Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I agree that helping women access these services is absolutely consistent with the intent of the Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree that this language is intended to cover a variety of crucial victim services including transportation services.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree that is one of the intents of section 202, which focuses on enforcement of domestic violence, stalking and child abuse laws for victims and families in rural areas. Transportation is a necessary component of enforcing these laws and protecting vulnerable women. I am concerned, as I know you are, about what women do when they are in a dangerous situation and do not have transportation to get away.

Mr. LEAHY. It certainly is. And the Violence Against Women Act aims to provide financial support for communities that need it most so they can continue to keep women safe.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not take more than a few minutes, as I have explained to the senior Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate his courtesy, and I ask unanimous consent that my statement be made as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last month, the Senate came together and passed the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012. Our legislation takes some much needed steps to help the most vulnerable victims of domestic and sexual violence, and it was passed with significant bipartisan support. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Act was an example of what we accomplish when we put politics aside and work to find real solutions to real problems facing real Americans. Few laws have had a greater impact on the lives of women in this country than the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). By shining a light on the insidious crimes of domestic and sexual violence, this law(s initial passage nearly 20 years ago sent a powerful message that violence against women would no longer be tolerated. The days of dismissing these crimes with a joke or a shrug were over. The resources, training and law enforcement tools provided by VAWA transformed the criminal justice and community-based response to abuse. It gave support and protection to the victims who for generations had been blamed, humiliated and ignored. With each reauthorization of this landmark law, Congress has repeatedly shown its bipartisan commitment to ending domestic and sexual violence by building on the protections in the initial legislation and expanding the reach of VAWA to meet the remaining unmet needs of victims. The bill that I introduced with Senator Crapo, and which passed the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan majority just last month, is based on the successful tradition of preserving and enhancing protections. It is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country and from across the political spectrum. We purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or divisive and selected only those proposals that law enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day told us were essential. That is why the provisions in the Senate bill have such widespread support. More than 1,000 Federal, state, and local organizations have endorsed it, including service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations and many, many more. The inclusive, open process of drafting this legislation is also why the Senate bill always had strong bipartisan support. It was a bipartisan effort from the beginning with eight Republican Senators cosponsoring the bill and seven more joining Democratic and Independent Senators in voting to pass the bill. We were able to move able to move to the bill without a filibuster, to consider amendments, which were rejected, and to pass the bill with almost 70 votes. We adopted a bill of which the Senate can be proud, because it serves the interests of the American people while improving support and protection for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. I am alarmed the other body--the House--has chosen a different path. Instead of building on the broad bipartisan support for the Senate- passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee last week took up a bill, H.R.4970, that they crafted in back rooms without the input of those who dedicate their lives to helping victims. This afternoon the House Republican leadership brought that same bill to the floor, with only minor modifications that do little to respond to the urgent concerns of victims, and is forcing an up or down vote while blocking any attempts to modify the legislation in response to the concerns raised by victims and service providers around the country. Their legislation not only fails to include the critical improvements in the Senate bill that would increase protections for Native-American women, gay and lesbian victims, battered immigrant women, and victims on college campuses or victims in subsidized housing, it actually rolls back existing protections leaving many victims more vulnerable to sexual and domestic abuse. Among the most troubling provisions are those that drastically undercut important, longstanding protections that are vital to the safety and protection of battered immigrant victims. As a result of this misguided effort, the House bill is strongly opposed by many of the leading organizations that know these issues best, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the American Bar Association, the YWCA, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and many, many more. The thousands of local advocates and service providers around the country that make up the National Network to End Domestic Violence warned in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that H.R. 4970 would (weaken, rather than enhance, protections for victims of domestic violence.( Sue Else, the President of that organization, lamented: This is an unprecedented departure from this effective law(s original intent. Thousands of victim advocates across the country recommended substantial improvements for the latest reauthorization, and the U.S. Senate accepted those recommendations in a bipartisan way. It is alarming that the House Judiciary Committee has not done the same. The American Bar Association has stated: Unlike the recently passed Senate bill (S. 1925), which reflects discussions with more than 2,000 advocates and experts across the country, H.R. 4970 represents a retreat from the fight against domestic and sexual violence. It fails to add critical improvements to address the needs of underserved populations, like victims who are members of faith communities and those who are denied services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and strips critical protections from existing law. The YWCA, the largest provider of services for battered women in the country, calls the House bill a ``dangerous bill that puts the lives of millions of women across the nation at risk.'' These organizations represent those on the front lines against domestic and sexual violence. They are motivated by their desire to see all victims get the help they need. Likewise, a number of faith-based organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, and nearly 20 other religious institutions have joined a letter stating that they are ``deeply troubled'' by the ``many provisions [in the House bill] that actually would roll back protections in current law for battered non-citizens, making them more vulnerable and, in some cases, endangering their lives.'' House Republicans are headed down the wrong path. In fact, when the Senate rejected their alternative to our bipartisan bill last month by a strong bipartisan vote of only 37 in favor and 62 opposed, I had hoped that would end the partisanship and the gamesmanship and we would be able to move forward together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. I was encouraged to see the lead sponsor of the Republican alternative, the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, do just that and join with us to support the bipartisan Senate bill upon final passage. I commended Senator Hutchison for doing so. Likewise, we were buoyed by the support on final passage by the Senior Senator from Arizona, the Senators from Tennessee, Senator Coates of Indiana, Senator Hoeven of North Dakota, Senator Portman of Ohio and Senator Vitter of Louisiana. Despite all this, House Republicans seem determined to destroy this bipartisan effort. As evidenced by the vote they are forcing today, they are intent on proceeding with their bill to roll back victim protections and insistent that it be done without the opportunity to consider the better, Senate-passed bill or, for that matter, any other amendments to their ill-conceived effort to undercut the Violence Against Women Act. The House Republican bill not only fails to protect more victims, but actually weakens existing protections. I fear that it puts more lives at risk. In its Statement of Administration Policy, the Obama administration correctly opposes the House bill, H.R. 4970, as a measure that ``would undermine the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act.'' It notes the House Republican bill ``retreats'' from the progress represented by the protections included in the bipartisan Senate-passed bill and ``weakens'' critical protections for victims. The House provisions ``senselessly remove existing legal protections, undermine VAWA's core purpose of protecting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence, frustrate important law enforcement objectives, and jeopardize victims by placing them directly in harm's way.'' It concludes with a threatened veto recommendation since the House measure ``rolls back existing law and removes long-standing protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.'' Never before, in either Republican or Democratic administrations, Republican- or Democrat-controlled Houses or Senates, has the Violence Against Women Act been used to increase the dangers to women and so consciously disregard the unmet needs of our most vulnerable victims. Never before. Last week the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women noted that the House Republican bill ``adds burdensome, counter-productive requirements that compromise the ability of service providers to reach victims, fails to adequately protect Tribal victims, lacks important protection and services for LGBT victims, weakens resources for victims living in subsidized housing, and eliminates important improvements to address dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses.'' She is right. The closed process by which the House Republican leadership insisted its ill-conceived bill be rubberstamped breaks House Republican promises to allow amendments and proceed by an open amendment process. The House Republican bill's roll back of protections breaks the promise of the Violence Against Women Act to protect victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Never before has the Violence Against Women Act been used to increase the dangers to women and so consciously disregarded the unmet needs of our most vulnerable victims. A recent New York Times editorial entitled ``Backwards on Domestic Violence'' had it right: ``House members on both sides of the aisle who are serious about combating domestic violence must work to defeat this atrocious bill.'' That sentiment was reinforced by a recent Los Angeles Times editorial which stated: ``Republicans in the House should drop their attempts to undermine the Violence Against Women Act and instead move swiftly to reauthorize and strengthen the existing program, as the Senate has already done.'' Today The Washington Post reports on another study by Human Rights Watch documenting sexual violence and harassment of female farmworkers. Congress should not be turning its backs to these battered and abused women. We should be moving forward promptly to adopt the provisions of the Senate-passed bill to protect the most vulnerable among us, women who are doubly victimized by abusers and by the fear that they have no recourse. I thank Senators Murray, Menendez and Shaheen for their strong statements in support of the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act yesterday. I am disheartened by the decision of the House Republican leadership to try to push through their destructive bill over the clear objections of those very victims it is supposed to serve. I urge the supporters of the bipartisan Senate bill to continue our efforts to see that this carefully crafted legislation that meets the needs of so many people is finally passed into law. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy, the editorials from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and the letters to which I have referred.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Col. Brian Dubie, a fifth-generation Vermonter who is retiring on June 2 after a long and distinguished career in the Vermont Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Brian served as Vermont's 78th Lieutenant Governor and has devoted his life to serving his State and his country. Upon graduating high school in Essex Junction, Brian enrolled in the U.S. Air Force Academy. Even though the flight he took to Colorado was his first time on an airplane, Brian already knew that he loved aviation. Growing up, his father an officer in the Vermont Guard would bring the family to watch the planes take off and land from Burlington. Those excursions made vivid and lasting impressions on young Brian. When he returned home to attend the University of Vermont, Brian joined the Vermont Air National Guard and flew F 4s and then F 16s, eventually rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1998, he joined the U.S. Air Force Reserve where he now holds the rank of colonel and serves as an emergency preparedness liaison officer. Brian's service has touched thousands of Americans outside of Vermont. Following the September 11 attacks, Brian procured and coordinated the distribution of badly needed cell phones and radios for emergency responders at Ground Zero. For his actions he was awarded a Meritorious Service Medal. When Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, Brian mobilized and ensured that civilian responders had the support they needed. For his achievements at the Hurricane Operations Center, he earned another Meritorious Service Medal and the Air Force Commendation Medal. Admirable as they are, Brian's achievements are not surprising considering his roots in a family who values service and duty to country. His mother Janice worked as an operating room nurse at what was then the Medical Center Hospital of Vermont. His father Clem was a colonel in the Vermont Guard where he served full-time as a personnel officer. His brother Michael is the adjutant general of Vermont. Brian is also a tireless promoter of the Vermont business community. He was the motivational force behind the Vermont Aerospace and Aviation Association. He also served as the unofficial Vermont ``ambassador'' to Quebec a position he took on with such fervor that some Quebec officials called him Mr. Ambassador. I am proud of all that Brian has accomplished for Vermont and our country. While he may be retiring from the Air Force, I know that his service to both State and Nation is far from over. I wish him, his wife Penny, and his family all the best.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today marks the 150th anniversary of the United States Department of Agriculture, and I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to USDA's mission and day-to-day work and to all those involved in the agriculture industry--from farmers and ranchers and foresters, to producers and manufacturers and researchers. The Department of Agriculture is pillar and post in American agriculture, fostering durability while enabling innovation; bridging old and new, rural and urban. Agriculture has long been a centerpiece of Vermont's economy and way of life. The impact of agricultural industry is felt in every State, and in every household. In fact, one in every 12 Americans is employed in an agriculture-related industry, and in Vermont, the importance of our agricultural working landscape to tourism, to recreation and to the identity of our State is beyond measure. One hundred and fifty years ago today, on May 15, 1862, with the stroke of President Abraham Lincoln's pen, the Department of Agriculture was established, with the purpose of acquiring information through ``scientific experiments'' and finding, collecting, and disseminating ``new and valuable seeds and plants.'' It is worth noting that the establishment of the USDA was the first in a series of the foundational acts of Congress that helped to develop our modern agricultural system. Among these other landmark laws is the Morrill Act, named for Vermont's own Senator Justin Morrill, which established our land grant colleges, and which also is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. Senator Morrill rightly believed that college education should expand beyond arts and classical studies to include agriculture and life sciences. In the last 150 years, our land grant colleges have provided the foundation for agricultural research and have helped give the United States a competitive advantage in the global market, in addition to becoming inarguably the best public institutions of higher learning in the world. Thanks to the hard work of our Nation's agricultural producers, to the research done at our land grant colleges, to the dedication of U.S. Department of Agriculture employees across the country, and to the policies and programs overseen by the Department of Agriculture, American consumers enjoy a safe and plentiful food supply. We Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of our disposable income on food, the lowest in the world. This would not be possible without the science, policies, and vital programs advanced by the USDA in fostering our modernized agricultural and food systems. The Department of Agriculture also manages some of the Nation's most significant ongoing conservation and environmental quality efforts. Farming is hard work. Farming also is an inherently risky venture, subject to the whims of nature, as well as the volatility of the commodity marketplace. The programs USDA manages at the local level have helped make risk manageable for farmers--especially when it comes to small family farms. These programs have been a steadying element--a balance wheel, smoothing out major risks, allowing America's farmers to harness the earth's bounty and giving American consumers access to unrivaled food security and variety. Despite--and, in some cases, as an unintended result of--the great advances in agriculture in the last 150 years, there is more work to be done. Too many Americans still endure hunger, with almost 50 million Americans living in food insecure households, while at the same time two-thirds of Americans are overweight, and obesity-related disease is fast becoming an epidemic in this country. Globally, 1 billion people-- out of a population of 7 billion--are hungry and food insecure. As the world population increases, we must continue our scientific effort in agriculture research and innovation, and we must not simply produce more food; we must also improve access to and consumption of healthier foods. These goals need to be achieved while we work to restore natural ecosystems that are fundamental to sustaining life on earth. My home State of Vermont has placed itself at the forefront of developing and implementing the agricultural and food systems that the planet will depend on in the 21st century, and the USDA is a critical partner in this essential venture. The USDA is providing needed technical support to enhance the efficiency of our dairy and diversified farms; the USDA provides the financial and risk management tools that farmers need to diversify and survive in a changing climate and volatile markets; the USDA supports cutting-edge research at the land grant University of Vermont; the USDA is vitally important to rural communities and businesses; USDA conservation programs are the lynchpin of our work to improve water quality; and the USDA Organic program has kept Vermont at the forefront of this fast-growing and promising sector. In fact, in Vermont, and across the Nation, the Department of Agriculture manages some of the Nation's most significant ongoing conservation and environmental quality efforts. The USDA has deep and longstanding roots throughout rural America and in our communities. Being in and being of the communities that the USDA serves makes a crucial difference, as we saw last year in Vermont through the many ways that USDA's diligent workforce became an integral part of the response to the disastrous damage wrought by Hurricane/ Tropical Storm Irene. We face many challenges today, but with smart, effective and sustainable agricultural policies, the United States is in a prime position to lead the war against global hunger and toward public health while also protecting our water, air and open spaces for generations to come. As a lifelong Vermonter, I value my State's farming traditions and I am proud of the hard work of Vermont's farmers who have persisted in a difficult economy, embracing innovation and change. Some are transitioning to organic operations, and others focusing on direct marketing opportunities or value-added products. Farming is not an easy way of life, but it has remained a cornerstone of Vermont's economy, and the Nation's, because of the dedication our farmers and producers, the research of our land grant colleges, and the policies and support of the Department of Agriculture. I am proud to see so many young people returning to the farms of Vermont. Some are continuing their family's farming legacy, while others are the first in several generations to turn back to the land. All of them have a deep dedication to the stewardship of Vermont's natural resources and to the working landscape that is helping to strengthen our economy. I am proud to be a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and to have had the opportunity to serve as its chairman. I also consider it a great privilege to be able to offer Vermonters a seat at the table when policy matters affecting our State's farmers and our State's economy, such as our current work on the 2012 Farm Bill, are written and considered. Agriculture is part of the lifeblood of the American economy then, now, and in the future. I wish the Department of Agriculture a ``Happy 150th Birthday'' and continued success in the USDA's vital missions that are so important to each and every American family, and to the world.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I was fortunate to be able to attend the argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the provision in the affordable care act providing that individuals should take personal responsibility for paying for their health care by obtaining health insurance or pay a fine. I have watched a lot of arguments in the Supreme Court. Obviously, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee I pay close attention--as do all Members--to what goes on there. I heard a great deal of instant analysis from commentators after the argument, including their predictions on how the Court will rule. I didn't hear much devoted to the role of the Chief Justice of the United States. When I watched the arguments, I saw a Chief Justice that day who I thought seemed well aware of the significance of this decision. Chief Justice Roberts had not been appointed when the Court intervened in the Presidential election of 2000, but he certainly saw the reaction to that decision in Bush v. Gore, a 5-to-4 decision that the country viewed as partisan. In fact, many in the country felt that five people on the Supreme Court decided a Presidential election that was actually for the person who got less votes than the one they said lost. That decision was unprecedented. In a shocking admission, the Court itself said that it should never be considered precedent or cited in the future. That decision shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court and, as Justice Stevens observed at the time, the loser in that decision was ``the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.'' That activism undermined the reputation of the Court as fair and impartial. But the Chief Justice did participate in the Court's recent 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United that divided along ideological lines and continues to engender a significant backlash. That decision was one in which the Supreme Court reached out to decide a matter not argued initially and in which it made a broad constitutional ruling that reversed nearly 100 years of progress in the country to control the corrupting influence of money in our elections and politics. That decision led directly to the super PACs and campaign excesses that are now plaguing our Democratic elections, and actually plagued this year's Republican Presidential primaries. As bad as its effect is on both Republicans and Democrats and elected offices, I believe it has contributed to the further erosion of the public's confidence in the Supreme Court to be an independent arbiter. The constitutional challenge to the affordable care act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and also to overturn the actions of the people who are elected to represent all Americans in both the House and the Senate. I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress and of how dismissive they were to the months of work that included dozens of hearings, or the committee actions and the debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted, how that was almost summarily dismissed by some. Their actions will not help restore Americans' confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law. According to a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the affordable care act mainly based on their ``partisan political views,'' while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case ``on the basis of the law.'' That has contributed to the historically low percentage of Americans, fewer than half, that said in a recent poll that they approve of the Supreme Court. I am not going to be offended if some of the Justices don't like us personally or disagree with the policy judgments reflected in the law as individuals, as citizens, or as human beings; they are entitled to their personal views just as we are. But as Justices, they are supposed to put those petty personal views and feelings aside. They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people as reflected in the work of Congress and to defer to Congress unless the laws we pass violate the Constitution. However, during the argument, it seemed that the Justices were second guessing the policy judgments that were made during the extended legislative process. That is not the purpose or proper exercise of judicial review. Acting out based on their personal views in this matter would be the height of conservative judicial activism. Let me repeat that. Acting out based on their personal views in this matter would be the height of conservative judicial activism. The Chief Justice seemed to understand that deference to the elected branch is fundamental to the proper exercise of judicial review. I was struck that more than once he commented on the extreme arguments coming from other Justices by noting they were not being fair. Chief Justice Roberts was right in that regard. I thought I saw--at least the day I watched--a Chief Justice who understands the importance of this case to all Americans, including those millions who would otherwise continue without health care insurance and access to affordable health care--the kind of health care insurance and access to affordable health care each one of us in this Chamber has and each member of the Supreme Court has. This case is also significant because of the impact it will have on the American people's view of the Supreme Court. We all remember when the Chief Justice was nominated, and he testified that if confirmed, he would act with judicial modesty, he would honor precedent, and he would acknowledge the limited role of the judiciary and seek to bring the Court together. When I voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States--and many of my Democratic colleagues voted the other way, and I respect them for that--I said that I was voting with hope and faith. I credited his testimony. I trusted that he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the Senate. I said then that if I thought he ``would easily reject precedent'' or ``use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism,'' I would not have supported his confirmation. I contrasted the technical reasoning and unjust holding of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case with the leadership that Chief Justice Warren provided in the unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education. I spoke about the need to curtail the current activism of the Supreme Court and for appropriate deference to congressional action taken by the people's elected representatives, which is precisely what should happen in the matter currently before the Supreme Court. I was encouraged by the assurances he gave during the confirmation process that he would respect congressional authority. Well, this case is a fundamental test. After all, he relied heavily during the hearing on the recent Gonzales v. Raich decision as controlling precedent in upholding congressional authority to act under the Commerce Clause. He also assured us that despite his previous record of advocacy, as Chief Justice he would not continue to urge additional restrictions on Congress's Spending Clause powers. I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party; not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives but the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us. The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court. Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce. This case should not become an instance in which a conservative, activist majority on the Supreme Court intervenes by way of another 5 4 decision driven by ideology to rewrite the law. The law is consistent with the understanding of the Constitution the Court and the American people have had for the better part of a century, and should be upheld. To do otherwise would undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Last month's Supreme Court argument gave me reason to hope the Supreme Court will do the right thing. The authority of Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act is firmly rooted in what previous Congresses enacted and the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional over the last century to protect hardworking Americans. Working Americans have long been required to pay for Social Security and Medicare by the deduction of taxes reflected in their paychecks every month. I said at the time that, after all, if they could overturn the Affordable Care Act, why couldn't they overturn Social Security or Medicare? There would be just as much reason to overturn those. The key to the test for constitutionality under the Commerce Clause is whether the law substantially affects interstate commerce. That is the long-established constitutional test supported time and time again by the Supreme Court. As a law passed by Congress passed to regulate a market that makes up one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the Affordable Care Act is well within the limits set by the Supreme Court's own precedent on Congress's Commerce Clause power. The personal responsibility requirement that is the focus of the legal challenge is necessary to ensure that Americans who have paid for their health care by buying health insurance are not stuck with paying the $43 billion in health care costs incurred by millions of Americans who do not buy health insurance and then must rely on expensive emergency health care when inevitably faced with medical problems. That is what Congress concluded after extensive study and debate and what we included in the text of the law itself. There is no question this act by Congress regulates matters undeniably affecting interstate commerce. Even though this law easily meets the tests established by the Supreme Court's own precedent on the limits of the Commerce Clause, partisan opponents of President Obama want judges to override these legislative decisions properly made by Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. They want to challenge the wisdom understood by generations of Supreme Court justices from the great Chief Justice John Marshall in upholding the constitutionality of the national bank nearly 200 years ago to Justice Cardozo in finding Social Security constitutional early in the last century. The outlandish examples of hypothetical laws Congress has not passed reduce these matters to ridiculous absurdities. That may be popular in Federalist Society circles or on political blogs or to those who want to bind the Constitution enough to be on a bumper sticker slogan, but they have no place in the Supreme Court's determination. There may come a time when Congress passes a law that is law at the edge of its authority, when the boundary of what should be seen as affecting commerce needs to be more closely considered. That time may come. I hope it doesn't. That time may come, but this is not the time and this is not the case. The Affordable Care Act is squarely within longstanding constitutional lawmaking to deal with an important national problem. For years, we have heard Republican Senators say that they do not want judges making law from the bench. That is precisely what they are asking the Supreme Court to do in this case. Republican opponents lost in Congress. Their opposition and obstruction delayed but did not prevent enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Now they want conservative activists on the Supreme Court to intervene and turn their policy disagreements into law by reading them into the Constitution. That is wrong. In his efforts to reach out to Republicans, the President adopted a model Republicans proposed in the 1990s so as not to replace private insurance with a program of Government insurance like Medicare, but to rely on personal responsibility to obtain private insurance in the marketplace or pay a tax penalty. What is telling about the partisan nature of these challenges is that many of those who now claim that this is unconstitutional are the very ones who proposed it. Senate Republicans were in favor of ensuring personal responsibility with an individual mandate until President Obama was for it, and now they are against it. Their views may have changed, their partisan interests may have shifted, but the Constitution has not. Americans are already beginning to see some of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Seniors on Medicare who have high-cost prescriptions are starting to receive help when trapped within a coverage gap known as the ``donut hole.'' Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, young adults in Vermont and around the country have gained health insurance coverage by being able to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until their 26th birthdays. Americans are receiving preventative screening coverage with no deductible or co- pay. The law is making possible more and better care while controlling costs. The Affordable Care Act builds on some of the cornerstones of American economic security built over the last century. I believed that when it passed, and I still believe it today, that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to enact laws to help protect all Americans. Just as some in this country disagreed when Congress passed Social Security, the Court agreed that we acted within our authority to do so. One may agree or disagree with parts of the Affordable Care Act, but the fact is that Congress acted within its authority. I hope and have faith that the Supreme Court will not overstep the judiciary's role by substituting policy preferences for the legislative determinations of Congress.

Mr. LEAHY

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

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise on the Senate floor today to pay tribute to Mary Leahy, director at the Central Vermont Adult Basic Education--sister, friend, and lifetime educator--who is retiring this month. For 40 years, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education has provided free literacy services for adults and out-of-school youth. Thirty-seven of those years, Mary Leahy has been at the helm. In her role as codirector at Central Vermont Adult Basic Education, Mary dedicated herself to preparing lower skilled workers to meet the demands of the shifting economy. Whether it was attending townhalls, community centers and libraries, or knocking on doors directly, Mary has spread the word. She has recruited members for this program all over the State. I have seen the joy in the face of a grandfather able to read a children's story to a grandchild--something the grandfather was not able to do for that child's parent because he could not read when they were a child. In a recent article honoring Mary in the Times Argus, Vermont Poet Laureate Sydney Lea said these kind words about Mary: This has been way beyond a job for Mary; it's really a vision of humanity that she's been dedicated to. I have an admiration for her that is pretty close to boundless. I agree with my friend Sydney. Mary's lifelong passion for learning has enabled countless Vermonters to gain the critical skills needed to participate in today's workforce. In our country today, 88 million adults face at least one educational barrier, such as no high school diploma or no college, and only 3 to 4 percent of the workers with the most limited literacy proficiencies receive the basic skills training from their employers. Under Mary's guiding hand, Central Vermont Adult Basic Education has allowed Vermonters, young and old, to reach their full potential and to be successful both in the classroom and in the workforce--I might add parenthetically, also just in their everyday lives. As her older brother, I have known Mary all her life. She is a loving, intelligent, and hard-working person. She has the soul and talent of an artist and the generosity of a saint in sharing her talent and commitment. I am so proud of Mary, and I ask unanimous consent that the Times Argus article ``Closing a Chapter'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coons for a second time on the passage of legislation that will reauthorize 30 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in districts around the country. I was pleased to support Senator Coons' very strong and persistent efforts on this important legislation. The Judiciary Committee reported this legislation favorably on December 15, 2011. The Senate passed the first version of this legislation on April 19. Despite the good intentions of everyone involved, a technical error was discovered after transmittal to the House of Representatives. Senator Coons worked quickly with the House Judiciary Committee to resolve that technical issue and, on May 9, the House took up and passed a perfected bill. As I noted the first time the Senate acted on this legislation, the bill we pass today, when enacted, will reauthorize 30 temporary judgeships in 14 States and Puerto Rico. All of these positions have already expired, and without this legislation, upon retirement or departure of the judges in these positions, they could not be filled again. Needlessly reducing the resources of our bankruptcy courts does nothing but put more pressure on Americans who are already navigating a difficult economic environment. This legislation should help avoid that and provide some small degree of relief to overburdened bankruptcy courts around the country. Quite frankly, I think we should be doing more and hope we will continue to make sure the Federal Judiciary has the resources it needs to serve all Americans. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will note once again my concern with a portion of the legislation the Senate passes today. In order to secure passage of this legislation, Senator Coburn insisted upon adding a section to the bill that purports to tell future Senate and House Judiciary Committees how to conduct their business. Unfortunately, the perfected bill we pass today retains this provision. Senator Coburn's amendment would dictate that before any of these 30 judgeships could be reauthorized again, the Senate and House Judiciary Committee's would be required to take certain steps and require a report from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, AO. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Coburn knows that this is precisely what committees do in the ordinary course of the consideration of legislation and what was done during the development of this legislation. Senator Coons worked with the AO, which made recommendations, and with bankruptcy judges in a variety of districts to determine where need was greatest. To codify an unenforceable mandate nominally imposed on future Congresses is unnecessary and unwise. Once again I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate Senator Coons for his hard work and attention to this issue. This would not be passing again without his diligence, focus, and legislative skill. He has now done twice what has seemed impossible to do once.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the Senate for agreeing to this resolution to honor the men and women who serve in law enforcement and to officially recognize May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Despite the progress that has been made in improving officer safety, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make serving their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do all it can to support officer safety. To recognize these sacrifices, as they do every year, law enforcement officers and their families from across the United States will come to Washington to pay tribute and honor the men and women who have lost their lives. And as I do each year, I will stand with them. In 1962, President Kennedy designated May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. Once again I am proud to have introduced a resolution officially recognizing that designation and honoring these men and women, and all of those that came before them. I am glad we passed this official recognition today. The safety of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. I hope the quick passage of this resolution will foreshadow future bipartisan work on behalf of the men and women who work day after day to protect all of us.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate will vote on a vital piece of legislation that I am proud to cosponsor, to prevent the rise in interest rates on need-based student loans. Without action, millions of students across the country will see their interest rates double on their subsidized Stafford loans on July 1. At the very least, these students deserve a debate on this vital pocketbook question that affects millions of young Americans and their families. I have always strongly believed in the importance of a college education. I was the first in my family to have the opportunity to go to college. Every young person should have the chance to pursue higher education. Education is a path out of poverty, a road to personal growth, and an access ramp to professional accomplishment and economic security. Everyone wins when access to education expands. It should go without saying that student loan costs should not rise so high that students cannot repay. Yet in recent years, average college tuition rates have increased faster than inflation, far outpacing student financial aid. Since 1985, the cost of attending college has increased by 559 percent, and last schoolyear alone, instate tuition and fees at public 4-year institutions averaged 8.3 percent higher than the previous year. I hear from Vermonters constantly about their struggles to afford college and their concerns about student loan debt after they graduate. Skyrocketing tuition is making it increasingly difficult for families to afford higher education. Many students are forced to take on significant debt, and too often they are not able to complete college because of soaring costs. For those students who do go on to graduate, record student loan debt has made getting ahead in today's job market next to impossible for many students. Unfortunately, along with the pressure from student loan debt has come an increase in default rates among borrowers, which will affect a student's financial stability for decades. Especially during these difficult economic times we need to be doing more to address the rising costs of higher education and the growing need for student financial aid. We have made significant investments in higher education and making college more affordable in recent years through historic investments in the Pell Grant Program, moving to a universal system of direct loans, and through the President's recent Executive order to reduce monthly payments for low-income borrowers. While these measures have certainly helped students, more must be done to ensure every American has access to a college education. While there is agreement on the need to prevent the interest rate increase, division remains on the way to finance the yearlong extension. The House passed a bill largely along partisan lines that would fund the student loan measure by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, created under the affordable care act. Prevention funding is vitally important in helping to lower health care costs and improving the health of Americans through chronic disease screenings, tobacco education, and immunization programs. An estimated 15 percent of college seniors have chronic diseases and could benefit from this funding. We should not force on students a choice made by Congress, not by students, between disease prevention and lower interest rates. The solution we offer is far better for students and for the Nation. The bill to which I hope we proceed today would prevent student loan interest rates from doubling by closing a loophole in the Tax Code. Right now, certain businesses can avoid paying employment taxes on their employees' paychecks. This measure would ensure that businesses employing individuals making over $250,000 would be subject to the same Medicare and Social Security taxes every business must pay. This is a commonsense reform that we should all support. Each opportunity for a young American to earn a college education is also an opportunity for the Nation's future. Our country's ability to compete in the global marketplace in the future depends on our children's ability to finance their education. This does not need to be a partisan issue and should be one where we can find widespread agreement. We must not tell the 7.4 million students who rely on subsidized Stafford loans that their interest rates will double because protecting a tax loophole is more important than their ability to afford college. I urge every Senator to help us move ahead today to support our students, their futures, and our country's future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the last 4 months, the Senate has been forced to slowly work its way through the backlog created by Republican objections at the end of last year to consensus nominees. Finally, with consideration today of the long-delayed nomination of Judge Nguyen to fill a longstanding judicial emergency vacancy on the overburdened Ninth Circuit, the Senate will have completed the confirmations that could and should have taken place last year. Today, 5 months into the year, is the first time the Senate is considering judicial nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee this year. Confirmations of the nominations of Kristine Baker to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of Arkansas and John Lee to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the Northern District of Illinois have been delayed for nearly 3 months. These nominees have the support of their home state Senators and of a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee. Yet these consensus nominees have been delayed for months for no good reason. The nominations we consider today are but three of the 22 judicial nominees available for final Senate action. Most are by any measure consensus nominees who could and should be confirmed without further delay. That would go a long way toward getting us on track to make real progress in reducing judicial vacancies that have plagued the Federal courts around the country. I want to share with the Senate and the American people a chart comparing vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and President Obama. This chart shows that the lack of real progress during the last 3\1/3\ years is in stark contrast to the way in which we moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican presidency. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As Chairman, I worked with the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. See how sharply the line slopes as we reduced vacancies in 2001 and 2002. We continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans and confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004, a presidential election year. At the end of that presidential term, the Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. The chart notes where we stood in May 2004, having reduced judicial vacancies under 50 on the way to 28 that August. By comparison, see how long vacancies have remained near or above 80 and how little comparative progress we have made during the 4 years of President Obama's first term. Again, if we could move forward to Senate votes on the 22 judicial nominees ready for final action, the Senate could reduce vacancies to less than 60 and make progress. Today also marks the first Senate action this year to address the needs of the Ninth Circuit, by far the busiest Federal appeals court in the country. The Senate should have voted on the long-delayed nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to the Ninth Circuit over 5 months ago, after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Her nomination is one of three Ninth Circuit nominations currently pending and awaiting a Senate vote to fill judicial emergency vacancies plaguing that circuit. With nearly three times the number of cases pending as the next busiest circuit, we cannot afford to further delay Senate votes on the other two nominations to the Ninth Circuit, Paul Watford of California, reported favorably by the Committee over 3 months ago, or Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona, reported favorably over 2 months ago. There is no good reason for Senate Republicans to further delay votes on these Ninth Circuit nominees. The 61 million people served by the Ninth Circuit are not served by this delay. The circuit is being forced to handle double the caseload of any other without its full complement of judges. The Senate should be expediting consideration not only of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, but also of Paul Watford and Justice Andrew Hurwitz, not delaying them. The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, along with the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, wrote to the Senate months ago emphasizing the Ninth Circuit's ``desperate need for judges,'' urging the Senate to ``act on judicial nominees without delay,'' and concluding ``we fear that the public will suffer unless our vacancies are filled very promptly.'' The judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit are harming litigants by creating unnecessary and costly delays. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that it takes nearly 5 months longer for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion after an appeal is filed, compared to all other circuits. The Ninth Circuit's backlog of pending cases far exceeds other Federal courts. As of the end of 2011, the Ninth Circuit had 13,913 cases pending before it, far more than any other circuit. If caseloads were really a concern of Republican Senators, as they contended last year when they filibustered the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit, they would not be delaying the nominations to fill judicial emergency vacancies in the Ninth Circuit. If caseloads were really a concern, Senate Republicans would consent to move forward with votes on Paul Watford and Justice Hurwitz and allow for up or down votes by the Senate without these months of unnecessary delays. Given that all three are superbly qualified mainstream nominees with bipartisan support, the long delays that have plagued these nominations are hard to understand. Judge Nguyen, whose family fled to the United States in 1975 after the fall of South Vietnam, was confirmed unanimously to the district court in 2009 and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously supported her nomination to the Ninth Circuit last year. When confirmed, she will be the first Asian Pacific American woman to serve on a U.S. Court of Appeals in our history. She is the kind of nominee who should have been confirming in 5 days, not 5 months. We still await Republican agreement to vote on the other two nominees, neither of whom would have been considered controversial by past Congresses. Paul Watford was rated unanimously well qualified by the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating possible. He clerked at the United States Supreme Court for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and on the Ninth Circuit for now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. He was a Federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. He has the support of his home State Senators and bipartisan support from noted conservatives such as Daniel Collins, who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration; Professors Eugene Volokh and Orin Kerr; and Jeremy Rosen, the former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federalist Society. Justice Hurwitz is a respected and experience jurist on the Arizona Supreme Court. He also received the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary's highest rating possible, unanimously well qualified. This nomination has the strong support of both his Republican home State Senators, Senator John McCain and Senator Jon Kyl. We have much more work to do to help resolve the judicial vacancy crisis that has persisted for more than 3 years. Today the Senate finally votes on 3 of the 22 judicial nominations that have been reported by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough review. Despite vacancies in nearly 1 out of every 10 Federal judgeships, Senate Republicans continue to delay votes and are stalling action on nearly 20 current judicial nominations on which the Senate could be taking final action. If confirmed those judges would serve 150 million Americans. When the majority leader and the Republican leader came to their interim understanding in March, it resulted in votes on 14 of the 22 judicial nominations then awaiting final consideration. Because the arrangement took months to implement what the Senate could have done in hours, the backlog of judicial vacancies and judicial nominees continues. Today we are right back where we started with 22 judicial nominees awaiting action. I know that the majority leader is working to continue seeking Republican agreement to debate and vote on the remaining judicial nominees. It should not require overcoming filibusters and political standoffs for the Senate to do its job of promptly considering judicial nominations, especially when so many of them have bipartisan support and are consensus nominees. The backlog of nominations ready for final action is not necessary or typical. It is an artificial backlog created by the refusal of Senate Republicans to consider judicial nominees at the end of each of the last 2 years and their insistence of delays of months before confirmation of consensus nominees. These practices have meant that the Senate's confirmations have barely kept up with attrition on the Federal bench. When Republicans refused to consent to consider 19 judicial nominations at the end of 2010, it took us until June of last year to work through those nominations. When they did so again at the end of last year, it took us until today, a week into May, to catch up with last year's nominations. That is not how to reduce judicial vacancies. The Senate needs to continue working and continue consideration of judicial nominees recommended by the Judiciary Committee if we are to make real progress in reducing the burden of judicial vacancies. That is what we did in the most recent presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 and what we should be doing this year. Before we hear any more talk of slowing down or shutting off judicial confirmations, we have a long way to go. We need to work to reduce the vacancies that are burdening the Federal judiciary and the millions of Americans who rely on our Federal courts to seek justice. At this same point in the Bush administration, we had reduced judicial vacancies around the country to under 50. Today they stand at nearly 80. And by August 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to just 28 vacancies. Despite 2004 being a presidential election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies. In 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked to reduce judicial vacancies and by October we were able to reduce judicial vacancies back down to 34 vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 2008. We lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly during President Bush's first term as Senate Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. The vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. The Senate is 30 behind the number of circuit and district court confirmations at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are 63 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year. Today's consensus nominees are examples of those who have been unnecessarily stalled for months. Kristine Baker, nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eastern District of Arkansas, has spent nearly 15 years in private practice after graduating with honors from the University of Arkansas School of Law and clerking for Judge Susan Weber Wright on the court to which she has been nominated. Ms. Baker's nomination has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators. Her nomination was favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee with the support of nearly every Senator on February 16. John Lee, nominated to fill one of three judicial emergency vacancies on the Northern District of Illinois, has worked in private practice for almost 20 years. His personal story is remarkable. Born to a coal miner and a nurse of Korean descent, Mr. Lee immigrated to the United States when he was 5 years old and went on to graduate from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. If confirmed, he will become the second Korean-American to serve as a Federal district court judge, and the second Asian-American to serve as a Federal judge in the courts encompassed by the Seventh Circuit. Mr. Lee's nomination has the bipartisan support of his home State Senators. They both also support the confirmation of John Tharp, a former nominee of President George W. Bush, to another judicial emergency vacancy in that district. With Republican consent we could also be voting on the Tharp nomination. Both Illinois nominations were favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee with only one Senator dissenting on February 16. Today's votes must be a starting point for considering this year's judicial nominations if we want to bring down judicial vacancies and hope to match the progress we were able to make in 2004 and 2008, both Presidential election years in which we considered the nominations of a Republican President and continued to reduce judicial vacancies. I hope that Senate Republicans will stop blocking prompt confirmation of consensus nominees. That is a destructive development and new practice that has contributed to keeping the Senate behind the curve, keeping Federal judicial vacancies unfilled, overburdening the Federal courts, and keeping Americans from securing prompt justice. The American people deserve better. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be divided equally.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, May 3 was World Press Freedom Day. In this country, we recognize freedom of expression as our most cherished right. It forms the foundation for every other freedom, and an independent press is essential to its exercise. Yet in many countries expression is often censored and punished. Journalists are threatened, imprisoned, and killed for exposing official corruption and criticizing government repression. Not only is the media targeted and silenced, the entire population is denied access to accurate reporting. The Senate was in recess on May 3, but I would like to call other Senators' attention to troubling events that currently pose one of the gravest threats to freedom of expression in this hemisphere. I am speaking about the actions of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and officials in his government to silence independent broadcasters and publishers and watchdog organizations, undermining the fundamental right of free expression in ways that resemble what we have come to expect in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. There is no institution more fundamental to democracy than a free and independent press. A free press helps protect the rule of law, to ensure that no person or group is above the rules and procedures that govern a democratic society. A free press helps ensure transparency to prod governments to be honest and accountable to their citizens. Unfortunately, recent events in Ecuador suggest a deliberate shift away from these democratic traditions, and this could pose grave consequences for democracy in Ecuador. Although wavering at times, Ecuador has a history of democratic government of which its citizens can be proud. Ecuador's first Constitution, written in 1830, stipulated that ``every citizen can express their thoughts and publish them freely through the press.'' Ecuador's 1998 Constitution guarantees the right of journalists and social communicators to ``seek, receive, learn, and disseminate'' events of general interest, with the goal of ``preserving the values of the community.'' Even Ecuador's latest constitution, ratified just four years ago, protects each citizen's right ``to voice one's opinion and express one's thinking freely and in all of its forms and manifestations.'' However, it appears that these protections--a vital part of Ecuador's history of democratically elected, representative government--now only apply at the discretion of President Correa. During President Correa's term in office, the number of state-owned media organizations has exploded--growing from just one government-run news outlet to a media conglomerate that today is made up of more than a dozen outlets. He has pursued criminal charges against columnists and newspaper owners, including legal actions aimed at El Universo, one of Ecuador's most respected newspapers. In the El Universo case, President Correa won a $42 million award, and several journalists were sentenced to 3 years in prison following a hearing before a temporary--and recently appointed--magistrate. Although President Correa later pardoned the journalists, an Ecuadoran court rejected his pardon, and their fates remain unresolved. The fear of being charged and dragged through the expensive legal system also silences many other journalists or compels them to temper criticism of the government. President Correa and his government are not only targeting journalists. Some 200 activists, many of them indigenous people protesting environmentally destructive mining projects, have been criminally charged and detained. The pattern of arresting or threatening to arrest social activists has suppressed the free flow of information in Ecuador, silencing dissenting voices either by legal action or self-censorship. Perhaps most insidious to the principles of democracy, President Correa's government has ushered in new reforms that could make illegal almost all reporting about electoral campaigns. All censorship is bruising to a democracy, but electoral censorship is a fatal blow. With Presidential elections occurring in Ecuador in the next year, there is growing concern that President Correa's actions represent an attempt to influence the democratic process to his own political and personal benefit. Dr. Catalina Botero, the special rapporteur for freedom of expression at the Organization of American States, OAS, has rightly criticized President Correa's crusade against the press. In response, President Correa has expanded his campaign of censorship beyond Ecuador's borders and targeted Dr. Botero's office, proposing to the OAS earlier this year a plan that would have restricted the ability of Dr. Botero's office to issue independent reports and cutting off some of its funding. Although the plan was rejected by the member states of the OAS, President Correa's intent remains clear. No longer content to silence his political opponents in Ecuador, he is now targeting his critics elsewhere. President Correa has tried to cloak his actions in populist vocabulary, declaring that his censorship is motivated by a desire to free the public from the corrupt interests of the business organizations that often ran newspapers before the establishment of a law forbidding anyone with a significant stake in a media company from owning other businesses. Challenging viewpoints expressed in the media of course is legitimate, common, and healthy in any society, but preventing those views from being heard is not. Mr. President, we should denounce attacks on the press in Ecuador and elsewhere in this hemisphere. We should strongly support Dr. Botero and her office. Protecting freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is everyone's concern and responsibility. In doing so, we stand with the people of Ecuador and their right to be heard and for the future of their democracy.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer have joined me in this effort. When enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice, provides financial assistance to State law enforcement agencies to help purchase bulletproof vests. This program is an important part of the Federal Government's overall policy to assist and support State and local law enforcement partners around the country. In February, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this program and the need for reauthorization to emphasize just how important and effective this program has been. At that hearing, a representative from the Government Accountability Office testified that since 1987, data shows that body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones. The BVP Program has assisted State and local jurisdictions with the purchase of nearly one million bulletproof vests since 1999. That is a measure of success all Senators should be proud of. I hope we can support the continuation of this program unanimously, as the Senate did most recently in 2008. Despite the progress that has been made in the improvement of lifesaving equipment and training, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives and thousands were injured or disabled in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make in the service of their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do its part to help reverse the trend of the last several years. The safety and support of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. As we look toward National Police Week this month, Senators have an opportunity with this legislation to help make a difference and to show the thousands of law enforcement officers and their family members who will be in Washington that the Senate stands with them. I encourage their support and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. I am pleased that Senator Coons, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Schumer have joined me in this effort. When enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the lifesaving grant program that Senator Campbell and I authored in 1998. This measure will continue Congress' strong commitment to the safety and security of our Nation's law enforcement officers. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice, provides financial assistance to State law enforcement agencies to help purchase bulletproof vests. This program is an important part of the Federal Government's overall policy to assist and support State and local law enforcement partners around the country. In February, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this program and the need for reauthorization to emphasize just how important and effective this program has been. At that hearing, a representative from the Government Accountability Office testified that since 1987, data shows that body armor has saved the lives of 3,000 law enforcement officers. That is 3,000 men and women who may not otherwise have made it home to their families and loved ones. The BVP Program has assisted State and local jurisdictions with the purchase of nearly one million bulletproof vests since 1999. That is a measure of success all Senators should be proud of. I hope we can support the continuation of this program unanimously, as the Senate did most recently in 2008. Despite the progress that has been made in the improvement of lifesaving equipment and training, there is much work to be done. The year 2011 was an especially tragic one for the law enforcement community. Last year, 163 State and Federal law enforcement officers lost their lives and thousands were injured or disabled in the line of duty. This is an increase from 2010 and a grim reminder of the sacrifices far too many individuals make in the service of their communities and fellow citizens. The Senate should continue to do its part to help reverse the trend of the last several years. The safety and support of law enforcement officers across the United States should be something on which we can all agree. As we look toward National Police Week this month, Senators have an opportunity with this legislation to help make a difference and to show the thousands of law enforcement officers and their family members who will be in Washington that the Senate stands with them. I encourage their support and I look forward to the enactment of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the hallmarks of the Violence Against Women Act is the success it has had reducing violence against women across the country. Because we have made much progress over the past 18 years on domestic violence but have had less success with combating sexual assault, our bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill takes important steps to increase the focus on sexual violence. As we were writing this bipartisan legislation, we consulted with the men and women who work with victims every day to develop a consensus bill that will help emphasize the need to further reduce the incidence of sexual assault. The administration and law enforcement groups like the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police understand and support our goals. Unfortunately, while I do not doubt that Senator Cornyn shares our goals, the amendment he is offering can have the perverse affect of hindering progress on these issues. That is why there will be an amendment offering a better approach and a better way forward together. The alternative to the Cornyn amendment will allow us to make progress on to reduce the backlog in the testing of rape kits and other DNA samples, as I have always supported in the Debbie Smith Act. Accordingly, I will urge all Senators to reject the Cornyn amendment and support the alternative, which will complement the work we are doing by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I point out that the provisions in the Cornyn amendment are duplicative of provisions in the Republican proposal offered by Senators Hutchison and Grassley. The Senate is already voting on those provisions. Further, Senator Cornyn, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, did not offer his current amendment when the VAWA reauthorization was considered earlier this year. I offered an amendment on his behalf that the committee adopted on another issue. Moreover, the separate issue of the Debbie Smith Act is part of a larger effort on which the Judiciary Committee is considering as we move to reauthorize the Justice for All Act that we passed with bipartisan support several years ago. Although we have made reduction of rape kit backlogs an additional use for which VAWA STOP grants funding may be used by State and local jurisdictions, this matter is on a separate legislative track. I am not insisting or formality in this regard and have worked with other Senators on the alternative amendment that should be helpful to our goal of reducing the rape kit testing backlog. To make sure our work is successful, we will also need to pay careful attention to the standards for testing and the controversies surrounding those matters, however. Moreover, there is a risk of making money available that swamps the capacities for accurate testing. This is not as simply as throwing money at the problem. I have worked and remain hard at work on forensic reforms to ensure that our criminal justice system takes advantage of scientific advancements while remaining fair. A concern with the Cornyn amendment is its mandating the diversion of 7 percent of Debbie Smith Act funding to create an unwieldy national database of rape kits. The amendment would also compel jurisdictions to undergo a burdensome process of entering information into that database without procedural safeguards to ensure its accuracy. These requirements would force state and local law enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous and illogical reporting requirements and divert their focus from their core law enforcement mission of actually responding to calls and investigating sexual assault cases. It is no wonder that the National Association of Police Organizations opposes the Cornyn amendment. The amendment also contains a number of criminal sentencing mandates that have no place in our VAWA bill. Victims' advocates like the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women say its provisions ``would have a chilling effect on victim reporting and would not help hold perpetrators accountable.'' Victim advocates tell us that, particularly in cases where the perpetrator is known to the victim, these kinds of mandated sentences can deter victims from reporting the crimes and actually contribute to continuing abuse. Mandatory minimum sentences such as these also worsen prison overcrowding and budget crises at the Federal, State, and local level, and undermine our effective Federal sentencing system. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Association to End Sexual Violence, the National Council Against Domestic Violence, and the National Congress of American Indians Task Force oppose these sentencing provisions. There could be an extended Senate debate about whether mandatory minimums are good policy and the unintended consequence they may have of worsening abuse in domestic violence situations. That would be a long debate with strongly held views. That is not what the Violence Against Women Act is about. We should not complicate passage of this bipartisan measure with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of the bill. Such debates are for another time and other bills. Our VAWA reauthorization bill should not be seen as a catch-all for all criminal proposals or sentencing mandates. There are other bills and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass this year. Some may come up in the Justice for All Act is we are able to get Senate floor time for that measure. Some have come up on separate bills that are awaiting Republican clearance for Senate passage. Among those are a package of bills including the Strengthening Investigations of Sex Offenders and Missing Children Act, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act, along with Finding Fugitives Sex Offenders Act from which the Cornyn Amendment takes its administrative subpoena provisions. Let me turn to the Debbie Smith Act and a woman I admire very much. Debbie Smith is a survivor of a terrible crime who had to wait in terror for far too long before evidence was tested and the perpetrator was caught. She has worked tirelessly to make sure that other victims of sexual assault do not have to endure similar ordeals. I have been a proud supporter of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program since its creation, and I have worked with Senators of both parties, including Senators Mikulski and Hutchison on the Appropriations Committee, to see that it receives as much funding as possible each year. As I noted, although its authorization does not expire until 2014, I included an extension of its reauthorization in the Justice For All Reauthorization Act I introduced earlier this year. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program has been very successful in reducing evidence backlogs in crime labs, particularly in sexual assault cases. That is why I am glad that the alternative amendment will allow us to ensure that the program is authorized through 2017 at a level of $151 million a year. Unfortunately, disturbing reports have emerged of continuing backlogs, with some cities finding thousands of untested rape kits on police department shelves. That means that there is more need than ever for the Debbie Smith Act but also that there must be increased emphasis on reducing law enforcement backlogs, where there has been less progress. That is why it is so important that alternative to the Cornyn amendment expands the Debbie Smith Act to allow law enforcement to obtain funding for the collection and processing of DNA evidence. Law enforcement burden is one of the key bottlenecks in the process at present. In contrast to the Cornyn amendment, the alternative calls for new national best practices and protocols for law enforcement handling of rape kits and for Justice Department assistance to law enforcement in addressing this continuing problem. This will help to make real progress in overcoming the last major hurdles in reducing backlogs of rape kits. The amendment takes steps to ensure that more of the Debbie Smith Act funds are used directly for DNA evidence testing to reduce backlogs. That will make this key program even quicker and more effective in reducing backlogs. The Debbie Smith program is an important tool in the fight against sexual assault, and I hope all Senators will join us in reauthorizing and strengthening it by rejecting the Cornyn amendment in favor of the alternative. As I have said during this debate, we must do more to reduce sexual assault, and the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill focuses on that goal. I believe that Senator Cornyn's amendment will distract from the progress that is most helpful to victims, despite his good intentions. I urge Senators to vote against the Cornyn amendment and support the alternative to expedite improvements to the Debbie Smith Act to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and other DNA evidence.