Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senate was forced to spend the better part of this week ending a filibuster against the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. Finally, after a four month Republican filibuster that was broken on Monday by an 89 5 cloture vote, and after Republicans insisted on two additional days of delay, the Senate was allowed to vote on the nomination. We voted 94 5 to confirm Judge Jordan. I suspect the vote would have been the same four months and two days sooner. It was a colossal waste of the Senate's time and another week lost to obstruction and delay. Now the Senate Majority Leader has been required to file another cloture petition on yet another consensus nominee. This is the ninth time the Majority Leader has had to file a cloture petition to overcome a Republican filibuster of one of President Obama's superbly-qualified judicial nominees. The nomination of Jesse Furman to fill a vacancy on the Southern District of New York has been stalled for more than five months after being reported unanimously from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Consensus nominations like this to Federal district courts have nearly always been taken up and confirmed by the Senate within days or weeks, whether nominated by a Democratic or a Republican President. Certainly that was the approach taken by Senate Democrats when President Bush sent us consensus nominees. That is how we reduced vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades and how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominees in his first term. Yet, in an almost complete reversal of this approach, Mr. Furman's nomination has been blocked by Senate Republicans for over five months, without reason or explanation. Regrettably, for the second time, we will have to vote to end a Republican filibuster of one of President Obama's district court nominations. I cannot recall a single instance in which a President's judicial nomination to a Federal trial court, a Federal district court, was blocked by a filibuster. Yet, Senate Republicans nearly did so last year when they sought to filibuster Judge Jack McConnell's nomination to the Rhode Island District Court, despite the strong support of both home state Senators who know their state best. At that time I emphasized the danger of rejecting the Senate's traditional deference to home state Senators and beginning to filibuster district court nominations. Fortunately, the Senate rejected that filibuster and that path and Judge McConnell was confirmed. I trust the Senate will do so again, bringing to an end another filibuster, this time for a district court nominee, Mr. Furman, who was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. Like the needless delay in Judge Jordan's confirmation, the Republican filibuster of Jesse Furman, who by any traditional measure is a consensus nominee, is another example of the tactics that have all but paralyzed the Senate confirmation process and are damaging our Federal courts. It should not take five months and require a cloture motion for the Senate to proceed to vote on this nomination. At a time when nearly one out of every 10 judgeships is vacant and we have over 20 judicial nominations reported favorably by the Committee, 16 of which have been stalled on the Senate calendar since last year, nearly all of them superbly-qualified consensus nominees, our Federal courts and the American people cannot afford more of these partisan tactics. I read with interest this morning Gail Collins' column in The New York Times on the approval rating of Congress. She notes that Congress is ``unpopular like the Ebola virus, or zombies . . . like TV shows about hoarders with dead cats in their kitchens.'' She goes on to discuss the Republican filibusters of judicial nominees and writes: This week, the Senate confirmed Judge Adalberto Jose Jordan to a seat on the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. A visitor from another country might not have appreciated the proportions of this achievement, given that Jordan, who was born in Cuba and who once clerked for Sandra Day O'Connor, had no discernible opposition. I ask consent that a copy of Ms. Collins' column be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the European Debt Crisis and Its Implications.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled, ``Iran's Influence and Activity in Latin America.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Addressing Workforce Needs at the Regional Level: Innovative Public and Private Partnerships'' on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing America's Future: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 16, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Iran's Influence and Activity in Latin America.''

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Cyber Crime Protection Security Act, a bill to strengthen our Nation's cybercrime laws. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation today, and an issue that the Senate will tackle in the coming weeks. A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of that conversation. Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyberspace has long been a priority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In September, the Committee favorably reported legislation which included a provision essentially identical to this bill as a part of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Since then, I have worked closely with Senator Grassley to advance cyber crime legislation that will have strong bipartisan support. Cyber crime impacts all of us, regardless of political party or ideology. Recently, several Republican Senators stated the following in an opinion piece about the Senate's cybersecurity legislation: ``In addition, our nation's criminal laws must be updated to account for the growing number of cybercrimes. We support legislation to clarify and expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act--including increasing existing penalties, defining new offenses and clarifying the scope of current criminal conduct. These changes will ensure that our criminal laws keep pace with the ever-evolving threats posed by cybercriminals.'' I could not agree more. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and I urge the Senate to quickly pass this important legislation. We simply cannot afford to ignore the growing threat of cyber crime. A study released by Symantec Corp estimates that the cost of cybercrime globally is $114 billion a year. During the past year, we have witnessed major data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, RSA, the International Monetary Fund, and Lockheed Martin, just to name a few. In addition, our Government computer networks have not been spared, as evidenced by the hacking incidents involving the websites of the Senate and Central Intelligence Agency. The Cyber Crime Protection Security Act takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. First, the bill updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity, so that the Government can better prosecute organized criminal activity involving computer fraud. Second, the bill streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. To address cyber crime involving the trafficking of consumers' passwords, the bill also expands the scope of the offense for trafficking in passwords under title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(6) to include passwords used to access a protected Government or non-government computer, and to include any other means of unauthorized access to a Government computer. In addition, the bill clarifies that both conspiracy and attempt to commit a computer hacking offense are subject to the same penalties as completed, substantive offenses, and the bill adds new forfeiture tools to help the Government recover the proceeds of illegal activity. This legislation also strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our nation's critical infrastructure, by adding a new criminal offense that would make it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense, national security, transportation, public health and safety, or other critical infrastructure systems or information. Lastly, the bill clarifies that relatively innocuous conduct, such as violating a terms of use agreement, should not be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The bill is strongly supported by the Department of Justice, which is on the front lines of the battle against cybercrime. In fact, the criminal law updates in this bill were a part of the cybersecurity proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. We must give the dedicated prosecutors and investigators in our Government the tools that they need to address criminal activity in cyberspace. To build a secure future for our Nation and its citizens in cyberspace, Congress must work together, across party lines and ideology, to address the dangers of cybercrime and other cyber threats. It is in that cooperative spirit that I urge all Senators to support this important cybercrime legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Cyber Crime Protection Security Act, a bill to strengthen our Nation's cybercrime laws. Developing a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity is one of the most pressing challenges facing our Nation today, and an issue that the Senate will tackle in the coming weeks. A legislative response to the growing threat of cyber crime must be a part of that conversation. Protecting American consumers and businesses from cyber crime and other threats in cyberspace has long been a priority of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In September, the Committee favorably reported legislation which included a provision essentially identical to this bill as a part of the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act. Since then, I have worked closely with Senator Grassley to advance cyber crime legislation that will have strong bipartisan support. Cyber crime impacts all of us, regardless of political party or ideology. Recently, several Republican Senators stated the following in an opinion piece about the Senate's cybersecurity legislation: ``In addition, our nation's criminal laws must be updated to account for the growing number of cybercrimes. We support legislation to clarify and expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act--including increasing existing penalties, defining new offenses and clarifying the scope of current criminal conduct. These changes will ensure that our criminal laws keep pace with the ever-evolving threats posed by cybercriminals.'' I could not agree more. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and I urge the Senate to quickly pass this important legislation. We simply cannot afford to ignore the growing threat of cyber crime. A study released by Symantec Corp estimates that the cost of cybercrime globally is $114 billion a year. During the past year, we have witnessed major data breaches at Sony, Epsilon, RSA, the International Monetary Fund, and Lockheed Martin, just to name a few. In addition, our Government computer networks have not been spared, as evidenced by the hacking incidents involving the websites of the Senate and Central Intelligence Agency. The Cyber Crime Protection Security Act takes several important steps to combat cyber crime. First, the bill updates the Federal RICO statute to add violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the definition of racketeering activity, so that the Government can better prosecute organized criminal activity involving computer fraud. Second, the bill streamlines and enhances the penalty structure under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. To address cyber crime involving the trafficking of consumers' passwords, the bill also expands the scope of the offense for trafficking in passwords under title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(6) to include passwords used to access a protected Government or non-government computer, and to include any other means of unauthorized access to a Government computer. In addition, the bill clarifies that both conspiracy and attempt to commit a computer hacking offense are subject to the same penalties as completed, substantive offenses, and the bill adds new forfeiture tools to help the Government recover the proceeds of illegal activity. This legislation also strengthens the legal tools available to law enforcement to protect our nation's critical infrastructure, by adding a new criminal offense that would make it a felony to damage a computer that manages or controls national defense, national security, transportation, public health and safety, or other critical infrastructure systems or information. Lastly, the bill clarifies that relatively innocuous conduct, such as violating a terms of use agreement, should not be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The bill is strongly supported by the Department of Justice, which is on the front lines of the battle against cybercrime. In fact, the criminal law updates in this bill were a part of the cybersecurity proposal that President Obama delivered to Congress last May. We must give the dedicated prosecutors and investigators in our Government the tools that they need to address criminal activity in cyberspace. To build a secure future for our Nation and its citizens in cyberspace, Congress must work together, across party lines and ideology, to address the dangers of cybercrime and other cyber threats. It is in that cooperative spirit that I urge all Senators to support this important cybercrime legislation.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to comments of the junior Senator from Kentucky earlier today regarding his amendment to cut off all U.S. aid for Egypt. First, let's take a step back. The new conditions on military aid for Egypt, which I wrote with Senator Lindsey Graham and were signed into law just 2 months ago, require a certification by the Secretary of State that the Egyptian military is supporting the transition to civilian government and protecting fundamental freedoms and due process. If the crisis involving the nongovernmental organizations whose offices were raided and are now facing criminal charges is not resolved satisfactorily, there is no way the certification can be made and Egypt will not receive $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid. But the Leahy-Graham conditions give the Administration flexibility to respond to this crisis. If we take a leap into the lurch and adopt the Paul Amendment, we risk causing a backlash and the opposite reaction of what we want. It is ironic that the junior Senator from Kentucky, who is now insisting on a vote on his amendment to cut off all aid--not just military aid but also economic aid--did not even vote for the Omnibus bill that contained the Leahy-Graham certification requirement. For him it is all or nothing, but the real world is not so black and white. No one disagrees with the goals of the Paul Amendment. Its purpose is no different than the Leahy-Graham provision in current law that has caused the suspension of military aid. We are all outraged by the crackdown against the NGOs. We want the charges dropped and their property returned so they can resume their pro-democracy work. But the scope of the Paul Amendment is so sweeping that it could backfire and make the situation immeasurably worse: The amendment cuts off all U.S. aid to Egypt--current and prior year--including hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid and funding for anti-terrorism and nonproliferation programs. Aid that supports the Government of Egypt's ability to interdict arms shipments to Gaza would be cut off. There is much at stake: the fate of the 19 American citizens facing criminal charges in Egypt; Egypt's continued adherence to the Israeli- Egyptian Peace Agreement could be jeopardized; over-flights for U.S. military aircraft; access to the Suez Canal; and the potential for further crackdowns against Egyptian civil society organizations. If the Administration were ignoring the certification requirement in current law I might vote for this amendment, but they are not. In fact, the NGOs have repeatedly praised the Administration's efforts on their behalf. They have applauded the new leverage provided by the Leahy- Graham conditions. Both the State Department and the Pentagon are intensely focused on trying to resolve this. General Dempsey was just in Egypt meeting with top military officials about it. If, over the coming days or weeks the situation continues to deteriorate, we can revisit this. But I would urge the junior Senator from Kentucky to withdraw his amendment until such time and to refrain from obstructing other business of the Senate. Let us see how things play out. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. The Egyptian military will recognize that these NGOs were doing nothing more than supporting the transition to democracy in an appropriate and transparent manner, and the Egyptian military will agree that it is in Egypt's best interest to preserve close relations with the United States. I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Republican Senators delayed a final vote on the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida even though the Senate voted 89-5 last night to end a Republican filibuster that has already prevented a vote for 4 months. This is a consensus nominee who Senator Nelson has been strongly supporting and who Senator Rubio also supports. He should have been confirmed 4 months ago. He should have been confirmed last night after the overwhelming cloture vote. Instead, obstruction needlessly delayed the Senate acting to fill the emergency judicial vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. Senator Nelson has worked hard for this nomination, working to get Judge Jordan's nomination cleared by every Democratic Senator in October immediately after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. We were ready to vote in October. We were ready to vote in November. We were ready to vote before the end of the last session of Congress in December. It is hard to believe that it is now the middle of February, over 4 months after Judge Jordan's nomination was reported with the support of every Democrat and every Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and the Senate still has not voted to fill this judicial emergency vacancy affecting the people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. I appreciate why Senator Nelson is frustrated. I understand why Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary and the Hispanic National Bar Association are, too. Let me refer to some of the reporting on this. One post begins: So, here's the absurdity of our judicial confirmation process--the full Senate voted 89-5 to invoke cloture, meaning that Judge Jordan's nomination to the 11th Circuit would finally come to a vote. But then Senator Nelson said that one Senator is holding up the merits vote by demanding 30 more hours of `debate' post-cloture. Senators Leahy and Boxer both then commented how ridiculous such a request was, but that's the way it is. It looks like we'll have [to] wait another 30 hours for Judge Jordan to move up to the 11th. Silliness in our Congress . . . . The article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports: South Florida lawyers praise him. Both of Florida's U.S. senators have recommended him. And the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination. But U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan of South Florida has been blocked for four months from rising to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the latest sign of a polarized and dysfunctional Senate. A Senate filibuster that has kept Jordan waiting and the appellate court undermanned fizzled on Monday when the Senate voted 89-5 to move toward a final confirmation vote. But Jordan is still waiting because one senator . . . objected to attempts to complete action on Monday . . . . I have not heard from any Republican Senators objecting to this Judge explaining what they find wrong with this highly-qualified Cuban American. I am at a loss as to why Republican Senators continue to delay a vote on this outstanding nominee. This nominee is beyond reproach. This is another nomination battle that has nothing to do with the nominee and his qualifications. This is another example of obstruction based on a collateral objective. The people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama should not be made to suffer a judicial emergency vacancy when this highly-qualified nominee should be confirmed without further delay. Nor did anyone come forward to explain the Senate Republicans' delay for the last 4 months. Cloture has been invoked by the Senate and the filibuster will be ended. There was no good reason to continue to hold up a vote that has already been delayed for 4 months. When I first became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, I followed a time when Senate Republicans, who had been in the majority, had pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominations, blocking them with secret holds in backrooms and cloakrooms, obstructing more with winks and nods, but with little to no public explanation or accountability. I worked hard to change that and to open up the process. I sought to bring daylight to the process by making the consultation with home State Senators public so that the Senate Republicans' abuses during the Clinton years would not be repeated. When Senate Democrats opposed some of President Bush's most ideological nominees, we did so openly, saying why we opposed them. And when there were consensus nominees--nominees with the support of both Democrats and Republicans--we moved them quickly so they could begin serving the American people. That is how we reduced vacancies in the Presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades. That is how we confirmed 205 of President Bush's judicial nominees in his first term. Now we see the reverse of how we treated President Bush's nominees. Senate Republicans do not move quickly to consider consensus nominees, like the 15 still on the Senate calendar that were reported unanimously last year and should have had a Senate vote last year. Instead, as we are seeing today and have seen all too often, Senate Republicans obstruct and delay even consensus nominees, leaving us 45 judicial nominees behind the pace we set for confirming President Bush's judicial nominees. That is why vacancies remain so high, at 86, over 3 years into President Obama's first term. Vacancies are nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush's third year. That is why half of all Americans--nearly 160 million--live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could have a judge if Senate Republicans would only consent to vote on judicial nominees that have been favorably voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate executive calendar since last year. This is an area where we should be working for the American people, and putting their needs first. This is a nomination that has the strong and committed support of the senior Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, as well as that of Senator Rubio, Florida's Republican Senator. Judge Jordan had the unanimous support of every Republican and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee when we voted last October, although one Republican switched his vote last night to support the filibuster of Judge Jordan's nomination. This is the nomination of a judge, Judge Jordan, who was confirmed to the district court by a vote of 93 to one in 1999, even while Senate Republicans were pocket filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. I regret that Republican Senators chose to delay a final vote on Judge Jordan's confirmation. He is a fine man who, after emigrating from Havana, Cuba at the age of 6 went on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Miami law school and clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as Federal prosecutor and Federal judge. The needless delay of Judge Jordan's confirmation is an example of the harmful tactics that have all but paralyzed the Senate confirmation process and are damaging our Federal courts. It should not take 4 months and require a cloture motion to proceed to a nomination such as that of Judge Jordan to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. It should not take more months and more cloture motions before the Senate finally votes on the nearly 20 other superbly-qualified judicial nominees who have been stalled by Senate Republicans for months while vacancies continue to plague our Federal courts and delay justice for the American people. The American people need and deserve Federal courts ready to serve them, not empty benches and long delays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the time postcloture count during morning business and any recess or adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been here for 37 years. I could not agree more with the distinguished senior Senator from Florida. He notes that 4 months ago, when Judge Adelberto Jordan came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with every single Republican and every single Democrat voting for him, after the work done by the distinguished senior Senator from Florida and his colleague from Florida, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, made a commitment that every single Democrat would vote for this Cuban American immediately. Four months later, having had the cloture vote the Senator from Florida just mentioned--there was overwhelming support for him--he is still being held up. This is beneath the Senate of the United States of America. I agree with the Senator from Florida.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, with the Senator from Kentucky still on the floor, I appreciate what he has said, and I am glad he has shown support for the Leahy amendment which passed in the last foreign aid bill. There was a lot of pushback from a number of people, the administration and on the Senator's side of the aisle, initially, when I wrote into the law that said it would suspend any money--$1.3 billion--for the military, unless there was a certification that they were upholding the moves necessary toward democracy. As a result, all the money the Senator is concerned about is being held back because of the Leahy amendment--which is joined in by Senator Graham, whom I see coming onto the floor--when we did the Foreign Operations bill. I appreciate the words of the Senator from Kentucky. I can assure him, with the Leahy amendment, none of the foreign aid is going to Egypt as they conduct their operations the way they are. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of the reauthorization of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act report.

Mr. LEAHY. 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. Senator Crapo and I introduced this bill, a moderate bill, which has now gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee and should be voted up or voted down. It saves money, but it also commits to those programs needed by our States. At some point, if it is delayed much longer, I am going to come to the floor and recount some of the horrific crime scenes I went to of violence, sexual violence, domestic violence, the things that are being combated now, things that happened when we did not have the Violence Against Women Act. Last Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, has been the centerpiece of the Federal government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has been extraordinarily effective, and the annual incidence of domestic violence has fallen by more than 50 percent since the landmark law was first passed. As a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days before VAWA, when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, and there were few, if any, services for victims. We must not go back to those days. This law saves lives, and it must be reauthorized. Senator Crapo and I introduced a moderate bill that incorporates input from survivors of domestic and sexual violence all around the country and the tireless professionals who serve them every day. This legislation builds on the progress that has been made in reducing violence against women, and it makes vital improvements to respond to remaining, unmet needs. Unfortunately, partisan politics threaten to stop this critical legislation from moving forward. We have seen this same pattern too often. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Second Chance Act, both laws originally championed by Republican Senators and supported by Republican Presidents, are now suddenly unacceptable. This obstruction must stop. These programs are too important. They save lives. They make our communities safer. Nowhere is that more true than for the Violence Against Women Act. Certainly, helping survivors of domestic and sexual violence should be above politics. The last two times VAWA was reauthorized, it was unanimously approved by the Senate. Now, this law, which has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence than any other legislation ever passed, faces Republican opposition. That is not right. To those who suggest that this legislation creates too many new programs, I say that is simply not true. In fact, the bill reduces the scale of VAWA. It consolidates 13 existing programs and reduces authorization levels by nearly 20 percent while providing for only one small additional program. The improvements in this bill are important but modest when compared to previous reauthorizations, which created many new grant programs and raised authorization levels almost across the board. I have heard some say that our bill protects too many victims. I find that disheartening. One thing I know from my time as a prosecutor, and I would hope it is something we can all agree on, is that every victim counts. All victims deserve protection. That is a message we have heard loud and clear from our States and something I hope is common ground. More than 200 national organizations and 500 State and local organizations have expressed their support for this bill. Many of them have written strong letters urging swift passage of this legislation including 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, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. This legislation has the support of five Republican Senators. I thank Senators Crapo, Kirk, Murkowski, Brown, and Collins for their willingness to step forward and support the reauthorization of this landmark legislation. This is the Violence Against Women Act. It should not be a partisan matter. I hope that all Senators will support this bill and that we can move quickly to reauthorize this critical legislation. It is a law that has saved countless lives, and it is an example of what we can accomplish when we work together. Air National Guard and Reserves Madam President, I am glad to see the senior Senator from South Carolina. For the first 50 or 60 years I was in the Senate--or it felt like that--it was a different senior Senator. But I am delighted to see the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, who is joining me to address a matter of great importance to the Nation at a crucial moment in our history. The U.S. Air Force last week offered a preliminary look into its budget for fiscal year 2013. While the President will formally submit his budget proposals on Monday, last week's briefing and information papers offered enough detail for the Senate to begin considering the overall strategic direction of the Air Force Future Years Defense Program. In Pentagon jargon, that is usually called FYDP. I have to say I am deeply disappointed and very worried as I look at the first glance at that proposal.

Mr. LEAHY. As an example of the approach to the budget cuts, one of the A-10 units slated for cutting, the 127th Wing from Michigan, just returned from fighting bravely in Afghanistan and as a welcome home: Great job. Sorry, we are going to disband you. The approach to budget cuts the Air Force has decided to take is simply wrong. We have to have budget cuts. We know that. But there is a wide variety of reasons why this makes not the sense it should. I draw the Senate's attention to a study produced by the Pentagon last year that was signed by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that demonstrated what we already knew: Even when mobilized, Reserve component units are far less expensive than their peer units in the Active component. It has always been a foregone conclusion that the Air National Guard costs are far less than Active component costs when they are on base or in garrison. Personnel are not drawing the salaries their peer units are and so on. But the Pentagon report showed something more interesting. It showed the Guard and Reserve save taxpayers dollars even when mobilized. The Reserve component units are estimated to be about one-third as expensive as similar Active component units, and they can deploy nearly half as often. That adds up to lot of savings in dollars and cents, but it also reflects a very major component of our security, because in the wars we fought in the last decade, we could not have done it without these Guard and Reserve units.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree with my colleague on that, and that is why the bipartisan Guard Caucus will have some very strong statements. We look at what the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, GEN Ron Fogelman, said before these plans were announced. He argued for a larger Reserve component and a smaller Active-Duty Force. He did a guest column in DefenseNews. He said, among other things: The big question is, how does the department reduce its budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready defense when more than half of the budget is committed to personnel costs? The answer to that question is right before us: We should return to our historic roots as a militia nation. So, what does that mean, exactly? Simply put, it means we should return to the constitutional construct for our military and the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a robust militia. To do that, leaders must put old parochial norms aside and be willing to actually shift forces and capabilities to the National Guard and Reserve. He said ``put old parochial norms aside.'' He goes on to say: This would enable significant personnel reductions in the active components. It would also result in a larger reserve component. Most important, it would preserve capability and equipment that has cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, nest it in our mostly part-time Guard and Reserve, and have it available should it be needed. This concept worked well for our country for the better part of two centuries. Unfortunately, several generations of leaders have come and gone, and most of today's leadership fails to recognize the true potential of the militia model. We need our collective senior military and civilian leaders to recognize there is a way back to a smaller active military and a larger militia posture. The fiscal environment and emerging threats demand it. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a former Air Force Chief of Staff.