Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today marks the beginning of the 31st annual National Crime Victims' Rights Week. It is a time to recognize the losses faced by victims of crimes and their families and to acknowledge the efforts being made to help them recover and rebuild their lives in the wake of tragedy. It is a time to reflect on all we have accomplished and focus on what we have to yet do to help victims. Of course, one of the best tools for delivering that help is the Crime Victims Fund. Unfortunately, in recent months, some have sought to violate the Victims of Crime Act. They want to take money out of the trust fund for purposes and programs not authorized by the Victims of Crime Act. I have worked with Senators from both sides of the aisle. We have been able to stop this raid on crime victims' funding. I wish to commend Senators Mikulski and Hutchison, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science of the Committee on Appropriations for their important efforts in this regard in the appropriations bill we reported to the Senate last week. The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I serve, has reported a bill that preserves the Crime Victims Fund, and we succeeded in increasing the funding next year for victims' compensation and assistance to $775 million. To be able to increase Federal assistance by $70 million from last year's cap is extraordinary in these economic times, and it is an indication here in the Senate of our commitment to crime victims. This is a matter on which I have worked with Senator Crapo as well as Senator Mikulski over the years. I appreciate their leadership in this effort. The Crime Victims Fund is not taxpayers' money. It comes from penalties and fines. It comes from wrongdoers. We designed it to help victims of crime. We created it as a trust fund for crime victims' needs and services. I have tried to respect the trust fund and to protect it, to ensure that it is used and available for crime victims and their families who depend on its support in times of need. We all know the States are being forced to tighten their belts, and when they do, victims' services are being cut all over the country. Without the Federal assistance from this trust fund, victims' compensation programs and victims' assistance programs and services will be unavailable to many. Another important law that strengthens crime victims' rights and improves crime victims' services is currently pending before the Judiciary Committee. The Justice For All Reauthorization Act strengthens the rights guaranteed to crime victims in the criminal justice process and ensures that basic services, like the rapid testing of rape kits, help victims receive the justice, safety, and closure they deserve. I look forward to working with Senators from both sides of the aisle to move that legislation forward as well. Currently pending before the Senate is the majority leader's motion to proceed against the Violence Against Women's Act, S. 1925. I introduced this legislation with Senator Crapo last year. We have 61 bipartisan cosponsors from both parties. When we enacted the Violence Against Women Act nearly 18 years ago, it sent a powerful message that we will not tolerate crime against women and forever altered the way our Nation combats domestic and sexual violence. Our legislation offers support to the victims of these terrible crimes and helps them find safety and rebuild their lives. The bill we will debate this week is based on the recommendations of victims and the tireless professionals who work with them every day. April is also Sexual Assault Awareness Month and our bill takes the important step of focusing increased attention on sexual assaults, including those against the most vulnerable among us. As I listened to Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Gillibrand--and, as a matter of fact, I spoke with Senator Hagan last week about the pending motion to proceed to the VAWA reauthorization legislation--I thought how fortunate we all are to serve with them and with Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Snowe, Landrieu, Collins, Stabenow, Cantwell, Murkowski, McCaskill, Klobuchar, and Ayotte. In fact, 16 women senators are cosponsors of our Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and their input has strengthened this critical legislation. I appreciate their strong bipartisan support for this measure and their willingness to speak out time and again on the need to pass this bill without delay. We recently honored the senior Senator from Maryland for her services as the longest-serving woman Senator and as the woman who has also served the longest in Congress. I can remember back before 1993, when Senator Carol Mosely Braun became the first woman to serve as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We are fortunate now to have both Senator Feinstein and Senator Klobuchar as active members of our Committee. I remember when nine women Senators joined together to contribute to the book ``Nine and Counting'' about their paths to the U.S. Senate. These women have served as role models for many other young women and young girls. Even as Senator Clinton has gone on to become our Secretary of State, there have been other changes. Six of the nine Senators who were subjects of the book in 2001 still serve in this institution today. They have been joined by nine additional women Senators from around the country. This book, ``Nine and Counting,'' was a title for looking to the future. Today, 17 women serve in the U.S. Senate. That is a great step forward. They have farther to go, of course, but it is a lot better than when I came to the Senate when we had no women serving. Sixteen of them have joined from both sides of the aisle to bring their leadership and their strong support, but also their experience, to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. Our bill includes a number of provisions they have championed and suggested. To will give one example, our bill includes the provisions that Senator Klobuchar and Senator Hutchison suggested and introduced as the Stalkers Act of 2011. That provision is new to VAWA. It would not have been included if we had simply introduced a one-sentence reauthorization of VAWA rather than a comprehensive bill. I thought it was a good provision, intended to update the Federal antistalking statute to capture the more modern forms of communication that perpetrators use to stalk their victims. In the spirit of National Crime Victims' Rights Week, our reauthorization bill takes steps to recognize victims' needs that are not being served and find ways to help them. That approach is not radical or extreme. The fact that the bill reaches more victims should not be a basis for partisan division; it is something we ought to celebrate. I have said on the floor before, a victim is a victim is a victim. In my earlier career I would go to a crime scene at 3 o'clock in the morning with the police, as the chief law enforcement officer of our county. We might have a badly battered woman--if she survived; sometimes the victim did not survive--but I never heard the police say, ``Well, if we are going to do something on this, we have to figure out whether this victim is a Democrat or a Republican, or we have to figure out whether this victim is gay or straight, or we have to figure out''-- no. They said, ``For this victim, let us find out who did this and let's get them and let's see what we can do,'' or if the victim is still alive, what we could do to protect the victim. That is what the Violence Against Women Act has always done and what I have tried to do for crime victims for many years. As we have done on every VAWA reauthorization bill, we have learned from past experience how to make it better and now we make it better by taking responsible and moderate steps, in this case to protect immigrant and native women, and ensuring services to victims regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, again under the mantra ``a victim is a victim is a victim.'' At the same time, we recognize the difficult economic times and the need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly. That is why the bill consolidates 13 programs into 4 in an effort to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. It cuts the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of nearly 20 percent from the last reauthorization. We will still provide sufficient authority to fund VAWA programs at over $400 million a year, which is consistent with the funding level provided in the appropriations bill for the coming year. Our legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. Since its introduction last November, more than 700 State and national organizations have written to endorse the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. They are 200 national organizations, including 500 State and local organizations--the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and 25 national religious organizations. Last week, the mayors of three of the Nation's largest cities--New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles--wrote to the Senate urging us to pass the VAWA reauthorization. We have heard from 47 State attorneys general, Republican and Democratic alike, urging Senate passage of this legislation. That is because they recognize this Federal law is meaningful and that this reauthorization addresses the ongoing, unmet needs of victims in their States. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. In fact, today I was advised by Bruce Cohen in my office that we have received the statement of administrative position. It is a very strong statement from the White House, and it is a strong statement in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. I am glad we are finally moving to this. The last two reauthorizations, each one an improvement on the one before, passed this body unanimously. We should do the same. It is not a partisan issue. I ask other Senators, if they haven't spoken with victims of abuse, to speak to those who are; talk to the police chiefs; talk to the people who have to deal with this; talk to the people who have survived some of these horrendous attacks. Ask them if they think this is needed. Ask those who have been protected from further abuse because of the steps we have taken in the Violence Against Women Act-- ask them if we need it. The Presiding Officer and the other 98 Senators come in this building and we are protected by one of the finest police forces that exists, the Capitol Hill Police force. We don't have to worry; nobody is going to attack us. In the Presiding Officer's State and my State and all of the other States, unfortunately, thousands of people cannot rest easily that way. They know their attacker and often they know their attacker is waiting to do it again. We can easily stand up and say here in the Senate: No, we won't stand for this violence against women. Let's take the steps that we can take, the men and women in this body. Let's take the steps we can take to stop the violence. Exhibit 1 April 19, 2012. Hon. Harry Reid Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: As mayors who collectively represent over seven and a half million women, we believe it is imperative that the Senate pass S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011. Despite considerable progress over the past two decades in addressing the epidemic of violence against women, we recognize that much more needs to be done and that this legislation will strengthen our national commitment to tackling the challenges that remain. Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has provided a comprehensive, coordinated, and community-based approach toward reducing domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and other forms of violence. Over the past two decades, its programs and services have provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of victims. Through victim support programs, local and state funding assistance, and the U Visa program, VAWA has strengthened the ability of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute crimes and hold violent perpetrators accountable. These efforts have contributed to dramatic reductions in the incidence and impact of violence against women, including an over 50 percent decline in the annual rate of domestic violence. As we seek to make further progress, we believe it is essential that we provide services to victims regardless of their gender, race, language, Immigration status, or sexual orientation. As mayors, we have seen the tremendous positive impact of the Violence Against Women Act in our communities. In New York, VAWA funding has helped open three Family Justice Centers, which are one-stop domestic violence centers with staff from government agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist victims of domestic violence. In Los Angeles, VAWA funding has also helped expand its Domestic Abuse Response Team--a collaborative effort between law enforcement officers and victim advocates to respond to domestic violence calls at the scene of the crime and provide crisis intervention. The Chicago Police Department uses its funding to train staff to assist victims of domestic abuse in an effort to provide the best resources to these victims. These are just a few examples of the vital services and assistance that this landmark law has enabled communities all over the country to provide to combat this terrible problem. Despite the progress that has been made, much more needs to be done. Still today, nearly one in five women have been sexually assaulted or raped in their lifetime, and 45 percent of the women killed in the United States die at the hands of an intimate partner. This level of violence is simply unacceptable. We believe that S. 1925--like the 2000 and 2005 reauthorizations that preceded it--will help us better address continuing problems and remaining unmet needs. This legislation will expand services to immigrant and lesbian, gay, and transgendered communities, who not only experience the highest rates of violence but often have the most difficulty in accessing services. in recognition of the persistent problem of sexual violence, S. 1925 also will strengthen the capacity of local, state, and federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute these crimes. While these tools will be essential in achieving justice, they are also a reminder of the wide impact that domestic violence has on the community at large including law enforcement. In each of our cities, police officers have been injured or murdered while responding to domestic violence incidents. For these reasons, we believe that it is critical that the Senate move quickly to take up and pass S. 1925 in order to strengthen our national commitment to all victims of domestic violence. Sincerely, Rahm Emanuel, Mayor, City of Chicago. Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor, City of Los Angeles. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Missouri on the floor, Mr. Blunt. I know he has a Republican leadership meeting he needs to get to. I yield such time as he needs on the Republican reserved time, with the understanding that when he finishes, it will go back to me.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, regaining my time on this side, I appreciate the Senator from Missouri speaking about Brian Wimes. Today, the Senate will finally vote on the nomination of Brian Wimes to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western and Eastern Districts of Missouri. This nomination has had the support of both his home state Senators, Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt. The Judiciary Committee voted to report the nomination favorably over four months ago. There is no justification for this unnecessary delay. The Senate is still so far this year only considering judicial nominations that could and should have been confirmed last year. We will conclude the first four months of this year having only considered judicial nominees who should have been confirmed before recessing last December. We have yet to get to any of the nominees we should be considering this year because of Republican objections to proceeding more promptly. With nearly one in 10 judgeships across the Nation vacant, the judicial vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President George W. Bush when we lowered vacancy rates more than twice as quickly. The Senate is 33 confirmations of circuit and district court judges behind the number at this point in President Bush's fourth year in office. We are also 66 confirmations from the total of 205 that we reached by the end of President Bush's fourth year. As I noted earlier this month, the Federal judiciary has been forced to operate with the heavy burden of 80 or more judicial vacancies for nearly three years now. There are 22 judicial nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar ready for final consideration and a vote, not just this one. Action on those 22 nominees would go a long way toward easing the burden on the Federal courts and ensuring that all Americans have Federal judges available so that they can have the quality of justice that they deserve. Some Senate Republicans seek to divert attention by suggesting that these longstanding vacancies are the President's fault for not sending us nominees. The fact is that there are 22 outstanding judicial nominees that can be confirmed right now, but 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 that they are not agreeing to proceed to consider the judicial nominees we do have more quickly, I say let us complete Senate action on these 22 judicial nominees ready for final action. There are more working their way through Committee, and the Senate can act responsibly to help fill some of the most pressing vacancies plaguing some of our busiest courts if we proceed to these nominations now. For instance, the Ninth Circuit is by far the busiest circuit in the country. The Senate has yet to vote on the long-delayed nomination of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen of California to fill one of the judicial emergency vacancies plaguing the Ninth Circuit. Hers was one of the nominations ready to be confirmed last year that will be delayed five months before her confirmation to fill that judicial emergency vacancy. Republicans have insisted that her vote be delayed until next month. There are two additional Ninth Circuit nominees to fill judicial emergency vacancies who are ready for final votes but for which Senate Republicans have not agreed to schedule votes. Paul Watford of California and Justice Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona were both voted favorably from the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year. There is no good reason for delay. 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 of the nominations of Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, 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, have written to the Senate 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 five 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 September 2011, the Ninth Circuit had 14,041 cases pending before it, more than three times that of the next busiest 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 all three of these Ninth Circuit nominees to allow for up or down votes by the Senate without these months of unnecessary delays. Delay is harmful for everyone, but mostly to the American public. Right now, 150 million Americans live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled if Senate Republicans would simply vote on the 22 judicial nominations ready for final Senate action. I also note that of the current vacancies without a nomination, 28 involve Republican home state Senators. This is a President who has tried to work with home state Senators from both parties on his nominations. There are also an additional seven nominations on which the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot proceed because Republican Senators are withholding support. I congratulate Senator McCaskill for her success in getting this vote on the nomination of Judge Wimes. He is currently a judge on the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri. He previously served as the Jackson County Drug Court Commissioner and as an assistant prosecuting attorney in the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office. Judge Wimes has the strong support of Senator Claire McCaskill and is also supported by Senator Blunt. He and his family have been waiting for this day since the Judiciary Committee in an overwhelming, bipartisan manner voted to send his name to the Senate on December 15th of last year. Today's vote is pursuant to the agreement reached by the Majority Leader and the Republican leader last month. To make real progress, however, the Senate needs go beyond the nominations included in that limited agreement to include the other 16 judicial nominations currently before the Senate for a final vote and the three judicial nominees who should be reported by the Judiciary Committee this week. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to confirm these qualified judicial nominees so that we can help alleviate the judicial vacancy crisis and so they can serve the American people.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Carolyn Meub, Executive Director of Pure Water for the World, a Vermont-based nonprofit organization that brings clean water to thousands of families in Honduras and Haiti. Last week, the White House honored Carolyn as one of 10 Rotary Club members from across the country who are improving the lives of others through volunteer work. Carolyn has transformed Pure Water for the World from a small Rotary club project into an effective international NGO. Under her leadership, the organization is implementing a sustainable model for clean water programs by building clean water filtration systems, providing hygiene education, and installing latrines to improve sanitation. Twenty-thousand Honduran families now have access to clean drinking water, and 1,200 schools in Haiti have clean water systems and hygiene education curriculums, because of Pure Water for the World. That is no small feat. As Carolyn points out, clean water is a tap away for most Americans, but for more than three-quarters of a billion of the world's people accessing safe water is a daily struggle. The United Nations reports that 3.5 million people die each year from diseases related to drinking contaminated water. In February, my wife Marcelle visited Port-au-Prince as part of a delegation I led with five other Members of Congress, where she saw firsthand the simple, inexpensive household water filtration systems being built and donated by Pure Water for the World. Each unit, the size of an office water cooler and made of concrete or plastic, is filled with layers of sand and gravel that trap microorganisms as the water passes through. This process of slow sand filtration is inexpensive and produced from local materials, making it ideally suited for developing countries. Pure Water for the World is doing important and inspiring work, providing sustainable sources of safe drinking water and promoting habits to improve health and sanitation in poor communities in Honduras and Haiti. I am very proud that Carolyn received this well-deserved recognition at the White House on behalf of her organization. We all appreciate the work they are doing. I ask unanimous consent that the Rutland Herald article entitled ``Hope flows: Vt. nonprofit pours `Pure Water for the World' '' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, Thursday, April 19, is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Observances and remembrance activities are taking place across the Nation in civic centers, schools, churches and synagogues, on military bases and in workplaces. As always, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum--created as a permanent living memorial to its victims--is taking a leading role in this annual observance. We must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, we must never let the world forget, and we must never forget or neglect the Holocaust's lessons. Never forgetting means keeping alive the memory of those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. Never forgetting also means declaiming against crimes against humanity that erupt in our midst, and on our watch. As searing as the Holocaust's lessons are, the world is too easily tempted to avert its eyes from heinous crimes committed by governments and others against our fellow human beings. The community of nations will always bear the shame of doing so little during the massacres on the killing fields of Cambodia, and in the villages of Rwanda. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum itself has taken the lead in shining a light on atrocities in our time in Darfur, and I commend its Committee on Conscience for lending its unmatched moral authority to the crusade to bring an end to the violence there. In that spirit, our voices are also needed to expose the crimes against humanity that are occurring behind the walls of the prison camps of North Korea. More and more information now is coming to light about the systematic, state-sponsored brutality that is being waged upon some 200,000 people, according to the State Department, in those camps. The fact of these prison camps is not new. But horrifying new glimpses are now coming to light from those who have successfully broken free and crossed the frontier to eventual freedom. Publicly available satellite photos are helping to expose a system whose very existence the North Korean government continues to deny. A new report on these prison camps, authored by David Hawk, has been released by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, a U.S.- based, private organization. It documents the imprisonment of entire families, including children and grandparents for the ``political crimes'' of other family members. At the report's Washington release this month, a young man born to prisoners--and thereby condemned to spend his entire life in one of these camps--spoke about visiting the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, every time he comes to Washington. Shin Dong-hyuk's harrowing escape is detailed in a new book by Blaine Harden, a former Washington Post reporter. We have vital national security interests at stake in our dealings with the North Korean regime, which has acquired nuclear weapons. I am one who believes that we can fully and effectively pursue these interests through diplomacy and other means, without having to mute our outrage about human rights atrocities like these. I welcome the strong comments about this report made by Robert King, the United States human rights envoy for North Korea, who said that conditions in North Korea's prison camps are worse than in the former Soviet Union's gulag. I would hope that today's leaders of Russia and China would voice similar outrage about these atrocities. Social media and a powerful video recently brought the story of the crimes of Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army to an audience of millions of people around the world. Let us individually and together similarly raise our voices against the crimes against humanity that are taking place behind the walls and barbed wire of North Korea's labor camps, where some one in four people die each year--starved to death, or worked to death, or executed. Let it not be said by future generations that though we knew enough, we did not care enough to condemn and to lend our efforts to end this brutal system. Several news organizations have reported or commented on this new information about North Korea's prison camps. I commend to the Senate's attention two recent such writings. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial, and a commentary by Fred Hiatt, both from the Washington Post, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I am glad we are doing that. I want to thank the majority leader for moving to proceed to the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as the next legislative measure for the Senate to consider. He made the motion Tuesday afternoon. My hope is that it is not going to be necessary to have extended debate or a filibuster or the filing of a cloture motion and a delay of several days and then a delay of 2 more days even after more than 60 Senators vote to bring the debate to a close and proceed to the bill and then another vote on the motion to proceed before the Senate is permitted to consider this important measure. I expect anybody listening got lost through that whole process. That is something we Senators should think about. The American public expects us to vote yes or no, not maybe. The longer the delay and the motions go on, the more we are voting maybe. Let's vote yes or no. For almost 18 years, the 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 this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women and children and men. I appreciate the bipartisan support that this bill has had from the beginning. Senator Crapo and I introduced a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act last year after months of discussion. We wanted it to be a bipartisan bill, and it is. Too often in recent times, the Senate goes through all kinds of delaying moves before they proceed to legislation. Again, as I said, the American people elect us. They expect us to vote yes or no not maybe. The delays are a big fat maybe. The Violence Against Women Act is a measure that is cosponsored by 61 Senators. It is a bipartisan measure cosponsored by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. So I hope Democrats and Republicans and Independents will come together to proceed to consider the bill without delay. I would hope they step forward and do the right thing and send the message to America that we are united in the effort to see the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized. It is an opportunity for the Senate to come together and renew what I believe is a shared commitment among Senators to end violence against women. For generations, violence against women in this country was condoned. Too often these insidious crimes were dismissed with a joke or a shrug or that ``they involve somebody else.'' Rape was too often excused and domestic violence was tolerated as a family matter. Victims were blamed, humiliated, and ignored. They had nowhere to turn. There were no crisis centers, there were no shelters. Far too many women and families were left to fend for themselves with no help. The Violence Against Women Act was passed nearly 18 years ago and has helped to change that. It sent a powerful message that violence against women is a crime and it is not going to be tolerated, no matter where it happens. It transformed the law enforcement response and provided services to victims all across the country. Now is the time to renew our commitment to these victims by passing this legislation. We need to move forward. We need to reaffirm that ending violence against women is a priority for all Americans. We need to be a beacon to others around the world in this regard. With this effort we set the standard. We show that America understands equality and recognizes human dignity. We are going to fight injustice against the most vulnerable among us. The legislation that I introduced with Senator Crapo last November is drawn from the needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. It is based on the recommendations of the tireless professionals who serve those survivors every day. It includes improvements suggested by law enforcement officers across the country. As we build on the progress we have made in reducing domestic and sexual violence, we made vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs to better serve the victims of violence. We incorporate the important work that Chairman Akaka, Senator Murkowski, and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have been doing to try to respond to the epidemic of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities. We increase the focus on effective responses to sexual assault. While the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen since VAWA was introduced by more than 50 percent, the progress has not yet translated to reducing sexual assault. Incidents of sexual assault remains high, while reporting rates, prosecution rates, and conviction rates remain appallingly low. So we faced that problem head on. We ensure that funds are allocated to law enforcement and victims service responses to sexual assault and authorize support for law enforcement sexual assault training and the reduction of the backlogs of untested rape kits. In a lot of places, they say: We cannot test this rape kit for several months. So often the perpetrator comes back. So during the several months it takes to test the rape kit, they say to the victim: Be sure and keep your door locked. This is not how victims should be treated; they should not have to live in fear. We should be able to say we can test this immediately, and then go get the person involved. My early experience with the question of sexual assault was not as a Senator but as a local prosecutor. Senator Crapo has been visiting women's shelters and working on these issues for decades as well. His principled bipartisanship should be respected and celebrated as being in the best traditions of the Senate, the Senate I came to 37 years ago. From the outset, we have consulted to make this bill the best it can be. More than a month ago, Senators from both parties came forward to urge the Senate to take up and pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The Senate heard that day from Senator Klobuchar, Senator Murkowski, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Hagan, Senator Shaheen, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Boxer, who was the author of the House bill in 1990. Eight Senators came to the floor to remind us all why this bill is important and why the Senate should pass it. There is nothing radical or new about saying that all victims--all victims--are entitled to services. I have been at some of the most horrendous crime scenes you can imagine in my earlier career. I never asked, and certainly none of the police officers ever asked, whether the victim was a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, or from a minority. A victim is a victim, and we should be helping all victims not discriminating among them. We know that even though the economy is improving, these remain difficult economic times and we have to spend our taxpayer money responsibly. That is why in this bill, we consolidated 13 programs into 4 to reduce duplication and bureaucratic barriers. We cut the authorization level by more than $135 million a year, a decrease of 20 percent from the last reauthorization. We have significant accountability provisions including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. I sought to consult with Senator Grassley and others in making these changes to authorization levels and for increased accountability, knowing how important these aspects are to them. In the Senate Judiciary Committee those who opposed the bill were given an opportunity to offer a substitute and other amendments. Senator Grassley offered a substitute which was voted on and rejected. In the minority views of the Committee report, Senator Kyl noted disagreement with the provisions of the bill responding to the crisis of violence against Native women that incorporated a provision for the SAVE Native Women Act to provide domestic violence jurisdiction over those perpetrators with significant ties to the prosecuting tribes. Opponents have noted their disagreement with the U visa provisions requested by law enforcement. Some opposed the provisions intended to ensure against discrimination in services based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Again, I will say what I have said over and over again: a victim is a victim is a victim. We should not ask what category they fall in. Since the bill was passed by the Judiciary Committee I have continued to reach out to Senator Grassley and ask what amendments opponents wish to offer during Senate consideration. While amendments to strike the tribal, U visa and sexual orientation provisions were not offered before the Judiciary Committee, I would understand if opponents wished to do so before the Senate. I have reached out to try to construct a pathway for consideration of the bill pursuant to an agreement that is fair to opponents of these various provisions. If they have other amendments, let's bring them up. Let's vote on them. Let's vote this up or down. Do not vote maybe. I hope we can reach out to the leadership on both sides, get a time to get this done, do not keep holding up legislation that has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous religious and faith-based organizations, and our partners in law enforcement. Let's show the country we will not duck this issue. We will vote for it or we will vote against it. The Violence Against Women Act should not be a partisan matter. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Although it seems that partisan gridlock is too often the default in the Senate over the last couple of years, it remains my hope that those who have voted for VAWA in the past will come forward and join our eight Republican cosponsors to support it. If so, we can pass our VAWA reauthorization with a strong bipartisan majority as we always have. Domestic and sexual violence knows no political party. Its victims are Republican and Democrat, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, gay and straight. Let's pass this without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what can be done when we work together. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one year ago, the Senate unanimously passed the Food Safety Accountability Act. This week, the Food and Drug Administration announced that raw tuna from a California supplier has sickened more than 100 people in 20 States with salmonella poisoning. We do not yet know the cause of the current outbreak, but if enacted, the Food Safety Accountability Act would help stop outbreaks of illness related to food safety. It is time for the House to pass this noncontroversial legislation. The Food Safety Accountability Act promotes more accountability for food suppliers by increasing the sentences that prosecutors can seek for people who violate our food safety laws in those cases where there is conscious or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury. Current statutes do not provide sufficient criminal sanctions for those who knowingly violate our food safety laws. Knowingly distributing adulterated food is already illegal, but it is in most cases merely a misdemeanor, and the Sentencing Commission has found that perpetrators generally do not serve jail time. The alternative, fines and recalls, fall short in protecting the public from harmful products. Too often, those who are willing to endanger our American citizens in pursuit of profits view such fines or recalls as merely the cost of doing business. Salmonella poisoning is all too common and sometimes results from inexcusable, knowing conduct such as that carefully targeted by the Food Safety Accountability Act. The company responsible for a salmonella outbreak last summer had a long history of environmental, immigration, labor, and food safety violations. It is clear that fines are not enough to protect the public and effectively deter this unacceptable conduct. We need to make sure that those who knowingly poison the food supply will go to jail. This bill will significantly increase the chances that those who commit serious food safety crimes will face jail time rather than merely a slap on the wrist. Food safety received considerable attention in the last Congress, and I was pleased that we finally passed comprehensive food safety reforms, but our work is not done. A provision almost identical to the Food Safety Accountability Act has previously passed the House with strong, bipartisan support. Now that the Senate has unanimously passed this bill, it is long overdue for the House to act. The American people should be confident that the food they buy for their families is safe. The uncertainty and fear caused by the current salmonella outbreak only reinforces the need to pass the common sense Food Safety Accountability Act. I urge the House to quickly pass the Senate bill and join us in taking this important step toward protecting our food supply.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Coons 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. I am glad to see the Senate finally being allowed to act. 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. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will note one concern with 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. 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 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. I thank and congratulate Senator Coons for his hard work and attention to this issue. This would not be passing without his diligence, focus, and legislative skill. He has done what has seemed impossible.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will protect American consumers by improving the labeling on prescription drugs to promote consumer safety. This important bill will ensure that all drug manufacturers can update the warning labels for their products so that the information provided to doctors and consumers is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. It is a straightforward measure that has the support of patient groups and consumer advocates. I am pleased that Senators Franken, Coons, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Brown of Ohio, and Blumenthal have joined me as original cosponsors of the bill. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will promote consumer safety by ensuring that generic drug companies can improve the warning information for their products in the same way that brand manufacturers can under existing law. This ability is especially important given the large role that generics play in the market for prescription drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that generic drugs now make up 75 percent of the market for pharmaceuticals. Studies show that when a generic version of a drug is available, 90 percent of prescriptions are filled with the generic version of the drug. The large role that generics play in the market gives them important insight into side effects experienced by their customers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will allow generic manufacturers to act on this information, by authorizing them to improve their labels to provide accurate and up-to-date warnings to consumers. A recent Supreme Court decision, Pliva v. Mensing, created the need for this important legislation. In the Mensing case, a narrow 5 4 majority on the Court held that a Minnesota woman, Gladys Mensing, could not recover for debilitating injuries she received from a mislabeled drug that was intended to treat her diabetes symptoms. Despite evidence that long-term use of the drug could cause a severe neurological condition known as tardive dyskinesia, the manufacturer's label did not expressly warn against long-term use until years after Ms. Mensing began taking the drug. She developed the condition, losing control of muscles in her face, arms and legs. Ms. Mensing's injuries are life-changing and irreversible. The Supreme Court held that she cannot be compensated for the drug company's failures because of a technicality in the law. That technicality arose because Ms. Mensing's pharmacy had filled her prescription with the generic version of the drug. The Supreme Court held that, unlike brand name companies, generic manufacturers cannot be held liable for inadequate labeling, because they cannot change the labels on their products independently. Generic manufacturers should have the ability to participate fully in the labeling process, but they are unable to do so. More important to injured consumers, there is no remedy for them. The generic manufacturers can use this Supreme Court decision and the quirk in the labeling laws to avoid any accountability, even if they fail to inform the FDA that a label is inadequate. The Mensing decision creates a troubling inconsistency in the law governing prescription drugs. If a consumer takes the brand-name version of drug, she can sue the manufacturer for inadequate warnings. If the pharmacy happens to give her the generic version, as happened to Ms. Mensing, she is unable to seek compensation for her injuries. The result is a two-track system that penalizes consumers of generic drugs even though many consumers have no control over which drug they take, because their health insurance plan or state laws require them to take generics if they are available. In an editorial published last month, The New York Times criticized the inconsistency of this outcome, writing: ``Same drug. Same devastating health consequences. Opposite results. This injustice will affect more people as generics, which already dominate the market, expand even more under the pressure to control health care costs.'' Even Justice Thomas, writing for the majority in Mensing, acknowledged the inconsistent outcome, writing: ``[I]t is not the Court's task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre.'' Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor accurately warned of ``absurd consequences'' that will flow from the ``happenstance'' of whether a prescription was filled with a brand-name or generic drug. I agree that having different rules for patients who take generic and brand-name drugs makes little sense, and raises significant policy concerns. It is also troubling that generic manufacturers cannot update their safety labels in the same way that brand manufacturers can. In today's world, where generic drugs make up 75 percent of the prescription drug market, all manufacturers should be able to improve the warning information they provide to doctors and consumers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will achieve this goal. This legislation is not intended to overburden the makers of generic drugs. Instead, it authorizes generic drug manufacturers to act upon drug safety information that they already gather pursuant to existing regulation. The FDA requires generic manufacturers to monitor, investigate and report adverse side effects experienced by users of their drug. Generics already must submit an annual report to the FDA summarizing new information that ``might affect the safety, effectiveness or labeling of a drug product'', including a ``description of actions they have taken or intend to take as a result of this new information''. When brand-name manufacturers exit the market--as is often the case after generics are introduced--generics may be the only manufacturers who gather this information. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act authorizes generics to act on the information they gather to improve the labeling on their product in the same way that brand-owners may do under existing law. It creates an exception to the general requirement that the labeling of a generic drug must be the same as the labeling of its brand-name or listed equivalent, and instead allows generic manufacturers to initiate a labeling change where that process is available to brand-name manufacturers. Under the law, a generic manufacturer would be able to use the ``Changes Being Effected'' process that permits manufacturers to implement a labeling change while the change is simultaneously reviewed by the FDA. When a labeling change is made under this provision, the FDA would be authorized to order conforming changes across equivalent drugs to ensure consistent labeling among products. This legislation has the support of public interest groups and advocates, including the AARP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, and numerous consumer groups. I have long worked to ensure that safe, affordable generic drugs are available to American consumers. Earlier this Congress, I introduced legislation to facilitate the importation of low-cost generic drugs from Canada, a measure that will increase competition and help drive down the prices of prescription drugs. We all benefit from the availability of safe, affordable medication to help reduce the overwhelming costs of healthcare. The legislation I am introducing today will promote accountability and ensure that all drug makers can take appropriate steps to enhance warnings given to doctors and consumers. I hope that other Senators will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will protect American consumers by improving the labeling on prescription drugs to promote consumer safety. This important bill will ensure that all drug manufacturers can update the warning labels for their products so that the information provided to doctors and consumers is as accurate and up-to-date as possible. It is a straightforward measure that has the support of patient groups and consumer advocates. I am pleased that Senators Franken, Coons, Whitehouse, Bingaman, Brown of Ohio, and Blumenthal have joined me as original cosponsors of the bill. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will promote consumer safety by ensuring that generic drug companies can improve the warning information for their products in the same way that brand manufacturers can under existing law. This ability is especially important given the large role that generics play in the market for prescription drugs. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that generic drugs now make up 75 percent of the market for pharmaceuticals. Studies show that when a generic version of a drug is available, 90 percent of prescriptions are filled with the generic version of the drug. The large role that generics play in the market gives them important insight into side effects experienced by their customers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will allow generic manufacturers to act on this information, by authorizing them to improve their labels to provide accurate and up-to-date warnings to consumers. A recent Supreme Court decision, Pliva v. Mensing, created the need for this important legislation. In the Mensing case, a narrow 5 4 majority on the Court held that a Minnesota woman, Gladys Mensing, could not recover for debilitating injuries she received from a mislabeled drug that was intended to treat her diabetes symptoms. Despite evidence that long-term use of the drug could cause a severe neurological condition known as tardive dyskinesia, the manufacturer's label did not expressly warn against long-term use until years after Ms. Mensing began taking the drug. She developed the condition, losing control of muscles in her face, arms and legs. Ms. Mensing's injuries are life-changing and irreversible. The Supreme Court held that she cannot be compensated for the drug company's failures because of a technicality in the law. That technicality arose because Ms. Mensing's pharmacy had filled her prescription with the generic version of the drug. The Supreme Court held that, unlike brand name companies, generic manufacturers cannot be held liable for inadequate labeling, because they cannot change the labels on their products independently. Generic manufacturers should have the ability to participate fully in the labeling process, but they are unable to do so. More important to injured consumers, there is no remedy for them. The generic manufacturers can use this Supreme Court decision and the quirk in the labeling laws to avoid any accountability, even if they fail to inform the FDA that a label is inadequate. The Mensing decision creates a troubling inconsistency in the law governing prescription drugs. If a consumer takes the brand-name version of drug, she can sue the manufacturer for inadequate warnings. If the pharmacy happens to give her the generic version, as happened to Ms. Mensing, she is unable to seek compensation for her injuries. The result is a two-track system that penalizes consumers of generic drugs even though many consumers have no control over which drug they take, because their health insurance plan or state laws require them to take generics if they are available. In an editorial published last month, The New York Times criticized the inconsistency of this outcome, writing: ``Same drug. Same devastating health consequences. Opposite results. This injustice will affect more people as generics, which already dominate the market, expand even more under the pressure to control health care costs.'' Even Justice Thomas, writing for the majority in Mensing, acknowledged the inconsistent outcome, writing: ``[I]t is not the Court's task to decide whether the statutory scheme established by Congress is unusual or even bizarre.'' Writing in dissent, Justice Sotomayor accurately warned of ``absurd consequences'' that will flow from the ``happenstance'' of whether a prescription was filled with a brand-name or generic drug. I agree that having different rules for patients who take generic and brand-name drugs makes little sense, and raises significant policy concerns. It is also troubling that generic manufacturers cannot update their safety labels in the same way that brand manufacturers can. In today's world, where generic drugs make up 75 percent of the prescription drug market, all manufacturers should be able to improve the warning information they provide to doctors and consumers. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act will achieve this goal. This legislation is not intended to overburden the makers of generic drugs. Instead, it authorizes generic drug manufacturers to act upon drug safety information that they already gather pursuant to existing regulation. The FDA requires generic manufacturers to monitor, investigate and report adverse side effects experienced by users of their drug. Generics already must submit an annual report to the FDA summarizing new information that ``might affect the safety, effectiveness or labeling of a drug product'', including a ``description of actions they have taken or intend to take as a result of this new information''. When brand-name manufacturers exit the market--as is often the case after generics are introduced--generics may be the only manufacturers who gather this information. The Patient Safety and Generic Labeling Improvement Act authorizes generics to act on the information they gather to improve the labeling on their product in the same way that brand-owners may do under existing law. It creates an exception to the general requirement that the labeling of a generic drug must be the same as the labeling of its brand-name or listed equivalent, and instead allows generic manufacturers to initiate a labeling change where that process is available to brand-name manufacturers. Under the law, a generic manufacturer would be able to use the ``Changes Being Effected'' process that permits manufacturers to implement a labeling change while the change is simultaneously reviewed by the FDA. When a labeling change is made under this provision, the FDA would be authorized to order conforming changes across equivalent drugs to ensure consistent labeling among products. This legislation has the support of public interest groups and advocates, including the AARP, Public Citizen, the Alliance for Justice, and numerous consumer groups. I have long worked to ensure that safe, affordable generic drugs are available to American consumers. Earlier this Congress, I introduced legislation to facilitate the importation of low-cost generic drugs from Canada, a measure that will increase competition and help drive down the prices of prescription drugs. We all benefit from the availability of safe, affordable medication to help reduce the overwhelming costs of healthcare. The legislation I am introducing today will promote accountability and ensure that all drug makers can take appropriate steps to enhance warnings given to doctors and consumers. I hope that other Senators will join me and my cosponsors in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, speaking of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as we begin to work now after the Easter/Passover recess, I wish to thank all Senators who have come to the floor in recent weeks to express their bipartisan support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and who have emphasized, and I agree, the need for the Senate to take up and reauthorize this landmark legislation. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act--called VAWA--has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to combating domestic violence, dating violence, domestic assault, and stalking. The impact of this landmark law has been remarkable. It has provided lifesaving assistance to hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped by 50 percent since the act was passed. Support for the Violence Against Women Act has always been bipartisan, and I appreciate the bipartisan support this reauthorization bill has already received. Senator Crapo and I introduced the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in November. With Senators Heller and Ayotte joining as cosponsors in March, we now have 61 cosponsors in the Senate from both sides of the aisle. I hope the Senate will take up and pass this bill soon. The Violence Against Women Act is about responding to domestic and sexual violence. Its programs are vitally important. Our legislation has looked at and learned from the experiences and needs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence from all around the country. We have also heard the recommendations of those tireless professionals who work every single day--I might say virtually every single night--to serve. It builds on the progress that has been made in reducing domestic and sexual violence and makes vital improvements to respond to unmet needs, as we have each time we have reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. The provisions that a minority on the Judiciary Committee labeled controversial are, in fact, modest changes to meet the genuine, unmet needs that service providers have told us they see every day as they work with victims all over the country. This is what we have done on every single VAWA reauthorization. We have looked at what we have learned since the last one and then taken steps to recognize those needs of victims that are not being met and find ways to meet them. That is nothing new or different. It is what we have always done. Because we have improved it each time, it is one of the reasons domestic violence has dropped. This should not be a basis for a partisan division or delay. The legislation also improves important changes to respond to current economic realities. We all know while the economy is now improving, these remain difficult economic times, and we have to be responsible in how we spend the taxpayers' money. That is why in our bill we consolidate 13 programs into 4. We remove duplication and bureaucratic errors. It is another thing we do each time we reauthorize to make it better. It would cut the authorization level for VAWA by more than $135 million a year. That is a decrease of nearly 20 percent from the last reauthorization. The legislation also includes significant accountability provisions, including audit requirements, enforcement mechanisms, and restrictions on grantees and costs. Again, we are saying we want to do the right thing in the Violence Against Women Act, but we also want to protect the taxpayers' dollars. That is why it is a bipartisan bill. It is a product of careful consideration, and that is why it has widespread support. There is no reason not to take it up and debate it and pass it. The Judiciary Committee passed this bill after considering a number of amendments, including a substitute offered by the minority. I have reached out to the distinguished ranking member, Senator Grassley, and asked about possible amendments and time agreements for consideration. We should do what we have always done ever since the first VAWA years ago and pass it with strong bipartisan support. These problems are too serious for us to delay. Any one of us who has served in law enforcement has gone to a scene where somebody has been severely battered, sometimes killed. I know when I have gone to the scenes I never heard a police officer say: Is this a Republican or a Democrat? They say, is this a victim? What do we do to help them? That is what this is. It is not a Republican or Democratic bill; it is a sensible bill to help the victims of violence. This is crucial, commonsense legislation. It has been endorsed by more than 700 State and national organizations, numerous religious and faith-based organizations, as well as our law enforcement partners. The last two times the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. It seems sometimes that partisan gridlock has become the default in the Senate in recent years. We are better than that. We should rise above gridlock. There is no reason we should delay considering this bill. It has the support of 61 cosponsors across the aisle. Let us pass it. As I have said before, domestic and sexual violence know no political party. Violence happens to too many people in this country. Its victims are Republicans and Democrats. They are rich and poor, young and old. They are male and female. They are straight and gay. Nobody falls into a category where they are immune to this kind of violence. So let us work together and pass this strong VAWA reauthorization legislation and let us do it without delay. It is a law that has saved countless lives. For my fellow Senators, I would say this is an example of what we in the Senate can accomplish if we work together.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the time goes back to this side, that first the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia be recognized and then his distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, be recognized, both to speak for the time remaining to the Senator from Vermont. I ask unanimous consent that when time is yielded back to me, the time remaining to the Senator from Vermont, which will be approximately 15 minutes, be divided between the two Senators from West Virginia.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor Senator Barbara Mikulski for recently becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. However, in doing so, I am reminded that this milestone does not define her legacy. Rather, her legacy as a coalition builder and a tenacious advocate of the marginalized defines Senator Mikulski's tenure as a public servant for the people of Maryland. Throughout her career, Senator Mikulski pioneered the role women play in today's Congress. When she joined the Senate in 1987, Senator Mikulski became one of two female Senators and the first Democratic woman ever to join the upper chamber. These achievements were not due to a famous husband or father; Senator Mikulski was elected because of her integrity and her fiery and compassionate character. Her personal and professional experiences over the past 35 years make Senator Mikulski an excellent mentor for first-term female members, leading to the appropriate title: ``Dean of Women.'' I was recently reminded of ``the Dean's'' ability to rally the support of female colleagues as Senator Mikulski and seven of 17 female senators lent their support for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the floor of the Senate. Her efforts are emblematic of a unique ability to orchestrate voices in defense of the voiceless. Just as the Violence Against Women Act provides support to both male and female victims of domestic abuse, Senator Mikulski's legacy as a champion of the exploited transcends the concept of gender. From her roots as a social worker and community organizer, Senator Mikulski has constantly stood for social justice. She was a driving force in the landmark Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which furthered protections for women and others faced with discrimination in the workplace. Equal pay for equal work is a principle that Senator Mikulski will continue to defend. From the young lady who delivered groceries to seniors, to a passionate defender of the ethnic American, Senator Mikulski continues to stand in solidarity with those forced to live in the margins. I have been proud to serve in the Senate with Senator Mikulski for over two decades, and I have enjoyed working with her on many issues, in addition to our time serving together on the Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations for many years. Perhaps most memorable is a CODEL we took to sub-Saharan Africa in 1990. While my colleagues and I applaud Senator Mikulski on the longevity of her career, we more importantly take this moment to celebrate the leadership and achievements that characterize her 35 years of service. How long she has served bears witness to how well she has represented the people of Maryland.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally but am I correct if we did the full 60 minutes, we would start the first vote at 5:35 p.m.?

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we divide the time equally between now and 5:30 and the vote be at 5:30.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today the Senate will finally vote on the nominations of Miranda Du to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and Susie Morgan to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Both nominations have the bipartisan support of their home state Senators, and were reported by the Judiciary Committee over 4 months ago. The Senate is still only considering judicial nominations that could and should have been confirmed last year. The judicial vacancy rate remains nearly twice what it was at this point in the first term of President George W. Bush. Last week, I noted an article about the ``crushing caseload'' that the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. In that article, the Chief Judge of Arizona's Federal trial court noted that they are in ``dire circumstances'' and that they are ``under water'' from all the cases on their docket. Like the district court in Arizona, the one in Nevada is also in desperate need of judges, as evidenced by its designation as a judicial emergency. As that same article noted, an insufficiency of judges ``lessens the quality of justice for all parties involved.'' This is why it is so crucial that we confirm these nominees as soon as possible. Delay is harmful for everyone. An editorial from the Tuscaloosa News last week stated that ``[D]elays are objectionable in themselves: They deprive the courts of needed personnel, slow the administration of justice and deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be considered for the bench.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the article, entitled ``Congress needs to stop judicial partisan games,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. The needless 4-month delay in the consideration of these nominations is another example of the delays that have been caused by Senate Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule these nominations for votes last year. As the editorial from the Tuscaloosa News noted: ``[T]he determination of Senate Republicans to delay President Barack Obama's judicial nominees--even those who have won bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the polarization that also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work together on numerous other fronts.'' The editorial concludes by urging that there be ``no more partisan games.'' A recent memorandum from the Congressional Research Service confirms what we have long known: The delay and obstruction from Senate Republicans have resulted in President Obama's judicial nominees waiting much longer for a floor vote than judicial nominees under the past four Presidents. These tactics, of course, have resulted in a much lower number and percentage of confirmed judicial nominees under President Obama--despite the fact that President Obama's judicial nominees have by and large been consensus nominees. The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the more than 150 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down votes on the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate. 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 3 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. Today, we can finally end the needless delays on these two qualified nominees. Miranda Du was born in Vietnam. She left the country with her family by boat in 1978 and immigrated to the United States after spending a year in refugee camps in Malaysia. If confirmed, she will become the first Asian Pacific American appointed to the Federal bench in Nevada. Both of Nevada's Senators, the Majority Leader and Republican Senator Dean Heller, support Ms. Du's nomination. Senator Heller has said that Ms. Du will ``make an outstanding district court judge.'' She also has the support of the Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval; the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Nevada, Brian Krolicki; and the Republican Mayor of Reno, Robert Cashell; each of whom has personally worked with Ms. Du. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letters of support from these individuals at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Governor Sandoval fully supports Ms. Du's nomination. In his recommendation letter, he wrote that when Ms. Du appeared before him when he was a judge, she ``was always well prepared and represented her clients with integrity and distinction.'' He further stated that she had his ``full support'' for confirmation as a Federal district judge. Ironically, he was the judge in the one case on which Republicans rely to criticize the nominee. As the judge, he had overlooked the jurisdictional argument when initially deciding against dismissing the case. The Magistrate Judge on the case issued sanctions, but Governor Sandoval ultimately struck the motion for sanctions as moot when Ms. Du and her legal team resolved the dispute with the third-party. In addition, Ms. Du testified candidly about the incident during her Committee hearing and in her response to the Questions for the Record, acknowledged that she had ``learned a great deal from this experience.'' Incidents like this have never held up a nomination before in the past, and it should certainly not hold up Ms. Du's nomination. President Obama's nominees should not be held to a different or new standard. She has spent her 17-year legal career in private practice as a partner at a law firm in Reno, Nevada. She currently serves as chair of the firm's Employment & Labor Law Group. Ms. Du's story is compelling. She was selected by Super Lawyers as a 2009 ``Mountain States Rising Star'' and was named as one of the ``Top 20 Under 40'' Young Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe Area in 2008. That she is being opposed because she and her legal team filed a third-party complaint on behalf of a client in one case is to hold her to a new standard than Senate Republicans have utilized with other nominees and other Presidents in the past. The other nominee we consider today is Susie Morgan. She has worked in private practice for 30 years. Her nomination has the bipartisan support of Louisiana's Senators, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu and Republican Senator David Vitter. Following her law school graduation, Ms. Morgan clerked for Chief Judge Henry A. Politz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She was unanimously rated as qualified by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to serve as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Her nomination was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last November. The Senate needs to make real progress, which means going beyond the nominations included in the agreement between Senate leaders to include the 17 judicial nominations currently before the Senate for a final vote and the eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are working their way through the Committee process. There are another 11 nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional hearings during the next several weeks. Exhibit 1 [From Tuscaloosanews.com, Mar. 22, 2012] Editorial: Congress Needs To Stop Judicial Partisan Games Delays in the confirmation of federal judges aren't uppermost in Americans' minds when they complain about partisan dysfunction in Congress. But the determination of Senate Republicans to delay President Barack Obama's judicial nominees--even those who have won bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee--is emblematic of the polarization that also has sabotaged efforts of the two parties to work together on numerous other fronts. And the delays are objectionable in themselves: They deprive the courts of needed personnel, slow the administration of justice and deter well-qualified candidates from agreeing to be considered for the bench. So it's a hopeful sign that Republicans have agreed to vote on 14 judicial nominations by May 7. It would be heartening to report that the Republicans agreed to the votes because they repented of the obstructionism of some of their members, but in fact their agreement followed a power play by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D Nev., who filed cloture motions to try to force votes on 17 nominations. Rather irrelevantly, Republicans had complained that Reid hadn't made judicial confirmations a priority. Now he has. Republicans also have faulted the Obama administration for being slow to fill vacancies on district and appeals courts. That is a fair criticism. There are 81 vacancies but only 39 pending nominees (including two for future vacancies). But it is Republicans who have withheld the unanimous consent necessary for nominations already approved by the Judiciary Committee to move forward expeditiously and without prolonged debate. The latest pretext for delay was the desire to protest Obama's recess appointments to federal agencies, but Republicans have been reluctant to allow Democrats to score a political point by promptly confirming Obama's judicial nominees. When Reid first proposed swift action on the nominations, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R Ky., complained: ``This is just a very transparent attempt to try to slam dunk the minority and make them look like they are obstructing things they aren't obstructing.'' But then McConnell added that ``this is going to, of course, be greeted with resistance.'' In other words, if you accuse us of being obstructionist, we'll make you pay by being obstructionist. This is partisanship at its pettiest. The White House complains that the Senate has taken four to five times as long to confirm Obama's nominees as it did to approve George W. Bush's. Nevertheless, several of Bush's nominations were delayed or derailed by Senate Democrats, including eminently qualified appeals court nominees whom they feared might be potential Republican appointees to the Supreme Court. Controversial or not, every judicial nominee deserves serious consideration by the Senate and an expeditious up-or- down vote--and no more partisan games.