Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are finally going to vote on the nominations of Gregg Costa and David Guaderrama to fill judicial emergency vacancies on the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Western Districts of Texas. Both of these nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies have the support of their home state Republican Senators. Their nominations were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over four and a half months ago. Senator Cornyn, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly supports both of these nominees. The senior Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, supports these nominees. There was a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. Still it has taken another four and one-half months to get them before the Senate for final consideration. These are judicial emergency vacancies. I mention that because these are more examples of what I have been concerned about for the last few years. Senate Republicans have refused to move promptly to confirm consensus nominees. These are not ideologically driven nominees. These are nominees, like so many of President Obama's nominees, who are highly qualified. They enjoy bipartisan support, but they are made to wait and wait before finally being able to be confirmed. This is a destructive development. It is a new practice in the Senate. I can say this as one who has served here during the Presidencies of Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now President Obama. This new practice has kept the Senate behind the curve. It has kept Federal judicial vacancies unfilled. It has overburdened the Federal courts and has kept Americans from getting prompt justice. It should not have taken this long for these two nominees to receive a vote. They could and should have been confirmed last year. It is nearly May, and the Senate is still only considering judicial nominations that should have been confirmed last year. There are 24 judicial nominees ready for final Senate consideration. Several are still pending from last year. That means 150 million Americans affected by more than 80 judicial vacancies would see a vacancy in their district or circuit court filled if the Senate would only be allowed to vote on those 24 nominees. The lack of real progress during the last three and one-third years is in stark contrast to the way in which we moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican presidency. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As Chairman, I worked with Senate Republicans to confirm 100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 months. We expedited consideration of consensus nominees and ended the vacancies crisis. In contrast, despite his selecting qualified nominees and working with Senators from both sides of the aisle, President Obama has seen judicial vacancies remain above 80 for nearly three years. At this same point in the Bush administration, we had reduced judicial vacancies around the country to 45. Today they stand at 81. And by August 2004, we reduced judicial vacancies to just 28 vacancies. Despite 2004 being an election year, we were able to reduce vacancies to the lowest level in the last 20 years. At a time of great turmoil and political confrontation, despite the attack on 9/11, the anthrax letters shutting down Senate offices, and the ideologically driven judicial selections of President Bush, we worked together to promptly confirm consensus nominees and significantly reduce judicial vacancies. In October 2008, another presidential election year, we again worked to reduce judicial vacancies and were able to get back down to 34 vacancies. I accommodated Senate Republicans and continued holding expedited hearings and votes on judicial nominations into September 2008. We lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly as Senate Republicans have allowed during President Obama's first term. The vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President Bush. The Senate is 32 behind the number of circuit and district court confirmations at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are 65 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year. I wish to share with the Senate and the American people a chart. This compares vacancies during the terms of President Bush and President Obama. I mention this because, look at where the vacancies were when President Bush came in. For a short time, I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Bush was President. Even though 60 nominees had been pocket-filibustered of President Clinton's, I said we were going to change this routine. Look how quickly I brought the vacancies way down under President Bush. I then worked with Republicans to bring them down further, even though they didn't move as fast on President Bush's nominees as I had. When I was chairman, I continued to bring it down. Then what happened when President Obama came in? All of a sudden they said: This was great that you brought down the vacancies under President Bush. We are glad to have the vacancies under President Bush come down, but now the vacancies are going to come back with President Obama. This is another way to demonstrate what I have been saying. See how sharply the line slopes as we reduced vacancies in 2001 and 2002, when I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. See where we were in April 2004 having reduced judicial vacancies to 45 on the way to 28 in August. By comparison, see how long vacancies have remained above 80 and how little comparative progress we have made. Again, if we would just be allowed to vote on the 24 judicial nominees ready for final action we could reduce vacancies to under 60 and make instant progress. The American people deserve better. Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, that plaintiff should not have to wait three years before a judge hears the case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute. Some Senate Republicans seek to divert attention by suggesting that these longstanding vacancies are the President's fault for not sending us nominees. Let me remind my colleagues that of the 81 current vacancies that exist, several of them are without a nomination because this President is trying to work with home state Senators, including 27 vacancies involving a Republican home state Senator who has refused to either recommend a candidate or agree to a judicial nominee. There are seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot proceed because Republican Senators have not returned blue slips. More importantly, there are 24 outstanding judicial nominees that can be confirmed right now who are being stalled. Let us act on them. Let us vote them up or down. When my grandchildren say they want more food before they finish what is on their plate, my answer is to urge them to finish the food already on their plate before asking for seconds or dessert. To those Republicans that contend it is the White House's fault for not sending us more nominees, I say let us complete Senate action on these 24 judicial nominees ready for final action. If we could vote on the 24 judicial nominees ready for final action there are more nominees working their way through Committee, and the Senate can act responsibly to help fill more of the vacancies plaguing some of our busiest courts. Today, we can finally fill two emergency vacancies with superbly qualified nominees. Gregg Costa is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where he is already well-known and well-respected for his service as a Federal prosecutor. Prior to becoming a Federal prosecutor in 2005, Mr. Costa worked in private practice in Houston, Texas, was a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General, and clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Costa ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating. Judge David Guaderrama is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where he has served as a Magistrate Judge since 2010. He previously served four terms as a state court judge in El Paso, Texas, and for seven years as the Chief Public Defender in El Paso County. While on the state bench, Judge Guaderrama implemented the first adult criminal Drug Court and the first Access to Recovery program in El Paso County. Judge Guaderrama began his legal career in 1979 as a solo practitioner and from 1980 to 1986 was a partner with the firm of Guaderrama and Guaderrama. These are two qualified nominees from Texas. They were passed out of our committee last year. They should have been confirmed before we recessed last year. Even typical consensus, noncontroversial nominees like these two have been delayed for no good reason. In fact, we have 24 judicial nominations currently before the Senate. I have heard them say the President has to send up more nominees. Why don't we confirm the 24 who are on the calendar? Then we have others working through the committee process. In fact, 10 of those nominations that have been pending the longest are all to fill judicial emergency vacancies. Every single Democrat in this body has signed off on them. Again, I show this chart to show how quickly Democrats moved, while Republicans did not move as quickly as they did for President Bush's nominees. We did that with President Ford. We did that with President Carter. We did that with President Reagan. We did that with the first President Bush and also with President Clinton--except for the 60 who were pocket-filibustered by the Republicans. And we did that, as I have shown here, with President Bush. Why does it have to be a different situation for President Obama? Why can't we treat President Obama the way we did all these other Presidents I have mentioned, since I have been here--the way we did President Ford's nominations and all the others? I cannot understand what it is or why President Obama has to be treated differently. It is not fair to him. More important, Mr. President, it is not fair to the Federal judiciary. These vacancies mean there are millions of Americans--150 million Americans who are in districts or States with judicial vacancies. That means justice delayed. If justice is delayed, justice is denied. We can and should do better. Maybe some believe there is an advantage to taking partisan shots at President Obama. I disagree. They should do as we have done in the past and help the Federal judiciary. That should be kept out of partisan politics. It is to all of our advantage. When people go before a court in this country, they are not asked whether they are a Republican or Democrat. They are coming to seek justice. They should be allowed to have that. Let's speed up. I will vote for these two judges. The Senator from Texas will vote for these two judges. But they were ready to be voted on way last year. It is time to get moving. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote on these judges, but I wish to make a few remarks about the VAWA reauthorization before we do so. There are few tools more important in the fight to end domestic and sexual violence than the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation has fundamentally changed the way society views these horrible crimes, and it has resulted in a more than 60 percent decrease in domestic violence offenses. We have been successful because we have learned from experience and adapted our efforts to better meet the needs of victims. Each reauthorization of VAWA has played a critical role in this process. As we learn more about the needs of victims, VAWA has been carefully modified to meet those needs. The bipartisan bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced last year continues that important process. The Republican substitute amendment does not. The Leahy-Crapo bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country. We listened when they told us what was working and what could be improved. We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our legislation to respond to those needs. We made additional modifications and reached carefully crafted compromises through what was an open process. We also shared our draft with Senators from both sides of the aisle and proceeded openly to introduce the bill so that it could be reviewed and improved as the Judiciary Committee considered and voted on it. Senator Crapo and I purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or divisive and selected only those proposals that law enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day told us were essential. Our reauthorization bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations. They include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many, many more. There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices of millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country. The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and organizations. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country says: The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day. The substitute includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies. Although well-intentioned by its lead sponsors, the Republican proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with victims and advocates from all over the country. I regret to say the Republican proposal undermines core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims--including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex relationships. The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the work the leadership has done, and I know Senator Murray has been very involved with that too, and I appreciate her help in getting us to a point where we now have a unanimous consent to get to votes and we can finally pass this bill. I think sometimes a bill like this is an abstract matter. It is not an abstract matter to the women's organizations that support it. It is not abstract to law enforcement who support it. And if I might speak personally for a moment, it is not an abstract matter to me. The distinguished Presiding Officer and I come from probably the safest, lowest crime State in the country, but we both know that crimes do happen. We also know that in a rural State, oftentimes domestic violence is not reported. We don't talk about this outside the family. And I know that in some of those instances, when I had the privilege of serving as a prosecutor in Vermont, they didn't talk about it. I first heard about it usually in the morgue or at the great Fletcher Hospital. I learned about it because when the body was picked up, either the undertaker or the police or the ambulance driver realized this was not a natural cause, and then we would sort of roll the clock back. In rolling the clock back, we found that all these warning signals were there. There was nowhere for the victim to go. The things we now have were not there then. I was able to prosecute a number of these people. In fact, I probably brought some of the first successful domestic violence prosecutions we had. But police and prosecutors will say that those are always after the fact. So how do we stop this from happening in the first place? That is what the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is about. It is there to stop the crime before the crime happens. This bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country, of all political persuasions. I never knew a time when somebody would come to a crime scene and say: Is this victim a Democrat or Republican, gay or straight, immigrant or not? We would say: How do we catch the person who did this? We listened to what the survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers told us. They told us what worked, what did not work, and what could be improved. Then we carefully drafted the legislation to fit these needs, and that is why our bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations, service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many more. There is one purpose, and one purpose only, for the bill Senator Crapo and I introduced and others cosponsored: It is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voice of millions of survivors and advocates across the country. The same cannot be said with the Republican proposal brought forward in the last couple of days. That is why that proposal is opposed by such a wide spectrum of people and organizations. Domestic and sexual violence knows no race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Its victims can be your next door neighbor, your colleague, a fellow church member, or your child's teacher at school. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act seeks to ensure that services to help victims of domestic violence reach all victims, no matter who they are. That is why civil and human rights organizations like the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and End Violence Against Women International have urged Congress to act to reauthorize VAWA. I ask consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. These organizations recognize the impact VAWA has in reducing incidences of sexual and domestic violence in our country. Since its initial passage in 1994, no law has done more to combat domestic violence and sexual assault. Because of VAWA, victims have access to life-saving services. It is time that we ensure that all victims have access to these resources. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations across the country, says the substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day. The substitute includes damaging, nonworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies. I know it may be well-intentioned, but it is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with the people across the country to bring this bill that is before us. Unfortunately, it undermines the core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It resolves in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims, including immigrants, Native women, and victims in same-sex relationships. Again, a victim is a victim is a victim. We don't say: We can help you if you fit in this category. But sorry, battered woman, you are on your own because you fit in the wrong category. That is not the America I know and love. The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are taken out, and the Republican proposal is no substitute. It does nothing to meet the needs of victims. It undermines the focus of protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word ``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. They are still victimized at far higher rates and with far greater impact on their lives than men. Shifting this focus away from women is unnecessary and harmful, and it could send a terrible message. There is no reason to turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out, to eliminate the focus on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect. By contrast, our bipartisan bill does not eliminate the focus against women but increases our focus to include all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. I see others on the floor. I have far more I am going to say about this, and I am about to yield the floor in case others wish to speak. Remember, this bill is the Violence Against Women Act. Let's not go away from that. It has been carefully put together with the best input we could get from law enforcement, from victims organizations, and, I must say, from some victims themselves. This is to protect those people. I have seen some crime scenes that I still have nightmares about decades later, and I can guarantee my colleagues that every prosecutor in this country and every police officer in this country who deals with these matters probably have the same kinds of nightmares. Are we going to stop all violence against women with this act? Of course not. But as a result of having had this legislation in effect for years, the numbers have come down because there is a place to go, there are people to help, and there are people to stop the violence. That is what we want to do--not to be, as I was during those nights in the morgue, saying to the police: Let's find out who did this so we can catch them, but, rather, to stop them before it happens and to protect the people so they live. That is what we are trying to do. That is what this bill does. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. I do not object.

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

Mr. LEAHY. How much on the other side?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country. We listened when they told us what was working and what could be improved. We took their input seriously, and we carefully drafted our legislation to respond to those needs. Our bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations. They include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many, many more. There is one purpose and one purpose only for the bill that Senator Crapo and I introduced, and that is to help and protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation represents the voices of millions of survivors and their advocates all over the country. The same cannot be said for the Republican proposal brought forward in these last couple of days. That is why the Republican proposal is opposed by so many and such a wide spectrum of people and organizations. The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, which represents dozens of organizations from across the country says: ``The Grassley-Hutchison substitute was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day. The substitute includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will harm victims, increase costs, and create unnecessary inefficiencies.'' Although well-intentioned, the Republican proposal is no substitute for the months of work we have done in a bipartisan way with victims and advocates from all over the country. I regret to say that the Republican proposal undermines core principles of the Violence Against Women Act. It would result in abandoning some of the most vulnerable victims and strips out key provisions that are critically necessary to protect all victims-- including battered immigrants, Native women, and victims in same sex relationships. The improvements in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act are gone from the Republican proposal. It is no substitute and does nothing to meet the unmet needs of victims. The Republican proposal fundamentally undermines VAWA's historic focus on protecting women. It literally calls for removing the word ``women'' from the largest VAWA grant program. Women are still victimized at far higher rates, and with a far greater impact on their lives, than men. Shifting VAWA's focus away from women is unnecessary and harmful. The Republican proposal would send a terrible message. There is no reason to turn the Violence Against Women Act inside out and eliminate the focus on the victims the bill has always been intended to protect. Our Leahy-Crapo bipartisan bill, by contrast, does not eliminate the focus on violence against women, but increases our focus to include all victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The Republican proposal strips out critical protections for gay and lesbian victims. The rate of violence in same sex relationships is the same as the general population, and we know that victims in that community are having difficulty accessing services. To strip out these critical provisions is to turn our backs on victims of violence. That is not the spirit of VAWA. We understand that a victim is a victim is a victim, and none of them should be excluded or discriminated against. The Republican proposal would extend and institutionalize that discrimination. The Republican proposal should be rejected. The Republican proposal also fails to adequately protect Tribal victims. Domestic violence in tribal communities is an epidemic. Four out of five perpetrators of domestic or sexual violence on Tribal lands are non-Indian and currently cannot be prosecuted by tribal governments. If you need more convincing of this problem, listen to the senior Senator from Washington and the Senators from New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii who have spoken so compellingly to the Senate about these concerns and who strongly support the provisions in the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill. The Republican proposal is no real alternative to fix the jurisdictional loophole that is allowing the domestic and sexual violence against Native women to go undeterred and unremedied. Its proposal offers a false hope, a provision that purports to allow a tribe to petition a Federal court for a protective order to exclude individuals from tribal land. It does not even allow the victim herself to request the order, and it does nothing to ensure that a violent offender is held accountable. This is a false alternative. It is not what the Justice Department has suggested. It is not what the Indian Affairs Committee has supported. It will do next to nothing and is no answer to the epidemic of violence against Native women. The Republican proposal also abandons immigrant victims and disregards law enforcement requests for additional U visas, a law enforcement tool that encourages immigrants to report and help prosecute crime. To the contrary, the Republican proposal would add dangerous restrictions on current U visa requirements that could result in that tool being less effective. The U visa process already has fraud protections. For law enforcement to employ U visas, law enforcement officers must personally certify that the victim is cooperating with a criminal investigation. The new restrictions the Republican proposal seeks to add will discourage victims from coming forward and will hinder law enforcement's ability to take violent criminals off the street. I will be offering an amendment to offset the minimal additional costs associated with our increasing the number of U visas that can be used. With that amendment the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill will not ``score'' and will be deficit neutral. The Republican proposal also would add burdensome, unnecessary and counterproductive requirements that would compromise the ability of service providers to maximize their ability to reach victims. In contrast, the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo accountability provisions ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars without unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is all the more ironic that the Republican proposal would add massive, new bureaucratic requirements to service providers who are understaffed and operating on shoestring budgets like most small businesses and nonprofits. These requirements are unnecessary and would add significant costs to victim service providers, undercutting their ability to help victims. It is easy to call for audits, but without proper resources and focus, such demands could be counterproductive and lead to decreased accountability. The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill, by contrast, includes targeted accountability provisions. While I have been willing to accommodate improvements to this legislation from day one, I have also been clear that I will not abandon core principles of fairness. Regrettably, that is what the Republican proposal would result in doing. It would undermine the core principle of VAWA to protect victims--all victims--the best way we know how. Our bill is focused on VAWA and improvements to meet the unmet needs of victims. It is not a catch-all for all proposals for criminal law reform, for sentencing modifications. There are other bills and other packages of bills that we are working on and hope to pass this year. We should not complicate passage of this bipartisan measure with such matters beyond the scope and purpose of the bill. Such debates are for another time and other bills. I urge all Senators to join together to protect the most vulnerable victims of violence, including battered immigrant women assisting law enforcement, Native American women who suffer in record numbers, and those who have traditionally had trouble accessing services. A victim is a victim is a victim. They all deserve our attention and the protection and access to services the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill provides. The path forward is to reject the Republican proposal, which is no alternative to the bipartisan Leahy-Crapo bill. Let us move forward together to meet the unmet needs of victims. I would just say that the Leahy-Crapo bill does not eliminate the focus on violence against women; it protects women, unlike the Republican proposal which strips out so many aspects. Our bill is inclusive. Theirs is exclusive. A victim is a victim is a victim. We do not exclude anybody. As the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire said earlier today: They do not ask who the victim is when there is a victim. With my remaining time, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and the remaining time to the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.

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

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

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we have been able to get very good progress on the rape kit backlogs in the Leahy-Crapo bill. I wish we had passed the Klobuchar amendment. The Cornyn amendment is well intentioned, but it will undermine, rather than enhance, the progress we have made. The Cornyn amendment will divert funding from the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog reduction program. Let me repeat: It will divert funding from the Debbie Smith rape kit backlog reduction program to create an unwieldy national database of rape kits. It could force State and local law enforcement to invest time and resources to comply with onerous and illogical reporting requirements instead of actually responding to calls and investigating sexual assault cases. Key victims' groups have opposed it, saying all the things it adds in here--the things we have taken care of to help victims--would actually hurt them. It creates new mandatory minimum penalties that victims' groups say will have the opposite effect of what we want by deterring abused women from reporting violence and sexual assault crimes. And I strongly oppose it.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to commend and thank Senator Klobuchar, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, and Senator Cantwell for their outstanding statements earlier today in support of our bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Their contributions to the bill and their leadership have been essential. They have spoken often and consistently about this legislative priority. They bring their experiences and years of work on these matters to this effort. I also wish to commend the statements made by Senators from both sides of the aisle yesterday as the Senate began consideration of the bill. I have always enjoyed working with the senior Senator from Texas and recall how we worked together to pass our Amber Alert legislation in record time. As I have said, we have included the Klobuchar- Hutchison provision updating Federal antistalking legislation in our bill from the outset. I appreciate her saying that she ``is going to support'' the Leahy-Crapo bill. Likewise, I have supported giving the Republican proposal a Senate vote, although I have explained why I will vote against it. I thought the statements by the majority leader, Senator Begich, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Tester, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Schumer, as well as Senator Heller were strong and compelling. We now have the opportunity to consider our amendment to improve upon the bill. Our amendment continues to focus on protecting victims. By way of our amendment, we can fix a ``scoring'' problem by adding an offset for the measures in the bill that the Congressional Budget Office determined after its technical analysis would result in affecting budget. That amendment should keep the measure budget neutral. We also are pleased to include provisions suggested by Senators Murkowski and Begich to correct the manner in which Alaska is affected by the tribal provisions in the bill. We worked with them on the initial language and are pleased to continue that bipartisan cooperation. These are additional steps we can take to make sure we pass the best possible legislation we can. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Crapo over the last many months to reauthorize and improve the Violence Against Women Act. We have been committed to an open, bipartisan process for this legislation from the beginning. This amendment I am offering continues that process and incorporates further important suggestions we have received from both sides of the aisle. The substitute makes modest changes to the tribal provisions to further protect the rights of defendants. These changes are in response to concerns raised by Senator Kyl and others, and I am happy to make them. The substitute also responds to concerns raised by Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich about the legislation's impact on Alaska Native villages. Again, I am pleased to be able to address those concerns. The bill is stronger for it. The substitute also incorporates national security protections at the request of Senator Feinstein. We also add a small fee for applications for diversity visas that will more than cover the modest costs of protecting additional battered immigrants who assist law enforcement. This addition renders the bill deficit neutral and alleviates budget concerns. It, too, makes the legislation stronger. The amendment strengthens the campus provision of the legislation while responding to concerns that the bill might have inadvertently affected burdens of proof in campus proceedings. I thank Senator Casey for working with us on this aspect of the amendment. These are very modest changes, but every one reflects our continued commitment to listening to those who work with victims of domestic and sexual violence every day and to working with Senators of both parties to make the legislation stronger. The legislation came to the floor with 61 Senators, including 8 Republicans, as cosponsors. These adjustments should make it even more of a consensus bill. I have been heartened by the constructive tone of debate on the floor of the Senate and the near universal support for reauthorizing VAWA. Let's continue this consensus, bipartisan process by passing this amendment and then adopting the bill with these improvements. Let's pass this reauthorization. As Congress faces unrelenting criticism for gridlock and dysfunction, our reauthorizing VAWA in a bipartisan way that helps all victims of domestic and sexual violence is an example of the Senate at its best. I hope all Senators will join us in this effort.

Mr. LEAHY. As we proceed to vote to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, I look forward to a strong bipartisan vote. I thank the majority leader and the Republican leader for their work to bring us to this point. I commend the Senators from both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring us to this. In particular I thank my partner in this effort, Senator Crapo, and our bipartisan cosponsors. I also commend Senator Murray and Senator Murkowski who have been so instrumental in helping both sides arrive at a fair process for considering amendments and proceeding without unnecessary delays. The Violence Against Women Act continues to send a powerful message that violence against women is a crime, and it will not be tolerated. It is helping transform the law enforcement response and provide services to victims all across the country. We are right to renew our commitment to the victims who are helped by this critical legislation and to extend a hand to those whose needs have remained unmet. As we have done in every VAWA authorization, this bill takes steps to improve the law and meet unmet needs. We recognize those victims who we have not yet reached and find ways to help them. This is what we have always done. As I have said many times the past several weeks, a victim is a victim is a victim. We are reaching out to help all victims. I am proud that the legislation Senator Crapo and I introduced seeks to protect all victims--women, children, and men, immigrants and native born, gay and straight, Indian and non-Indian. They all deserve our attention and the protection and access to services our bill provides. I have said since we started the process of drafting this legislation that the Violence Against Women Act is an example of what the Senate can accomplish when we work together. I have worked hard to make this reauthorization process open and democratic. Senator Crapo and I have requested input from both sides of the aisle, and we have incorporated many changes to this legislation suggested by Republican as well as Democratic Senators. Our bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country and from all political persuasions. We worked with them to craft a bill that responds to the needs they see in the field. That is why every one of the provisions in the bill has such widespread support. That is why more than 1000 national, State, and local organizations support our bill. I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill has had from the beginning, and I want to commend our 61 cosponsors. I commend our eight Republicans for their willingness to work across party lines. I cannot overstate the important role played by Senators Murray, Murkowski, Mikulski, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Boxer, Hagan, Shaheen, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Collins, Snowe, and Ayotte in this process. The work these women Senators have done in shaping the legislation, and supporting it here on the Senate floor, as well as back home in their States, has helped create the urgency needed to get a bill passed. They are among the strongest supporters of our bill, and the bill is better for their efforts. I also appreciate the gracious comments Senator Hutchison made about the Leahy-Crapo bill, and I am encouraged by her now joining with us to pass the bill. I also want to thank the many members of the Judiciary Committee who helped draft various provisions in the bill. Senators Kohl, Durbin, Schumer, Franken, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Coons, and Blumenthal offered significant contributions. The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without the hard work of many dedicated staffers. I would like to thank in particular Anya McMurray, Noah Bookbinder, Ed Chung, Erica Chabot, Liz Aloi, Matt Smith, Kelsey Kobelt, Tara Magner, Ed Pagano, John Dowd and Bruce Cohen from my staff. I know the staff of Senator Grassley has put in significant time on this legislation as well. I thank Kolan Davis, Fred Ansell, and Kathy Neubel for their efforts. I also commend the hardworking Senate floor staff, Tim Mitchell and Trish Engle, and the staffs of other Senators who I know have worked hard on this legislation, including Erik Stegman, Wendy Helgemo, Josh Riley, Ken Flanz, Susan Stoner, Nate Bergerbest, Kristi Williams, Stacy Rich, Mike Spahn, Serena Hoy, Bill Dauster, and Gary Myrick. Most importantly, I thank the many individuals, organizations, and coalitions that have helped with this effort. I thank the Vermonters who have helped inform me and this legislation, Karen Tronsgard-Scott of the Vermont Network to End Domestic and Sexual Violence and Jane Van Buren with Women Helping Battered Women. And I thank all those involved with the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, Casa de Esperanza, Futures Without Violence, Jewish Women International, Legal Momentum, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, National Center for Victims of Crime, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, National Congress of American Indians Taskforce on Violence Against Women, National Council of Jewish Women, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault, SCESA, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National Sexual Violence Resource Center, Resource Sharing Project of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, YWCA USA, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, NAACP, Mayors of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago, the National Sheriff's Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, FLEOA, National Center for State Courts, National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of Women Judges, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Faith Groups, and so many more for their focus on the victims and their unmet needs. This is an example of what the Senate can do when we put aside rhetoric and partisanship. I believe that if Senators, Members of the House, Americans from across the country take an honest look at the provisions in our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, they will find them to be commonsense measures that we all can support. Sixty-one Senators have already reached this conclusion. I hope more will join us and the Senate can promptly pass and Congress can promptly enact the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I thank the bipartisan coalition that has come together on this. Most importantly, the coalition across the political spectrum that is so opposed to violence against women will thank us for passing this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time on our side.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Tracy of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the rest of today.

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 ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the Senate be in a period of debate only on the bill for the remainder of today's session; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, April 26, it be for debate only until 11:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are able to move directly to the legislation without a cloture vote. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act is a bipartisan bill. It has 61 cosponsors. I was encouraged yesterday morning to hear the majority leader and the Republican leader discussing moving forward quickly to pass this legislation. I agree with the majority leader. I don't want to see the bill weakened. I agree with the Republican leader that there is strong bipartisan support for the Leahy-Crapo bill. I look forward to working out an agreement. I have spoken to both of them and told them I will support an agreement that will allow us to consider, and expeditiously approve, the bill in short order. Of course, I will be happy to help in any way I can to facilitate that. The bipartisan Violence Against Women Act has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The impact of the landmark law has been remarkable. It is one law I can point to and say that it has provided life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women, children, and men. At a time when we can sometimes be polarized around here, I appreciate the bipartisan support of this bill. Senator Crapo and I introduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act last year. We come from different parts of the country. We come from different parties. We, I think it is safe to say, come from different political philosophies. But we agreed that we all have to work to stop violence against women. In fact, we didn't move forward to do so at all until it had a lot of discussion both with the staff of the ranking member and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. We did our best to try to accommodate all points of view. We continued our outreach after the introduction of the bill, in the hearings and in the committee process. The amendment the Judiciary Committee adopted on February 2 included several additional changes requested by Republican Senators. I made sure they were in there. They are outlined in the committee report. We eliminated several provisions that would have offered significant assistance to immigrant victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was difficult to remove these provisions, but we earnestly sought compromise, and I was encouraged when in our committee meetings Senator Grassley acknowledged our efforts to reach agreement where we could. I said then and I now say that we were willing to go as far as we could to accommodate Senators on either side of the aisle. But as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I cannot abandon core principles of fairness, and I will not. I continue to urge all Senators to join to protect the most vulnerable victims of violence, including battered immigrant women, assisting law enforcement, Native American women who suffer in record numbers, and those who have had trouble accessing services. I have said so many times on this floor that a victim is a victim is a victim. They all need to be helped. They deserve our attention. They deserve the protection and access to the services our bill provides. We now have 61 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans; 16 of the 17 women in the Senate, from both parties, have joined as cosponsors. They have been strong supporters from the start, and the bill is better because of their efforts. There is one purpose, and one purpose alone, for the bill that Senator Crapo and I have introduced: to help protect victims of domestic and sexual violence. That purpose is reinforced as we turn to this bill during Crime Victims' Rights Week and Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Our bill is based on months of work with survivors, advocates, and law enforcement officers from all across the country--and I must say from all political persuasions, from the right to the left. the bipartisan bill was developed in an open and democratic process, and it is responsive to the unmet needs of victims. The New York Times had a column by Dorothy Samuels last Sunday that got it right. She wrote: [T]he provisions respond to real humanitarian and law enforcement needs. When Senator Crapo and I worked to put this legislation together, we purposely avoided proposals that were extreme or divisive on either the right or the left. We selected only those proposals that law enforcement and survivors and the professionals who work with crime victims every day told us were essential. We did not go for somebody who didn't have firsthand experience. We asked the people who actually have to make the law work. That is actually why every one of these provisions has such widespread support. In fact, our reauthorization bill is supported by more than 1,000 Federal, State, and local organizations, and they include service providers, law enforcement, religious organizations, and many more. We have done a good job on the domestic violence front, so sexual assault is where we need to increase our focus. That is what the bill does. The administration is fully onboard, and I welcome their statement of support. We have to pass this legislation. We have to pass this provision to focus on sexual assault. I think of the advocates in my State of Vermont who work not only in the cities but especially in the rural areas. Mr. President, it is not just those of us from small States; every single State has rural areas. The distinguished Presiding Officer does, the distinguished majority leader does, the distinguished Republican leader does. We all have rural areas. I think of Karen Tronsgard-Scott of the Vermont Network to End Domestic and Sexual Violence and Jane Van Buren with Women Helping Battered Women. They have helped us put this together. I appreciate the guidance from all across the Nation from such organizations as the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women. The coalition has been maintained and has been valuable in these efforts. It is working with them that we were able to adjust the allocation of funds to increase needed funding for sexual assault efforts, and do it without harming the other coordinated efforts. We reached our understanding in working with them, not by picking a number out of a hat or trying to outbid some proposal. It wasn't there. Everybody worked together. We only have so many dollars. We tried to do it and use the money where it works the best. The provision ensuring that services will be available to all victims regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity is supported by the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights and numerous civil rights and crime victim advocates. I was pleased to see a letter from Cindy Dyer, President Bush's Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, in which she writes: As criminal justice professionals, our job is to protect the community, but we are not able to do that unless all the tools necessary . . . are available to all victims of crime. Of course, she is right. A victim is a victim is a victim. Mr. President, when I was the State's attorney, I went to crime scenes at 3 o'clock in the morning and there was a battered and bloody victim--we hoped alive, but sometimes not. The police never said: Is this victim a Democrat or a Republican? Is this victim gay or straight? Is this victim an immigrant? Is this victim native born? They said: This is a victim. How do we find the person who did this and stop them from doing it again? A victim is a victim is a victim. Everybody in law enforcement will tell you that. Because of that, we added a limited number of new visas for immigrant victims of serious crimes who help law enforcement, which is backed only by the immigrants' rights organizations, as one might expect, but it is backed by the Fraternal Order of Police which writes that ``the expansion of the U visa program will provide incalculable benefits to our citizens and our communities at a negligible cost.'' My friends in law enforcement are right, as they so often are. On Tuesday, in an editorial in our local paper, the Washington Post urged passage of our bipartisan bill, noting: A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps in current programs as identified by law enforcement officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care professions. No one--gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented--should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence. Mr. President, I agree with that editorial because what it says is what we have said over and over on this floor--a victim is a victim is a victim. If you are a victim, you should have somebody ready to help. They are improvements that are not only reasonable but necessary if we are to fulfill our commitment to victims of domestic and sexual violence. If we say you are a victim of domestic or sexual violence, we can't pick and choose to say this victim will be helped but this one is going to be left on their own. We say we are going to help all of them. A victim is a victim is a victim. I believe that if Senators of both parties take an honest look at all the provisions in our bipartisan VAWA reauthorization bill, they will find it to be a commonsense measure we can all support. This isn't a Democratic or a Republican measure, this is a good-government measure. This protects the people in our society who sadly need protection. Sixty-one Senators have already reached this conclusion from both parties, so I hope more will join us. I hope the Senate will promptly pass the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Mr. President, I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I see the distinguished Senator from Texas in the Chamber, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to draw the Senate's attention to the ongoing, intensifying and intolerable oppression occurring in Tibet. Over the past year, at least 32 Tibetans, most of them young men and women, have set themselves on fire to protest Chinese policies that are infringing on Tibetan self-governance, cultural traditions and religious beliefs and practices. Of them, it is believed that at least 23 have died. Eleven have self-immolated in the past 2 months alone. These incidents do not represent a temporary deviation from a peaceful norm but are instead the latest response to a tragic, and unfortunately lengthy, history of religious and cultural controls, human rights violations and oppression of the Tibetan people. Reports from Tibet indicate that the Chinese government is further restricting access to foreign journalists and tightening security throughout the region. Chinese police and other officials in Tibet are forcing some nuns and monks to publicly denounce the Dalai Lama. Schools in some provinces have been forced by the government to switch their official language of instruction from Tibetan to Mandarin Chinese. These policies, among others, have incited Tibetans to protest and fight for the survival of their cultural identity and basic freedoms. In recent weeks, a state-run Chinese website and news agency accused the Dalai Lama of encouraging Tibetans to set themselves on fire and of advocating ``Nazi'' racial policies. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama and I am proud to consider him a friend. It is baseless, offensive, and deplorable to slander the Dalai Lama in this way or to suggest that he is inciting violence. He is a man whose entire life has been devoted to peace. For decades, the Dalai Lama has sought to work with the Chinese government to reach a peaceful resolution over Tibet's political status. The Dalai Lama has, time and time again, extended a hand of friendship to Beijing, which has consistently responded by drastically misrepresenting his views and accusing him of inciting violence, perhaps to draw attention away from their own brutal actions. The Chinese government must know that violent crackdowns and cultural genocide will never be condoned. We share many interests with China and the future can bring our two countries closer. China's tremendous economic transformation in the past few decades has brought great benefits to the Chinese people and has spurred economic development in other countries. That said, the economic emergence of China and its increased presence on the world stage must be accompanied by respect for human rights. China cannot be a global leader while crushing peaceful dissent in its own backyard, destroying the culture of the Tibetan people, and imprisoning Tibetan leaders. I want to mention one of these imprisoned leaders, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche. Tenzin Delek was recognized by the Dalai Lama as a reincarnate lama in the 1980s. He was detained in April 2002 on charges of exploding bombs and spreading politically charged leaflets and, following a closed trial, sentenced to death on December 2, 2002. After appeal, Tenzin Delek's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. No evidence of his involvement in any illegal activity has ever been made public. In fact, before being detained, Tenzin Delek was well-known for educating children in rural areas and helping to build monasteries. Tenzin Delek's imprisonment is just one of the many examples of persecution of Tibetan leaders that appear to be motivated by a desire to curb Tibetan religious and cultural expression. Many Tibetan protestors, both imprisoned and free, are not seeking independence from China. Tibetan leaders, including the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Prime Minister, Lobsang Sangay, who I was pleased to meet earlier this year, have explicitly stated that they support the Middle- Way' policy, which seeks autonomy for Tibet within the People's Republic of China. Tibetans are not fighting for separation from China; they are fighting for the freedom of religious belief guaranteed to them by the Chinese Constitution. They are fighting for the security of their monks and monasteries. They are fighting for freedom of expression, association, and assembly, for personal liberty, for unrestricted media access, and for the fundamental principles of democracy that we in the United States take for granted. We cannot and will not abandon the Tibetan people, who have long been our unwavering friends. We will stand by them to protect the principles of democracy in the face of China's repressive policies. Together, the Tibetans and the Chinese can peacefully reach a solution that meets the needs and aspirations of both peoples. It is imperative that we support peaceful dialogue and discourage violent confrontation whenever it occurs, whether supported by the Chinese authorities or Tibetan protestors. I am a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's resolution, S. Res. 356, A Resolution Expressing Support for the People of Tibet, and I urge other Senators to do so. We can foster closer, cooperative relations with China, but until China works with Tibetan leaders to pursue a new way forward, their reputation in the community of nations, and their ability to act as a global power, will remain tarnished. I hope that, in the years to come, the young Tibetans who sacrificed their lives in the past year will be remembered as the catalysts for a political dialogue that cemented a peaceful future for both Tibet and China.