One of the bad mistakes they made--other than the tragic mistake of going to a war we had no reason to go to; one that cost us thousands of American lives and countless thousands of other lives and $1 trillion-- they did something we had never done before in the history of this country, they said: We will go to that war on a credit card. We will just borrow the money. Vietnam was an unpopular war, but we had a surtax to pay for it. Korea was an unpopular war. We paid for it. World War II--we knew it was the survival of our Nation, and we paid for it. In Iraq, we have spent $1 trillion and we will be spending for longer than any of us in this body will probably live, as we pay for the damage to so many of our brave men and women, and we borrowed the money. We took the surpluses built up over the Clinton era and wasted them. We are doing the same thing in Afghanistan. This is a country where our reason for going in there was to get Osama bin Laden. When the decision was made to go into Iraq, it allowed Osama bin Laden to escape. We go into a nation-building war, which seems to have no end, again, on a credit card. Osama bin Laden has been dead now for some time. We ought to--to use a phrase of a former Senator from Vermont--we ought to declare victory and get out. But, again, we are doing it on a credit card. So what do we say? We have two wars we should not be in, and we say: But we have to pay for it. We ought to take some money away from senior citizens. We ought to take money away from education. We ought to take money away from medical research. We ought to take money away from rebuilding what needs to be done in our country to pay for two wars we put on our credit card. Come on. As one Vermonter said to me: You spend all this money to build these roads and bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan and then they blow them up. Why don't you rebuild our roads and bridges in America? We Americans will take care of them. So with all the talk of where we are, let's not forget the big elephant in the room; that is, two wars on a credit card--one going far longer than it had any reason to, the other one totally unnecessary in the first place--as much as a couple trillion dollars between the two of them. That was money that could have been spent in America for Americans to make America better. We have wasted it there. Now we say: How can we punish Americans--the average American. How can we punish them for the mistakes we made in going into two wars. We will punish them to pay for it. Come on. Let's face up to reality. I suspect I may have more to say on this in the future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that the Senate voted to confirm the nomination of Bill Baer to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. His nomination has been pending for 10 months, and more than three months have passed since the Judiciary Committee favorably reported his nomination with bipartisan support. The Antitrust Division has continued its important work with three acting heads who have worked diligently to fulfill the mission of the office. But those solutions are only temporary, and it is essential that the Senate undertook its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on a permanent division head with responsibility for enforcing our Nation's antitrust laws. Mr. Baer is an outstanding candidate to fulfill this role. He has spent over 35 years working in the field of antitrust and consumer protection law. He served as Director of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission in the 1990s, and now chairs the Antitrust Group at the law firm of Arnold & Porter. His nomination has received bipartisan support from leading practitioners of antitrust law, including 12 former heads of the Antitrust Division representing every presidential administration since 1972. His nomination has also received bipartisan support from 29 former chairs of the American Bar Association's Section on Antitrust Law, who praise his ``demonstrated ability as an antitrust lawyer and his outstanding record of public service.'' Bill Baer is a leading voice on antitrust matters. He advised the Antitrust Modernization Commission, and frequently contributes to workshops at the Department of Justice and FTC. He was named one of ``The Decade's Most Influential Lawyers'' by The National Law Journal in 2010, and the ``Leading Lawyer for Antitrust'' in 2011. Chambers, Who's Who, and the Legal 500 have all recognized him as one of our country's leading practitioners in antitrust law. When the 12 former heads of the Antitrust Division wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Mr. Baer's nomination earlier this year, they wrote: ``Mr. Baer's tenure as Director of the [FTC] Bureau of Competition was marked by principled, effective enforcement of the antitrust laws and . . . procedures that balanced the needs of the Commission with the legitimate concerns of both businesses and consumers. We are confident that he will continue the strong, rational, and nonpartisan antitrust enforcement tradition of the United States Department of Justice.'' After months and months of needless delays, Bill Baer can at last begin that important work to help protect the American people.