Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, I have introduced an emergency supplemental and disaster aid bill. This is to respond to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy. The eyes, ears, and hopes of tens of millions of our fellow Americans who were in this storm's path are now trained upon the U.S. Senate. And with us in this effort, as well, is the good will of the entire Nation. I say that because in my almost 38 years here, I have been on this floor time and time again--different Presidents, sometimes in the majority, sometimes in the minority--where there has been devastation in different parts of this country, and in every single instance--every single instance--the Senate has come together to provide relief to those hit by hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes, or anything else. Superstorm Sandy was remarkable, and I use that in the broadest sense of the word. It hit the east coast 7 weeks ago. What it did is it swelled to become the largest Atlantic hurricane in history. It was hundreds of miles wide, much wider than my own State of Vermont. Its reach was greater than even that of Hurricane Katrina along the gulf coast. Sandy claimed the lives of more than 120 of our fellow Americans. It destroyed more than 340,000 homes and 200,000 businesses. More than 8.5 million families were without power in 15 States and the District of Columbia. The scale of the damage is almost hard to fathom. I remember seeing the damage caused by Irene last year, including the devastation from which my home State of Vermont is still recovering. Because of my involvement in that, I am acutely aware of the need for a rapid and unified response from Federal, State, and local authorities to meet the needs of so many of our fellow American citizens. As of last week, the Homeland Security Subcommittee reports that the Federal Government has already provided over $2.7 billion in relief through FEMA, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies. As of today, 12 States have active major disaster or emergency declarations as a result of Sandy, and there is no question it is going to cost billions to rebuild these devastated communities. Anybody who has seen them knows they are devastated. It is a word that we sometimes use too easily but appropriate when you have a whole downtown, block after block, homes that people have lived in sometimes for generations--it was their parents' home or their grandparents' home--and now it is kindling wood. The Obama administration has requested money for recovery and repairs--just as every administration in the past has, Republican and Democratic alike--they have requested $60.4 billion for recovery and repairs, and the amendment we consider today meets that request. But we have not simply rubberstamped the request. The Appropriations Committee, working with the Senators from all the States that have been hit so hard, has made numerous changes to ensure that the dollars put into this response are used as effectively and efficiently as can be. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know the budget constraints we are facing, and the Appropriations Committee has done its best to allocate the funds in such a way that States will have the flexibility required to respond to the individual needs of their citizens, while at the same time reducing the possibility for waste, fraud, or abuse. Senator Landrieu, who is on the floor, is the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. Well, this is a Senator who is no stranger to tackling the incredible challenges of responding to and recovering from natural disasters of this scale. I know she is going to speak in a short while. We all know Louisiana is still rebuilding from the catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and Senator Landrieu--both as an individual Senator and from her position as chair--has worked tirelessly ever since to help her State and others recovering from storms and other calamities. I know how hard she works because she stepped in to help Vermont when we were in a similar situation last year. It ia an example, I might say, of how even States that are not hurt help those that are. It has always been our tradition in the Senate. In this supplemental, she has worked to incorporate that experience into vital emergency funding for FEMA and other disaster relief programs. Since the supplemental we reconsider today contains funding that will help millions of Americans recover from this terrible storm, I want to highlight a few specifics. We include $10.8 billion in emergency relief for public transportation systems. This is not a rural area. It is not like rural Vermont. We understand that public transportation, especially in this area, is necessary for millions of Americans--millions--to function day by day. It is especially vital around New York City. The subway and bus systems in New York and New Jersey allow people to get to work and students to go to school. The resources in this supplemental will help pay for the repair and restoration of some of the most heavily used public transportation systems in the country. Just as importantly, it is going to help fund projects to help public transportation prepare for and resist future storms. Because as much as we like to think there will be no future storms, every one of us knows there will be future storms. The supplemental recommends $812 million for the Small Business Administration. Every one of us knows small businesses are essential to the American economy. They are responsible for employing about half of all workers in America. So this amount will help fund the SBA's disaster loan program, helping small local businesses in recovering from physical damage to their storefront operations, as well as in recovering from economic losses suffered when they had to close their doors during Hurricane Sandy. We have seen the devastation to iconic neighborhoods and places such as the Jersey shore or Staten Island or Long Island--neighborhoods that were destroyed by the storm or by the fires that followed. So many of the businesses destroyed in these communities are mom-and-pop operations--small businesses like the one my mother and father ran--and they simply cannot afford to reopen without Federal disaster assistance. They need the loans, but, more importantly, they need the loans now--not 6 months from now. I point out especially, a number of these are shops that make their living during the summer beach season. They want to be able to open by Memorial Day. I can tell you, as one who has seen how long it takes to reopen after a disaster like this, Memorial Day is tomorrow for these people. They need the loans today. We have recommended $500 million for the Administration for Children and Families Social Services Block Grant to be used primarily for childcare services, for reopening damaged childcare facilities, but also--and we have to understand how important this is--for mental health services for both children and adults who have gone through this disaster and probably have seen members of their family lose their lives. Another $100 million will pay for repairs to Head Start facilities affected by Hurricane Sandy. These provide essential education and health services to low-income, prekindergarten children. And we all know that interruptions in programs such as these are detrimental to the development of the children but also the families they serve. So we cannot wait to rebuild these centers, and we cannot wait to provide essential health care services to those who have lost so much. If you have a health need, we cannot say: Well, we will get back to you in a few months. Your health need is today. I have heard two arguments against moving to the emergency supplemental as quickly as possible. I have found them surprising. The first is that the cost of this bill should be offset with cuts to other programs. This is the same argument we heard last year when we needed emergency funding to respond to Hurricane Irene. Well, it made no sense a year ago. It makes no sense today. It will make no sense tomorrow. The suggestion that we should cut funding from base budgets of departments and agencies that are carrying out the essential functions of our government in order to pay for an unanticipated natural disaster--that is absurd. Mandating offsets means cutting funding from law enforcement to pay for replacing a vital roadway destroyed by Sandy. It means cutting funding for education through Head Start in order to provide clean drinking water to those who have been left with nothing in the wake of Sandy. The point is obvious: These are emergencies. That is why they are called emergencies. We do not do offsets to pay for emergencies. I think of what Chairman Inouye has said. He has said it so many times, whether with Republican or Democratic administrations: ``It has long been the tradition of the Congress to approve disaster assistance without need for offset.'' And then he continued: Others will likely come to the Senate floor to challenge that remark . . . However, in the case of disaster assistance, I challenge my colleagues to review all Appropriations bills for the past decade and find a single instance where the Committee paid for disasters by rescinding funds from other programs. Then Chairman Inouye concluded with the obvious: No one would find an example, because quite simply there aren't any. Well, he is right. The President requested and the committee is recommending $60.4 billion to respond to this storm. The total budget authority for nondefense spending is about $500 billion a year. Using the logic that all emergency spending should be offset would cut the discretionary spending needs--if we see seven more disasters, well then I guess we eliminate every single agency, department, and program except the Pentagon. Come on. Is that what this country is about? Some may think that is a good idea--eliminate all government. We would not have any road to drive on to go state our beliefs. The rest of America disagrees. I have also heard discussion of taking a downpayment approach to the supplemental--do a little and come back next year. Well, that sounds familiar. I remember hearing a lot of it last year. Talk to the person whose house has been destroyed. It is a week before the Christmas season. It is getting cold. Tell them that we Senators--it is true, we all live in comfortable homes. We work in a place that has not been touched--think you should wait and come back later next year. I would defy any Member of this body to say that directly to one of the firefighters who saw their home destroyed or the senior citizen who saw their home destroyed or the person who has worked all their life to build up their business and saw it destroyed. No. They want to recover now, not when a Congress that has not been known to move very rapidly of late gets around to doing something for them. After all, we are asking homeowners to rebuild, saying go back and provide their own place to live. We are asking businesses to reinvest so they can hire people who are out of work. They need the assurance that we are going to do our part. You cannot just say: Put your money up now, and maybe, just maybe when we start talking about all of these things that have no bearing on what you are facing, we might come through 6 months from now and we might not. Come on. That is not how we want to encourage rebuilding. Homeowners and businesses in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and elsewhere need to know that the funding will be there to complete the rebuilding of public infrastructure. Only the Federal Government has the resources to make this happen. The President's request is comprehensive. And we know the needs to recover from Superstorm Sandy. Now, we stood up, Democrats and Republicans together, to respond to disasters in the past. We have to do the same now. When Irene--then a tropical storm--hit Vermont last year, no one could have anticipated the devastation we saw: roads washed away, bridges collapsed, communities cut off because all entrances and exits for the community were destroyed, bridges that had been there from the time I was born--I remember them as a child, had always been there, were there when my parents were living there, were there when my grandparents were living there--gone in a matter of minutes. Vermonters know that when one of us is hurting, all of us are hurting. Vermont appreciated the assistance from other States near and far and from the Federal Government. New Jersey, New York, and other States hit by this superstorm are now depending on us. So let's do what is right. There is no need for delay. Christmas is coming. Thousands of families have lost everything. Their hope, their future is in our hands. They need our help. They deserve our help. We are Americans. We come together to help. So let's do it. I will speak further, but I see the distinguished senior Senator from New York. He and I have discussed this. He has seen more. As bad as Irene was in Vermont, the number of businesses and homes destroyed pales in comparison to what he has seen in his State and the neighboring States. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, I have an amendment to the substitute, which is at the desk. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I commend him for his statements, first on his nominee for the Illinois judgeship that has been delayed for far too long, through no fault of the Senator from Illinois. This weekend was a very difficult and trying weekend for our families and so many other families, although nothing compared to the families in Newtown, of course. I pretty much stayed off the phone and spent time with children and grandchildren. I made an exception for a couple of phone calls with the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois. I told him that when we come back in in a couple of weeks for the new Congress, I will work with him to make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee has full and thorough hearings on the subjects he has just spoken about, as he stated here so eloquently and as he did in his television interviews this weekend. The President was absolutely right when he said there is a number of issues. Obviously the issue of guns is one of them. Mental health is another. There are several issues. Several committees will look at these issues, and should. But I think the Senate Judiciary Committee has a very particular role to play, and I pledge to the Senator from Illinois he will have my complete cooperation in that regard. He was one of the rare phone calls I made this weekend, as well as to a couple national law enforcement officials. I thought I had seen some of the most horrific crime scenes in my career, but they don't even begin to compare to what the first responders and others, including school officials and parents, saw in that elementary school. The memory is fresh for us, but can we imagine the memories for the families of both the adults and the children who died? It is a memory that will never, ever fade. I think we ought to show our responsibility and step forward to find out what can be done not as Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, but as Americans. I believe it can be done. I see the time of 5 o'clock has nearly arrived, but I also see the distinguished Senator from Maryland on the floor. He wishes to speak on the supplemental. I ask unanimous consent Senator Cardin be permitted to speak on the supplemental and that if he goes past the time of 5 o'clock he be allowed to continue using my time on the judicial nominations.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his comments. The Presiding Officer and I and others have discussed how we felt this weekend. I can't think of anything that has more emotionally roiled the Nation. There have been few such events in my lifetime. All of us feel the senseless killings last Friday in Newtown, CT, made no sense--just hit everybody. If we feel so deeply, we can't begin to imagine how the families must feel--the families, the parents of the children, the siblings or spouses of the adults killed. We pick up the paper, turn on the radio, listen to the television, and there is one more wrenching story after another. In my family, and I know in families from coast to coast, parents called their children. Brothers called sisters. Neighbors reached out to neighbors. We huddled with two of our three children, soon to be with a third one in Vermont, hugged our grandchildren. Over the weekend and again today, in discussions in churches, synagogues, houses of worship, on the sidewalk, in the grocery line, at the worksite and in our offices, we have all struggled for words to describe our feelings of shock and our feelings of immeasurable sadness. I think we can all agree no matter what our political background, no matter what part of the country we come from, that last night President Obama gave voice--our voice, 325 million Americans gave voice to let these stricken families know how deeply we wanted to help relieve their suffering as we share their grief. It was a time when the President can and should and did speak for the whole Nation. But there are so many questions about this unspeakable tragedy that have yet to be answered. The President has pointed out it is unlikely any single step or package of steps or this move or that move can erase the chance of such a tragedy happening again. We know it could have even been worse if the brave first responders hadn't rushed into the school even though they knew they might be facing death themselves. We know that sometimes things are beyond our understanding. We know situations vary widely from State to State and community to community. But whether it is in the State of Connecticut or, God forbid, in the State of the Presiding Officer or my State, we all share the responsibility of searching for an answer not just for the people of Connecticut but for people throughout the United States, and some can honestly say the people throughout the world who look to the United States as a bastion of freedom, of democracy. I think Congress can and should be part of this national discussion in the search for answers. We will come back into a new session in a few weeks. The Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing very early in the next congressional session to help in the search for understanding and answers. I know all of us will take part in that no matter what our feelings might be. There are other committees also that have different types of jurisdiction and will have to take part in this national discussion. It isn't a matter of just guns--which is a significant part of this, of course--it is the matter of mental illness; it is a matter of how we run our educational facilities. All of these things should be talked about. If there are practical and sensible and workable answers to prevent such unspeakable tragedy, we should make the effort to find them and then we should have the courage, each and every one of us, to vote for those steps. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, originally we were planning to vote at 5:30 p.m. The distinguished ranking member has no objection. I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided between now and 5:30 p.m. in the normal fashion and the votes be at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so Senators will know, it is my understanding that the first vote, on the confirmation of Fernando Olguin, of California, will be a voice vote, and the second one for Mr. Durkin will be a rollcall vote, which is what I understand from the Senator from Iowa, which, of course, is perfectly acceptable to the Democratic side.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is finally being allowed to vote to confirm two consensus judicial nominees who should have been voted on months ago. Both Judge Fernando Olguin and Thomas Durkin were voted out of the Judiciary Committee before the August recess. Both will finally fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois that were needlessly held vacant since this summer by partisan delay tactics. Their service to the American people has been unnecessarily delayed by over four months. In the Central District of California, there are over 12,000 cases pending before its judges, and in the Northern District of Illinois there are close to 11,000 cases pending before its judges. Every single judge in each district has approximately 450 or more cases pending on their dockets. This enormous backlog of cases exists in many of our Federal courts in this country and it means that the American people are not able to receive speedy justice. More than twice the number of judicial vacancies exists compared to the vacancies left at the end of President Bush's first term. The Senate should be voting on all 16 of the judicial nominees reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee. I have also been urging Republicans to expedite consideration of the four judicial nominees who participated in hearings last Wednesday. That would lead to 20 more confirmations before the Senate adjourns later this month. Historically, the Senate has confirmed hundreds of judicial nominees within 14 days of their Judiciary Committee hearings, including more than 600 confirmed since World War II within just one week of their hearings. In contrast, obstruction by Senate Republicans has caused President Obama's district court nominees to wait an average of 103 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee, which Committee consideration has itself often been delayed 30 days or more after their hearings. This destructive practice of delaying for no good reason should be abandoned. Republican filibusters and pocket filibusters are also preventing votes on circuit court nominees who should be confirmed by consensus before the Senate adjourns for the year. For example, one of the nominations Senate Republicans are holding up is that of Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit, who they filibustered earlier this year. Senator Coburn, one of his home state Senators, said: ``He has no opposition in the Senate. . . . There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' That also applies to Richard Taranto, who was reported more than eight months ago to a vacancy on the Federal Circuit. That applies to William Kayatta of Maine, who was reported nearly eight months ago and has the support of his two home state Republican Senators. After today's votes, there will still be nine judicial nominees stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar who were reported before the August recess, and who should have been confirmed months ago. Most are consensus nominees. All have the support of both their home state Senators, including their home state Republican Senators. The Senate should be voting to confirm all these nominees before the Senate adjourns for the year. When George W. Bush was President, Senate Democrats cooperated in moving judicial nominees quickly through the Committee and to a confirmation vote at the end of the year. I did so whether I was Chairman or the ranking member. By way of example, in 2008 we confirmed five of President Bush's nominees just three days after their hearing. We have often been able to do this at the end of a Congress, and this year should be no exception especially given the high level of judicial vacancies plaguing our Federal courts. Judge Fernando Olguin is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where he has been serving as a Magistrate Judge for over a decade. He was the first Latino-American to serve as a Magistrate Judge in that District. Prior to that, Judge Olguin was in private practice for several years and also served as a Trial Attorney at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkley. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable C.A. Muecke of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. His nomination has the support of both his home state Senators. Judge Olguin was approved by the Judiciary Committee nearly five months ago by voice vote. Thomas Durkin is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Currently a partner at the Chicago office of Mayer Brown LLP, he also served as a Federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois for 13 years. During his time as a Federal prosecutor, he rose to become the Chief of the Criminal Receiving and Appellate Division as well as the Chief of the Special Prosecutions Division. From 1991 to 1993, he served as the First Assistant United States Attorney of that District. Upon graduation from law school, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Stanley J. Roszkowski of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave him its highest possible rating of ``Well Qualified.'' His nomination has the bipartisan support of his home state Senators. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee more than four months ago by voice vote. The Senate should finally confirm these two nominees today and proceed to vote on all the other judicial nominees stalled on the Senate Executive Calendar. We can fill 10 more judicial emergency vacancies before adjourning this year. We can help our Federal courts uphold their constitutional responsibility to provide speedy justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally being allowed to take up the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act and the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act. These two legislative proposals will enhance federal law enforcement officers' ability to investigate and solve crimes. I want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his leadership and perseverance in working to pass these important clarifications to existing federal law enforcement authorities. The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011 clarifies the authority of the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies to assist state and local law enforcement upon request with investigations of mass killings and other instances of public violence. This important legislation will help to ensure that State and local law enforcement agencies receive the assistance they need in times of crisis. I am disappointed that this Senate bill, which was voted out of the Judiciary Committee on November 17, 2011, with overwhelming support, and the companion House bill, which was passed by the House by a vote of 358 to 9, were held up for more than a year. I hope that there is still time this session for the House to take action so that the bill can be sent to the President and he can sign it into law without further delay. When tragedy strikes, as with the shootings in Tucson, AZ, in 2011, in Aurora, CO, in 2012, and this past Friday in Newtown, CT, there should be no doubt that Federal law enforcement can assist state and local police officers. The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act will ensure that all hands can be on deck when law enforcement assistance is needed most. The Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act will reconcile an inconsistency in the United States Marshals Service's statutory authority to improve the ability of U.S. Marshals to investigate cases involving missing children and certain sex offenders. The United States Marshals Service is a key partner in the investigation and prosecution of missing and exploited children, and we must ensure that there is no question as to the marshals' authority to assist in these cases. I regret that there are still Republican Senators holding up passage of other legislation to provide Federal assistance to state and local law enforcement that they need. Among the measures being stalled are the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, the National Blue Alert Act, Local Courthouse Safety Act, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Award Grant Program Reauthorization. At least one Republican Senator has gone so far as to contend that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to provide assistance and support to State and local law enforcement. I disagree. I believe such support is essential to State and local law enforcement as they work hard to protect communities in difficult times when resources from State and local governments are being squeezed. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Inouye, that Karen Courington and Mike Hansen, legislative fellows detailed to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the fiscal year 2013 disaster assistance supplemental.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, in the 111th Congress, I worked closely with Senator Lugar on two pieces of legislation to improve our immigration laws in small but meaningful ways. My bill, the Refugee Opportunity Act, would provide refugees and asylees more opportunity to become self-sustaining, productive members of their new American communities. Senator Lugar's bill, which I was proud to support, would have permitted lawful permanent residents to return, without penalty to their citizenship process, to their country of nationality to assist in post-conflict or disaster reconstruction efforts. Both of these bills, the Refugee Opportunity Act and the Return of Talent Act, were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March of 2010. Unfortunately, undefined Republican objections stalled the progress for both of these bipartisan bills. The Refugee Opportunity Act would provide relief from the continuous presence requirement in the immigration law for certain refugees and asylees. Specifically, the legislation would waive the requirement for refugees or asylees who worked overseas, if such presence outside the United States was in the service of the United States Government, within the refugee or asylee's home country, and within the protection of the United States Government. For refugees and asylees, in order to adjust from that status to lawful permanent resident status, 1 year of continuous presence in the United States is required after arrival. The purpose of the Refugee Opportunity Act was to permit refugees and asylees in the United States, who often arrive after years of persecution or displacement, to take employment opportunities overseas in service of their new government without penalty to their immigration process. The policy goal was to provide encouragement for refugees and asylees to take a step forward on the path to independence and self- sufficiency while assisting the international efforts of their adopted country. The legislation that Senator Toomey has introduced, and for which he has sought consent in the Senate, would provide this same relief from the continuous presence requirement in the immigration law for recipients of the Special Immigrant Visa. These visas are available to Iraqi and Afghan interpreters or translators who had served the United States armed forces overseas. The bill we pass today would remove barriers for Special Immigrant Visa holders who, after receipt of such a visa, wish to work again for the United States abroad. Like the Refugee Opportunity Act, this bill would waive the applicable presence requirement that the immigrant must satisfy before adjusting his or her status while he or she was outside the United States. In fact, the goals of H.R. 6223 are identical to the bill I introduced over 2 years ago with Senator Lugar--to encourage new arrivals to America to work on behalf of the United States in furthering the goals of our government abroad and to remove barriers to such employment and participation. Although I am glad that the goals of the Refugee Opportunity Act and the ideal that we do right to encourage new Americans to serve their adopted government are being promoted in the legislation Senator Toomey has sought to pass, I regret that the same cooperation and courtesy we give him today was withheld by some of Senator Toomey's fellow Republican Senators when Senator Lugar and I asked for consent on our legislation to achieve these same goals.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a week ago, I came to the Senate floor and said it was time for the Senate and the House to come together to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I expressed hope because I thought there was a basis for compromise on a provision that had been a sticking point for House Republicans. I am dismayed that we have not seen progress toward that compromise despite my outreach and the urgency of the situations for thousands of victims of domestic and sexual violence. Senator Crapo and I included in our bill a key provision to allow tribal courts limited jurisdiction to consider domestic violence offenses committed against Indian women on tribal lands by non-Indians. The epidemic of violence against Native women is appalling, with a recent study finding that almost three in five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. This provision would help end an untenable situation where non-Indians assaulting their spouses or intimate partners on tribal land are essentially immune from prosecution. This is a commonsense proposal with important limitations and guarantees of rights, but I know that House Republicans have continued to object to it. That is why I was heartened when two conservative House Republicans with leadership positions introduced a bill providing a compromise on the tribal jurisdiction provision. Representative Issa of California and Representative Cole of Oklahoma introduced the Violence Against Indian Women Act, H.R. 6625. Their cosponsors include Republicans from North Carolina, Minnesota, and Idaho. They all have tribes within their States and are concerned about the violence our Senate bill is trying to combat. Their bill includes a provision that allows defendants to remove a case to Federal court if any defendant's rights are violated. This modification should ensure that only those tribes that are following the requirements of the law and providing full rights can exercise jurisdiction and that defendants can raise challenges at the beginning of a case. Last week, I called on House Republican leadership to abandon their ``just say no'' approach to any grant of tribal jurisdiction and give serious consideration to the Republican compromise proposal introduced last week. I have heard that Republican leaders are meeting today to finally discuss the issue. It is my hope that they will show real leadership by supporting crucial protections for tribal women, rather than offering empty proposals that do not change existing law and will not move us forward or help us to address this crisis. I have reached out to House leaders throughout the year and very recently to find a path forward on VAWA, and I know others have conducted similar outreach. While I am very disappointed that I have yet to see meaningful movement despite the opportunity for reasonable, bipartisan compromise to enact this needed legislation, I do believe House leaders still have an opportunity to do the right thing and pass VAWA, but that window is closing. Passing the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill will make a difference. It will lead to a greater focus on the too often neglected problem of sexual assault and rape. It will lead to important new programs to identify high risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It will lead to better protections for students on campuses across the country and better housing protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence. These improvements are most meaningful if they apply to all victims. I am willing to explore compromise language to make progress, but we should not leave out the most vulnerable victims. As partisan objections continue to hold up this bill, we continue to read each week about new and horrific cases of domestic violence and rape. It is heartbreaking that women continue to suffer as our efforts to compromise and pass this crucial legislation hit roadblock after roadblock. I hope that our last ditch effort will finally break this frustrating impasse.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. We have a constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, and we must also help our courts uphold their constitutional responsibility to provide speedy justice. The judges whose confirmations Senate Republicans are delaying are not nominees they will oppose on the merits. They are by and large consensus nominees. Senate Republicans' obstruction on these important nominations is especially damaging at the end of the year. Starting in 2009, Senate Republicans broke from longstanding tradition and prevented votes on eight judicial nominees as the Senate adjourned at the end of the year. It took until September 2010 for the last of those nominees to have an up-or-down vote. Senate Republicans did the same thing--their new version of a pocket filibuster--to 19 nominees in both 2010 and 2011. This forces the Senate to waste time in the new year working on nominations that should have been confirmed the year before. This year it took until May to confirm the 19 left from last year. That is why we have confirmed only 23 nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee this year, and that is why we face this current backlog of 18 nominees and an additional 4 who had a hearing earlier this week and could also be considered and confirmed before adjournment. One of the nominations Senate Republicans are holding up is that of Judge Robert Bacharach to the Tenth Circuit, whom they filibustered earlier this year. Senator Coburn, one of his home State Senators, said: ``He has no opposition in the Senate . . .. There's no reason why he shouldn't be confirmed.'' His words apply to almost all the judicial nominees being delayed. When George W. Bush was President, Democrats cooperated in moving judicial nominees quickly through the committee and to a confirmation vote at the end of the year. I did so whether I was chairman or the ranking member. I have said that I am willing to do the same for the nominees who had their hearing yesterday and expedite committee consideration of their nominations so that they can be voted on this year. By way of example, in 2008 we confirmed five of President Bush's nominees just 3 days after their hearing. We have often been able to do this at the end of a Congress, and this year should be no exception-- especially given the high level of judicial vacancies plaguing our Federal courts. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing for four more of President Obama's outstanding, consensus judicial nominees. Senators from both sides of the aisle appeared to endorse nominees to vacancies in their home States. Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate for Vice President, appeared to testify in favor of a nominee to fill a vacancy on the District Court for the District of Columbia. So did Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. After Congressman Ryan's endorsement, the committee's ranking Republican member quipped that after hearing Congressman Ryan ``we could just vote you out right away.'' He is right. The Senate should confirm her and the others without delay. That is how we used to proceed as we approached the end of a Congress. We used to expedite confirmations of consensus nominees. Now Senate Republicans insist on stalling proceedings and slowing things down and carrying large numbers of them over into the next year and needlessly delaying them for months and months. I remind Senate Republicans that the Senate confirmed an Alabama nominee to the district court within 2 days of his vote by the Judiciary Committee just a couple of years ago. There have literally been hundreds of judicial confirmations within 14 days of our Judiciary Committee hearing, including more than 600 confirmed since World War II within just 1 week of their hearings. In contrast, obstruction by Senate Republicans has caused President Obama's district court nominees to wait an average of 102 days for a Senate vote after being reported by the Judiciary Committee. This destructive practice of delaying for no good reason must end. From 1980 until this year, when a lameduck session followed a Presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before now. That is something Senate Democrats have not done in any lameduck session, whether after a Presidential or midterm election. Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, inc1uding 3 circuit court nominees, in the lameduck session after the elections in 2002. I remember, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who moved forward with those votes, including of a very controversial circuit court nominee. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lameduck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. In 2006 that included confirming another circuit court nominee. We proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in the lameduck session after the elections in 2010, including 5 circuit court nominees. The reason that I am not listing confirmations for the lameduck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the Judiciary Committee in September and long before the lameduck session. That is our history and recent precedent. Those across the aisle who contend that judicial confirmations votes during lameduck sessions do not take place are wrong. It is past time for votes on the 4 circuit nominees and the other 13 district court nominees still pending on the Executive Calendar. We should expedite confirmations for the four consensus nominees who had their hearing yesterday. Let's do our jobs so that all Americans can have access to justice. Lorna Schofield is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She has served as a Federal prosecutor and since 1988 has worked at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, where she was a partner for two decades and where she currently serves as of counsel. She serves as chair of the litigation section of the ABA, where she has actively promoted pro bono activities, including programs for children's rights and litigation assistance for military personnel. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave her its highest possible rating of ``well qualified.'' Judge Frank Geraci is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. Since 1999 Judge Geraci has served as a Monroe County Court judge, and since 2005 he has also served as an acting supreme court justice on the New York State trial court. Judge Geraci has presided over 555 civil proceedings that have gone to judgment. He has also served as both a State and Federal prosecutor. Both of these nominations have the support of both their home State Senators. They were voted on by the Judiciary Committee 5 months ago and stalled unnecessarily since then for no good reason. If we are willing to follow Senate precedent and to protect Americans' access to justice, we should vote on the nominees being delayed. Many are nominees whose nominations have been pending for many months, and many of them would fill judicial emergency vacancies. I see no reason why the Senate should not confirm them before the end of the year. We should allow these nominees to get to work on behalf of the American people. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times] Judges Needed for Federal Courts There has been a severe breakdown in the process for appointing federal judges. At the start of the Reagan years, it took, on average, a month for candidates for appellate and trial courts to go from nomination to confirmation. In the first Obama term, it has taken, on average, more than seven months. Seventy-seven judgeships, 9 percent of the federal bench (not counting the Supreme Court), are vacant; 19 more seats are expected to open up soon. The lack of judges is more acute if one considers the growing caseload. The Judicial Conference, the courts' policy-making body, has recommended expanding the bench by 88 additional judgeships. President Obama must make fully staffing the federal courts an important part of his second-term agenda--starting with the immediate Senate confirmation of the 18 nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A significant reason for the slowdown has been the partisan opposition of Republicans to appeals court and even to trial court nominations, even though almost none of the nominees have backgrounds that raise ideological issues. The Republicans have time and again used the filibuster, the threat of filibuster, holds on nominations and other tactics to block confirmations. The Democratic majority, led by Senator Harry Reid, can speed up the process by limiting use of the filibuster. He can do so by pushing for a simple majority vote at the start of the January session to alter Senate rules so that every judicial and executive-branch nominee is assured an up-or- down vote within 90 days. Without that change, many judicial nominations will founder. Even if that rule change is made, the process of identifying, vetting and approving judicial candidates will need greater attention. Senators, who by custom recommend to the president candidates for federal trial judgeships in their states, should put in place more effective steps for making timely recommendations (like setting up merit selection committees) and making a choice within a reasonable period, like within 60 days of an opening. The White House and the Justice Department, meanwhile, need to commit more resources to keeping up with those recommendations, to verify and nominate candidates for confirmation within, say, 60 days of receiving names. And the administration must be similarly prompt in identifying and nominating appeals-court candidates. In a critically important court like the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, three unfilled vacancies and a fourth expected this winter, out of 11 judgeships, hobble the court's ability to make expeditious rulings in significant cases about regulation of the environment, financial markets and other social and economic matters. Many statutes channel review of such cases to the federal courts in the District of Columbia for their expertise about administrative law and for geographic convenience. The circuit court is a stark example of the broken appointment process and the harm caused by the Senate's inability to do its job. Mr. Obama and the Senate should also look to broaden the diversity of the judges they appoint. In his first term, Mr. Obama commendably named a higher share of women (44 percent) and a higher share of minorities (37 percent) than any president before him. Most of the appointees were already judges, prosecutors or private lawyers, with few public defenders or public-interest lawyers from outside government. Expanding the breadth of experience would help ensure that federal courts have jurists who have some real-life understanding of the myriad issues that come before them. The Constitution requires the president, with the Senate's advice and consent, to fill federal judgeships. That duty has been terribly neglected and needs to be an absolute priority in the coming year.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today, the Senate will finally be allowed to vote on the nominations of Judge Frank Geraci to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York and Lorna Schofield to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Both of these nominees were voted out of the Judiciary Committee virtually unanimously before the August recess and should have been confirmed months ago. By now, no one should be surprised that it has taken so long to have a simple up-or-down vote on two consensus nominees, even though one would fill a judicial emergency vacancy and the other would fill a vacancy on one of our Nation's busiest courts. There is an editorial in today's New York Times that explains the slow pace of confirmations, and I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. LEAHY. The editorial notes: A significant reason for the slowdown has been the partisan opposition of Republicans to appeals court and even to trial court nominations, even though almost none of the nominees have backgrounds that raise ideological issues. The Republicans have time and again used the filibuster, the threat of filibuster, holds on nominations and other tactics to confirmations. This is the new practice that Senate Republicans adopted when President Obama was elected. They delay and obstruct judicial nominations for no good reason. There are currently 13 circuit and district court nominees still pending on the Senate Executive Calendar who were reported before the August recess and should all have been confirmed before the recess. Most are consensus nominees. All have the support of their home State Senators, including their home State Republican Senators. The Federal Bar Association wrote a letter earlier this week to Senate leaders that said: [W]e write to urge you to promptly schedule floor votes on pending, noncontroversial United States circuit court nominees and district court nominees who have cleared the Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support and who await a final up-or-down vote. The high number of existing judicial vacancies--81, of which 35 constitute judicial emergencies--underscores the need for prompt attention by the Senate in fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities. They are absolutely right. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the end of this Congress quickly approaches, I urge the Senate--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--to come together and pass our bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. More than a century after the Emancipation Proclamation and despite the fact that slavery is now illegal everywhere in the world, modern- day slavery, or human trafficking, still occurs throughout the world-- including in the United States of America. The Polaris Project estimates that there are more than 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide today. To put that in perspective, that is more people than the population of Texas. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act is a bipartisan bill that was carefully crafted with the input of victims and service providers to reflect critical improvements to existing law. I have worked hard to try to address concerns expressed by Republican Senators and to ensure bipartisan support for this legislation, which Congress has reauthorized three times before. The result is that our current bill, which was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee more than a year ago, now has 54 cosponsors--including 14 Republicans. This bipartisan legislation seeks to stop human trafficking at its roots by supporting international and domestic efforts to fight against the causes and punish the perpetrators of trafficking. It also provides critical resources to help support victims as they rebuild their lives. We have included new accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. Earlier this week, several Senators spoke on the floor of the Senate in commemoration of Human Rights Day. I was pleased to see that Senator Rubio, with whom I have worked on this issue, mentioned the need to pass our anti-trafficking bill by the end of the year. We agree that it is imperative for the Senate to act now so that we can take steps toward ending human trafficking and providing the survivors with the support they desperately need in order to get back on their feet. I have checked with my caucus to see if we can move this bill today. I can report that every Democratic Senator has agreed to pass this legislation now by unanimous consent. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join us to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act without further delay. This is the type of bipartisan bill about an urgent human rights issue that should pass by unanimous consent. I hope we can work together TODAY to make that happen. The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls--often just 11, 12, or 13 years old--are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. No one should further delay action while these injustices continue. I am calling on Congress to do the right thing and enact the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act before the end of this year. Millions of people around the world are counting on us and they cannot wait.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. I will be speaking later on to the senior Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I have had the privilege to serve with several hundred Senators since coming here. I have put in a very small list those who are extraordinary both for their talents and for our personal friendship, and Kent Conrad is in that short list very easily. In fact, he defines it in many ways. Because of what we heard here, as I whispered to him a minute ago, it was nice to hear a grownup speak on the floor. I have seen him reach across the aisle. We have been privileged, both of us have been privileged to serve with fine Senators from both parties. But Kent Conrad is unique. Marcelle and I value more than I could possibly say here our friendship with Kent and his wife Lucy and the 101st Senator, Dakota. As I said, I will speak later about this Senator, but what we heard today was a real giant of the Senate speaking, and I hope all Americans will listen to the lesson he gave us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I applaud my colleague from Vermont for what he has said. I think he expresses the feelings of so many Vermonters across the political spectrum, so I thank him for doing that.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, no matter what calendar one goes by, we are nearing the end of this Congress. We have only a few short weeks to end the stalemate and pass a farm bill. For months, House leaders have blocked a vote on a bipartisan farm bill. We passed in this body, across the political spectrum--Republicans and Democrats alike--a bill that saved tens of billions of dollars. However, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives will not allow it to come to a vote. Much is at stake--from rural communities to farmers who need the certainty that a farm bill extension would mean. I have said a lot of times on this floor that farming cannot be put on hold. We can't tell a farmer: Well, hold those crops for a couple of months while we wait to see what we are doing. Don't milk those cows for a few months until we figure out whether the Congress will get its act together on a farm bill. It doesn't work that way. Farmers already cope with innumerable variables in running their businesses. The last thing they need is for Congress to needlessly compound the uncertainty through weeks of delay and obstruction. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill under the leadership of the chair of our committee, Senator Stabenow. We passed a bipartisan bill that renews the charter for basic agriculture, nutrition, and conservation programs, while saving taxpayers $23 billion. What I have been told privately is that if the House leaders would permit a vote, this bill would pass in the House. Just as Republicans and Democrats came together in this body, they would in the other body. Passing it would end this corrosive stalemate, while contributing billions of dollars to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, it appears the nutrition programs that help millions of our most vulnerable fellow Americans are the latest excuse for preventing a House vote to get the farm bill done. In this, the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth, some are saying they will hold this up because we have hungry people who need the support our nutrition programs provide. With so many Americans still struggling to put food on the table, it is not only regrettable, but more than that, it is inexcusable that some House Republicans have turned to slashing central nutrition help for struggling Americans as a means to prevent action on the farm bill. Ensuring that these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all Americans, especially those in need, is a key part of enacting a strong farm bill for this economy. It is a reality recognized by the Senate- passed farm bill. Unfortunately, consideration of the farm bill is not the first time this Congress has been forced to debate legislation that will greatly reduce the ability of the neediest among us to put food on the table for their families. Bills and amendments have been proposed that would cut tens of billions of dollars from the food stamp program, eliminating nutrition assistance for millions of Americans and denying hundreds of thousands of American children school meals. I am proud that time and again during this Congress the Senate has defeated such proposals. I will continue to help fight back against such attacks. The bipartisan Senate-passed farm bill makes an investment in American agriculture that benefits our producers, our dairy farmers, our rural communities, our Main Street businesses, our taxpayers, and our consumers. Now it is being held hostage by House Republicans who are demanding Draconian cuts in food assistance programs just as we are coming out of the worst recession in generations. They are preventing final action on a bill that touches every community and millions of our fellow citizens across the Nation. It is ironic that during this holiday season, opponents of nutrition programs that help the poor are insisting on making it drastically more difficult, or impossible, for these families and their children to simply eat. No Member of the Senate, no Member of the House of Representatives goes hungry except by choice. None of us do. We don't know what that is like. We don't go home and look at our children and say: We can't feed you tonight; hold on for another day. I know you are hungry. I know you are crying. I know you can't sleep. But we can't feed you today. None of us face that. But I can tell my colleagues that there are people in every single State we represent where that is their reality. Those advocating for these drastic cuts couldn't have chosen a worse time. As winter approaches, Vermonters and others across the country are going to find the demands for paying for heat, electricity, and food a large strain on their family's budget. All this is before we even take into account those areas where they are recovering from such terrible natural disasters and those communities who probably face disasters in the future. I know there are Vermonters, as there are so many other Americans, who struggle every day to make ends meet and are forced to make tough decisions about whether to pay for rent or heat or medications or food. We are talking about essentials. The Presiding Officer and I represent two of the most beautiful States in this country, but we also know that both our States can get very cold in the wintertime. When it is 5 and 10 below zero, heat is not a luxury and food shouldn't be a luxury. When it is 5 below zero, the choice should not be, can we heat or can we eat? This in America? That is wrong. While the economy continues to recover, and we hope it will, we still have many Americans who rely on basic assistance to get by each month. Thankfully, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has helped fill the gap. It offers the most comprehensive assistance available to the poorest Americans. No one can deny the effects of hunger on Americans, especially children. Children who live in food insecure homes are at a greater risk of developmental delays, poor academic performance, nutrient deficiencies, obesity, and depression. Yet participation in food assistance programs turns these statistics on their head. Federal nutrition programs have been shown to lessen the risk that a child will develop health problems, and they are associated with decreases in the incidence of child abuse. Children from families who receive SNAP have higher achievement in math and reading. They have improved behavior, social interactions, and diet quality than children who go without this nutrition help. It is unfortunate that during this fall's campaign, we saw candidates who were intent on spreading misconceptions about a program that lifts millions of Americans above the poverty line each year. The contention that SNAP beneficiaries are largely out-of-work Americans is far from accurate. Two-thirds of the beneficiaries are children, the disabled, or the elderly who cannot be expected to work. The remaining participants are subjected to rigorous work requirements in order to receive continuing benefits. And while SNAP offers crucial support to a family's grocery expenses, the benefits far from cover all of a family's food needs. With a benefit average of $1.25 per person, per meal, it is understandable that families typically fall short on benefits by the middle of the month. Vermont has done a remarkable job at urging Vermonters to register for our SNAP program. We call it 3Squares. But the unfortunate reality is that thousands of Vermonters continue to go without food they could receive. I hear from Vermont families who participate in 3Squares about the importance of Federal food assistance. Parents have told me they ignore their own hunger to ensure their kids are fed, but they don't know how they can cope if benefits are cut further. Kathy, a mother from Barre, VT, where my father was born, says her child has come to her crying, wondering whether they will have enough money for food. Others have noted that expenses for necessities, such as heating and rent, are fixed costs. When Three Squares benefits run out, skipping breakfast or lunch is the only way to scrape by. Unfortunately, both the Senate bill and the committee-passed farm bill in the House include cuts to the nutrition assistance. Nonetheless, the Senate bill takes a more sensible approach. Of the $23 billion in deficit reduction included in our bill, $4.5 billion comes from nutrition programs, nearly four times less than the House Agriculture Committee bill. I do not support the cuts in the Senate bill, and I supported an amendment during the Floor debate to restore this funding to SNAP, so that families across the country would not lose an average of $90 per month in benefits. But the cuts in the Senate bill represent a concession from our Chair, and ultimately the Senate farm bill passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, including mine, as it always has. This concession is not enough for many House Republicans. The $16 billion reduction in nutrition programs they wish to see in a farm bill would devastate nutrition programs nationwide. Millions in every State in this country would be left without means to purchase food. These drastic reductions would result in the elimination of food assistance for an estimated 2 to 3 million people, and 280,000 children would lose eligibility for free school meals. This is shameful. The budget choices we make in Congress reflect who we are as Americans. The American people want budget decisions that are fair and sensible. Americans do not want their friends, neighbors, or family members struggling to feed themselves or their children. Proposed cuts to food assistance programs will mean more hungry families in America. I have spent nearly 38 years in the Senate fighting hunger and I will continue to oppose efforts in the farm bill to further roll back hunger assistance programs that help our neediest fellow Americans. In a nation that spends billions on wasted diet fads, I would like to see us spend some money to feed the hungry in the most powerful Nation on Earth. Madam President, I see my good friend from Oklahoma on the floor, and I know he wishes to speak on behalf of his nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, after nearly four decades of service with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, last week, Mr. Dave White settled into retirement. He will be missed for his dedication, enthusiasm, and steadfast support of conservation causes, as well as his keen sense of humor and sharp wit, which kept both his staff, and Members of Congress, on their toes. During his long career, Dave has shown great leadership in conservation, improving the Nation's land management policies and practices, and ensuring that we meet our shared goal for sustaining agriculture and natural resources. His work has ensured that private lands are conserved, restored, and more resilient to environmental challenges, a goal that has grown in importance as weather disasters like Tropical Storm Irene, Hurricane Sandy, and the record drought still gripping the Midwest become more frequent and severe. Dave wore many hats during his time at NRCS. From 2002 to 2008, he served as the State Conservationist in Montana where he helped farmers and ranchers improve agricultural production, while at the same time reducing their impact on the environment. After learning about Dave's many outstanding achievements in Montana, my only regret was that we were not able to add NRCS State Conservationist in Vermont to Chief White's already sterling resume. Later, in 2007 and 2008, Dave was detailed to Senator Harkin's office, where his help in drafting the conservation title of the 2008 farm bill was immeasurable. I am deeply thankful for his assistance on this vital legislation, and for his thoughtful consideration of programs that have been so vital to Vermont's conservation efforts, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and Regional Equity, which have all contributed to the protection and improvement of Lake Champlain. President Obama then appointed Dave to lead NRCS, a role that he has filled admirably for 4 years working closely with Secretary Vilsack to advance voluntary, incentive-based private land conservation. I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to Chief White for his years of dedicated service to this Nation. I wish him well in his retirement and I hope he will come visit us soon in Vermont to sample our many delicious ``value-added'' agricultural products.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have spoken on this subject many times on the floor. The people who are affected by violence against women have wondered why the Congress has delayed so long on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, the bill we passed here in the Senate. If someone is a victim of violence, that person can't understand such delays. So I think it is time for the Senate and the House to come together to pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. The other body needs to do what we did overwhelmingly in this Senate. Earlier this week, I read in the Burlington, VT, Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton. She is a woman from Thetford, VT. Thetford, VT, is a small, quiet, beautiful little town in our State. Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, he beat her with a baseball bat, and he poured industrial strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said she had suffered the most horrific injury a human being could suffer. Today she is still disfigured and continues to experience pain from these injuries of 5 years ago. She is currently awaiting approval for a procedure that could help her get a face transplant. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story in a book that she has written called Overcome: Burned, Blinded, and Blessed. Stories such as Carmen's remind me that every day we do not pass VAWA more people are suffering. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the article to which I referred.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Presiding Officer was a strong supporter of this bill--the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, as many of our colleagues were on both sides of the aisle. We tried to keep this a nonpartisan bill--even beyond bipartisan, a nonpartisan bill--because certainly my experience has been that violence occurs not because a woman is a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Violence against women occurs in all stratum, in all categories. Senator Crapo and I put together our bill after listening to victims and the professionals who work with them every day. We did not want provisions in our bill included to score political points. They were there to address the urgent needs of vulnerable victims. That was the one thing we wanted. This wasn't a Democratic or Republican bill, this was to address vulnerable victims. One key provision in our bipartisan bill would allow tribal courts limited jurisdiction to consider domestic violence offenses committed by non-Indians against Indian women on tribal lands. On this, I relied on the experiences of Senator Crapo and others who come from States where there are tribal lands. As we went into this and talked to the leaders of various tribes from around this country, I heard that violence against Native women is not only appalling, as we knew, but it has become an epidemic. It has been reported that almost three in five Native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. Much of the violence is committed by non-Native Americans--non-Indians. Federal and State law enforcement may be hours away and lack the resources to respond to these cases, while tribal courts lack jurisdiction to consider these cases. So what happens? The perpetrators are, in effect, immune from the law. The worst part about it is they know they are immune from the law. So the jurisdiction provision in the Senate Leahy-Crapo bill would be a significant step toward addressing this horrific problem, but it would also ensure that no abuser is above the law. As the President said yesterday in a speech to the Tribal Nations Conference: ``With domestic violence so prevalent on reservations, we're pushing Congress to restore your power to bring to justice anyone--Indian or non-Indian--who hurts a woman.'' Even though our tribal provision is limited and guarantees comprehensive rights, House Republicans have objected to it. So I come to the Senate floor to report to my colleagues what I hope is a breakthrough on this issue in this important bill. Two conservative House Republicans, with leadership positions in the Republican House majority, have introduced a reasonable, middle-ground position regarding tribal jurisdiction. Representative Issa of California and Representative Cole of Oklahoma have introduced the Violence Against Indian Women Act, H.R. 6625. Their cosponsors include Republicans from North Carolina, Minnesota and Idaho. They all have tribes within their states and are concerned about the violence our Senate bill is trying to combat. The Issa-Cole bill includes a provision that allows defendants to remove a case to Federal court if any defendants' rights are violated. This modification should ensure that only those tribes that are following the requirements of the law and providing full rights can exercise jurisdiction, and that defendants can raise challenges at the beginning of a case. Some in the House Republican leadership have expressed a ``just say no'' approach to any grant of tribal jurisdiction, but the House Republican leadership should give serious consideration to this Republican proposal so we can move forward and protect thousands of victims, non-Native Americans and Native Americans. The National Congress of American Indians has sent a letter and urged Senator Crapo and me to take a serious look at the Issa-Cole provisions. We are. I have consulted with Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding this proposal so we can find a way forward. I urge the House Republican leadership to do so as well. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the NCAI letter.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, already, eight House Republicans have endorsed this approach in a letter to Speaker Boehner urging passage of our VAWA legislation with this compromise. I am reaching out to them and to members of both parties in both houses of Congress asking them to consider how we can bridge differences and get VAWA reauthorization legislation enacted to meaningfully address the brutal violence on tribal lands. I remain committed to finding solutions to all the areas of contention between the House and the Senate on VAWA. We ought to be able to pass legislation that includes provisions addressing the violence on tribal lands and the need to protect immigrant women and those who have not had access to services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I believe we can find acceptable versions of the Senate bill's new protections for students and other key provisions. I am reaching out to the House Republican leadership. I look forward to their seizing this opportunity provided by these senior House Republicans to work with me and Senator Crapo and the 68 Senators from both parties who voted for the Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill last April. If we can complete our work and send this bill to the President before we adjourn this year, he will sign it. Because with every day, every week, every month that goes by there are more horrific accounts of domestic and sexual violence. Whether it is a victim in Thetford, VT, or Kansas City, we owe it to them to come together to find a compromise. I have said this before several times: I still have nightmares from the domestic violence crime scenes I saw as a prosecutor in Vermont. I became a prosecutor at a time when many of the laws were changing-- search and seizure laws, Miranda laws, and so forth--and I would go with the police to crime scenes to give them advice on what the new laws might mean. A lot of times those scenes were at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. Many times we would see battered women, sometimes women no longer alive. I had nightmares from those. But I remember the police never asked: Is this an immigrant? Is this woman gay or straight? Is this woman Native American? They just wanted to stop the crime from happening again, and this legislation would give them a lot of tools so they can do that. The thought that our inaction could lead to more scenes such as those I saw would be tragic. Congress must act now to protect victims of rape and domestic violence. I am optimistic we can move together now that several House Republicans support a compromise position on tribal jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing from the House Republican leadership. Mr. President, I know we are going to vote at 12, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is finally being allowed to vote today on the nomination of Michael Shea to be a district judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. It has taken far too long for this day to come, but he will be confirmed and I congratulate him and his family on his confirmation and I congratulate the two Senators from Connecticut on finally having this nomination come to a vote. I mention this not to urge that we confirm him because we will--and I will very proudly vote for him--but Michael Shea is another nominee whose nomination was stalled for months for no good reason. The Judiciary Committee--and the distinguished Presiding Officer serves on that committee and will recall--we gave his nomination strong bipartisan support more than 7 months ago. He has the support of both home State Senators--both Senator Lieberman and Senator Blumenthal. He has significant litigation experience. He is a graduate of Yale Law School. He clerked for the conservative Judge James Buckley in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit following graduation. We have to ask, why did it take 7 months for the Senate to finally consider his nomination--after waiting 7 months, we will talk about it for 20 minutes, and then we will vote on his nomination. Why the 7- month delay? Republican obstruction. After this vote, the Senate remains backlogged with 17 judicial nominations that go back to before the August recess. Senate Republicans are establishing another harmful precedent by refusing to proceed on judicial nominees with bipartisan support before the end of the session. They held up judicial nominees 3 years ago, they did it 2 years ago, they did it last year, and now they are doing it again this year. They have found a new way to employ their old trick of a pocket filibuster. They stall nominees into the next year, and then they force the Senate, in the new year, to work on nominees from the past year. They delay and delay and delay and push other confirmations back in time and then cut off Senate consideration of any nominees. How else does anyone explain the Republican Senate opposition to William Kayatta of Maine, who is supported by the two Republican Senators from Maine? How else to explain the Republican filibuster and continuing opposition to Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, who has the support of Senator Inhofe and Senator Coburn, the two Republican Senators from Oklahoma? How else to explain their adamant refusal to consider the nomination of Richard Taranto to the Federal Circuit, when the Judiciary Committee had seven of the eight Republican Senators voting for him? One, Senator Lee, cast a ``no'' vote but said it was a protest on another matter. But every single Democrat voted for him. These delays may serve some petty political purpose, but the American people do not want petty political purposes. They want our Nation's courts to be staffed. They want the American people who seek justice to be able to get it. So we should take action on all pending nominees and reduce the damagingly high number of judicial vacancies. Federal judicial vacancies remain above 80. By this point in President Bush's first term, we had reduced judicial vacancies to 28. There were more than 80 vacancies when the year began. There were more than 80 vacancies this past March when the majority leader was forced to take the extraordinary step of filing cloture motions on 17 district court nominations--something I had never seen in my 37 years here. There are going to be at least 80 vacancies after today. Before we adjourn, we ought to at least vote on the 17 pending nominations that could have been and should have been confirmed before the August recess. From 1980 until this year, when a lame duck session followed a Presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan Judiciary Committee support has been confirmed. That is whether there was a Republican or Democratic President or a Republican- controlled or Democratic-controlled Senate. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the August recess has ever been denied a vote--before now. Somehow, this President is treated differently than all the other Presidents before him. I have been here with President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, the first President Bush, President Clinton, the second President Bush, and now President Obama. None of those other Presidents were treated in the way this President is treated. It is something Senate Democrats have never done in any lame duck session, whether after a Presidential or midterm election. In fact, Senate Democrats allowed votes on 20 of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, including 3 circuit court nominees, in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. I remember. I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I moved forward with those votes, including one on a very controversial circuit court nominee. The Senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lameduck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. Actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. We proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in a lame duck session after the elections of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. The reason I am not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we had proceeded to confirm the last 10 judicial nominees approved by the Judiciary Committee in September and long before the lame duck session. That is our history. That is our recent precedent. Those across the aisle who contend that judicial confirmation votes during lame duck sessions do not take place are wrong. The facts are facts are facts. It is past time for votes on the 4 circuit court nominees and the other 13 district court nominees still pending on the Executive Calendar. Let's do our job. This is what the American people pay us to do. Let's vote up or vote down, but let's vote. I yield the floor.