Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Then I will object.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield to me for a question?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from Tennessee is not asking the Senate to set aside the pending amendment but wishes to file an amendment? Is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, under those circumstances, I will not object.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia is on the floor, I wish to associate myself with what he had to say about Congressman John Lewis. Congressman Lewis has been a friend, a colleague, and a mentor to all of us on both sides of the aisle on the issues of civil rights. He is one of the true heroes. We sometimes overuse the word ``hero.'' But I think the Senator and I would both agree that this is a man who deserves the word ``hero.'' Lynch Nomination Mr. President, we are talking about human trafficking. We have heard horrific stories. Certainly those of us who are parents or grandparents have to think how horrible it would be if these things had happened to our children or our grandchildren. I am usually the only person on the floor who has prosecuted child molesters--and I still have nightmares over some of the cases I have prosecuted--I wish we would never have another one of these awful cases. So as we consider legislation about human trafficking and exploitation, we could take immediate action to show support for protecting our Nation's most vulnerable from human trafficking by confirming Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. I say this because Ms. Lynch has a proven track record in prosecuting human trafficking and child rape cases. Ms. Lynch's record in pursuing these cases is so well established that even prominent FOX News hosts have praised her. One host at FOX News called her a ``hero'' for the prosecution of a child rapist. Another has described Ms. Lynch as a ``straight shooter'' for her overall service as a Federal prosecutor. And a third host on FOX News has called for a vote on her nomination ``this week'', saying there should be ``no more slow walking'' by the Senate. I couldn't agree more. As we go into this debate, I think about the fact that Ms. Lynch was recently named one of ``New York's New Abolitionists'' by the New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition. Why? Because of her leadership in combatting human trafficking. She has emphasized anti-trafficking programs at the U.S. Attorney's office that she leads. Over the course of the last decade, her office has not just talked about why they oppose human trafficking, they have indicted over 55 defendants in sex trafficking cases. They have rescued over 110 victims of sex trafficking. I will give you a couple of examples. In one case, her office obtained convictions against three brothers for sex trafficking. What did they do? These brothers were sentenced to double-digit prison terms for running a trafficking ring that enticed victims as young as 14 and 15 years old. They had them transported illegally into the United States. Then they forced them to work as prostitutes in New York City and elsewhere. The defendants beat and sexually assaulted the victims to compel them to work and then punished them for not earning enough money. In another case her office obtained a conviction against an owner of several New York bars for his role in sex trafficking and forced labor ring. The evidence at the trial established that the defendants recruited and harbored scores of undocumented Latin American immigrants and forced them to work as waitresses at the owner's bars. How did they compel them to work? His accomplices used violence, beatings, and rape, as well as fraud and threats of deportation, to compel the victims to work and to prevent them from reporting the illegal activity to the police. Because of Loretta Lynch, this monster was arrested and sentenced to 60 years in prison. That is one way you stop this. She has similarly prosecuted those who exploit children for sexual abuse to the fullest extent of the law. During her tenure, she has directed prosecutors in her office to bring 173 prosecutions for child exploitation and child pornography in coordination with the Department's Project Safe Childhood. In one case, the office prosecuted and obtained a guilty plea from a pediatrician who sexually exploited three of his patients under the guise of providing medical treatment. That predator now faces 30 years in prison. I am saying this because no Member of this body--Republican or Democrat--no Member is in favor of sex trafficking. No Member is in favor of the exploitation of children in this fashion. Why don't we show we believe that, by confirming this highly qualified woman to be attorney general? She goes out and gets the people, she prosecutes them, she convicts them, and she sends them to prison. I sometimes think of those exploited children I represented in the past. In the better cases, we could tell the child that he or she was safe and that we locked up the person who did this to them. But I also think of one of the very first cases I had--within weeks of becoming a 26-year-old State's attorney. I will never forget that case for as long as I live. We prosecuted the man. I convicted him. It was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, and I argued and won that appeal. He was convicted and went to prison for the rest of his life. But that does not help his victim. I can only go to the grave of his 2-year-old victim and say: We convicted the man who did this to you, but we can't bring you back to life. Let's take the steps we need to stop this. We can do it. We stalled at one point on this bill. Let's find our way around that, and let's get this done. Let's give prosecutors the tools not just to prosecute criminals when we find them--let's take the steps necessary to stop this from happening in the first place. When I think of that 2-year-old boy, if better steps had been in place to stop the abuse from happening, he would have lived. The abuser was prosecuted after the fact. There was no case in which I wanted to get a conviction more than I did in that case, but it didn't bring the 2-year-old victim back to life. Some victims in the cases I worked on were alive, and I saw how scarred the abuse left them. We can prosecute those who commit these heinous crimes. Let's stop the crimes from happening. Let's ensure that these homeless kids, instead of going with anybody who will offer them a warm place and food--where the warm place and food turn into a hell on Earth for them--let's make sure there are shelters, people, and counselors who can help. Mr. President, I see our distinguished chairman is here, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Did the Senator ask to set aside the pending amendment?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hate to see this held up over just the Hyde amendment. In somewhat similar legislation, the Republican House of Representatives was wise enough not to create this illusory ``special assessment fund.'' The House-passed bill is an authorizing bill and does not contain the Hyde amendment. I will yield the floor in a moment, but first I wish to quote from a statement by ATEST, Alliance To End Slavery and Trafficking. They urged the Senate, as I have, to reach a bipartisan compromise on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. For well over a decade, the work to combat modern slavery and human trafficking has been an example of Congress's ability to put partisanship aside in the interest of tackling a difficult and seemingly intractable problem. That willingness to be thoughtful, practical, and balanced in approach has proven successful in this work, and made tremendous contributions to the fight against this heinous crime. The debate that is emerging over the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, S. 178, and the application of the Hyde amendment to funds collected from perpetrators of human trafficking jeopardize this pragmatic balance in favor of a partisan confrontation that undermines the achievement of our joint goal of ending modern slavery in the United States and around the world. For these reasons, we urge all members of the Senate to turn away from this divisive debate and find a bipartisan approach to this new initiative to protect and serve the needs of survivors. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. I agree that we should get away from the divisiveness the Hyde amendment has created and find a way to go to the basic legislation. Mr. President, I see my friend from Tennessee in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry, I didn't hear what the request was.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on Monday I gave a statement on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the Voting Rights Act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record President Obama's remarks from the commemoration.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, my New England neighbor, for her comments, speaking on Leahy-Collins amendment No. 290. She and I and others have worked on this for a very long time. In her comments, she talked about shelters for homeless teens, and I think about how much better this whole country would be if this homeless teen could turn to a shelter and not to a trafficker. As I said earlier on the floor, traffickers often find their victims soon after they runaway or become homeless. In a couple of States, such as mine and the Senator from Maine's, especially at this time of year, people need shelter or they die. They literally die in a relatively short period of time from the cold. We see what happens. Listen to the stories of these trafficking survivors. Many of them began as a homeless or runaway teen. They are scared, desperate for affection, for food, for safety, and for a safe place to sleep. Our children and our grandchildren don't have to be scared. They have a safe place to sleep. They have food. But for a lot of these runaways, that is not the case. That is a problem we can fix. We can reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. We can ensure that no child is turned away, regardless of their religion or their race or whom they love. A child is a child is a child. They all deserve our protection. We don't say: OK, you four homeless children, we will take care of you but not you because you are the wrong race or you are the wrong religion or you love the wrong person. So you have to just stay out and be prey to the traffickers. We will recount some of the stories I told before, the traffickers I prosecuted years ago and the horrible stories. I know the distinguished Senator from Maine has heard these stories, and she has visited these shelters. She has seen and heard the stories. When you do, it tears your heart. So I hope the amendment that she, Senator Murkowski, I, and others have written will be in the final bill when it is passed. I thank my friend from Maine for her hard work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield for a question, there is so much of this bill I strongly support. In fact, a lot of it reflects legislation I have written and actually passed through the committee before. I have a couple of concerns, but one that comes to mind is that we don't want to hold out false promises to victims, and I know the Senator doesn't want to either. I certainly support having any money that the traffickers are fined go to supporting this, but my experience earlier as a prosecutor and my experience now in talking to prosecutors around the country is that most of these people, when they get prosecuted, are basically judgment- proof--they don't have any money or they have a very small amount of money. They will go to prison. Who pays for that? Of course taxpayers pay for the prison, whether it is Federal or State. They will pay for the prisons, but there is no money for the victims. What happens if the fine money does not materialize? We have talked about up to $30 million, I think, in fines, but let's suppose we only come up with a few thousand dollars in fines. Are we making a promise to these victims that can't be met? Is there an alternative for them in case the fines don't pay for it?

Mr. LEAHY. The reason I ask, Mr. President, is because I know in the House of Representatives they have been concerned that the money might not be there. I think we all want to accomplish these things for the victims. I just want to make sure we are not holding out a promise that we can't complete. Do I agree with all the fines going into this fund? Absolutely. But the experience of a lot of prosecutors I have talked with is that the court may say: I fine you $20,000 or $30,000, but this is never paid. They go to prison. They have no assets. We are spending $25,000 to $35,000 a year as taxpayers keeping them in prison, and I want them to be in prison, but there is no money for victims.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the issues raised in this are serious matters, and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cornyn, and others should be concerned about this. I think of a victim I have talked with, Holly Austin Smith. She was 14 years old when she ran away from home and quickly became a victim of human trafficking. She met a man in a shopping mall who told her she was pretty, and promised he would give her a glamorous life in California. Remember, she was 14 years old. Then he sold her for sex. The first man she was sold to commented that she reminded him of his own granddaughter--but then he paid $200 to rape her. Thankfully, Holly escaped and has rebuilt her life. She is now a fierce advocate of ending all forms of human trafficking because she knows what happens to those who are trafficked. But many are not so lucky. The physical and psychological scars of being bought and sold, of being raped multiple times a night by different men, are devastating. This terrible crime destroys lives. As we consider legislation to combat human trafficking, we must remember Holly and the thousands of other vulnerable and victimized children she represents, and we must do everything we can to keep it from happening in the first place. Last Congress, in 2013, I led the effort to reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That historic bipartisan legislation and the funds it authorized signaled our country's commitment to ending all forms of human trafficking, both here at home and around the world. So I am glad, after the attention we gave to my bill last Congress, to see the Senate return its attention to this issue. Stories such as Holly's make clear we have more work to do. I support the bill we take up today, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, but I believe we must do more to prevent trafficking in the first place. We have to act to protect our young people before they become victims. It is one thing to say now that you have become a victim, we are here to help you. It does even more if we can stop them from being victims in the first place. The legislation that Senator Collins of Maine and I have introduced seeks to do just that. Homeless and runaway kids are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers. A recent survey found that one in four homeless teens was a victim of sex trafficking or had been forced to provide sex for survival needs. These vulnerable children, alone and on the street, are walking prey. Human traffickers lurk around bus stops and parks where homeless children congregate. They offer promises of something to eat and a night off the streets. They exploit the very sad reality that most of these children have no place to go. The weather may be cold. Far too many of our cities have no shelter for kids, and those who do face a chronic shortage of beds. Then somebody comes up and says: I will offer you food, I will offer you a warm place to sleep for the night. As Representative Poe recently said at an event on ending human trafficking: We have more animal shelters in this country than places for young people to find a safe place to sleep. What does that say about our priorities? I have nothing against having the animal shelters, but shouldn't we have more for our children than we do for the animals? If we are serious about preventing human trafficking, we must protect these kids. We have to provide better outreach to them, more beds for them to sleep in, and more counseling to get them on the path to a stable life. This kind of prevention costs money, but it saves lives and prevents the far more costly effects of human trafficking--not just the effects of human trafficking on the victims' part, but the cost to all of us. This is smart money we ought to be proud to invest in our children. We must include the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act in our efforts here to prevent more of our kids from becoming victims. I look forward, at the appropriate place, to offering our bipartisan legislation as an amendment. I know other Senators have amendments they wish to see considered. Senator Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has an important piece of legislation to combat sex and labor trafficking in countries around the world. I thank him for working with me to make some improvements to its funding provisions and I hope this bipartisan legislation will be considered as an amendment by the full Senate. I mentioned earlier Senator Klobuchar has been working for years to see the safe harbor bill get passed, to make sure victims are treated as victims and not as criminals. I am proud to cosponsor her bill. After all, as I said about the Violence Against Women Act, a victim is a victim is a victim. They are not criminals. They are victims. Senator McConnell has long promised a full amendment process. I take him at his word and I expect we will have the opportunity to strengthen the underlying bill with a variety of ideas from Senators. We owe it to survivors such as Holly to pass the strongest possible bill. We have to provide the resources desperately needed by those on the front lines protecting young people every day, such as those in my home State of Vermont at Spectrum Services and the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs service providers. We owe it to all the survivors who bravely come forward and tell their stories, hoping to prevent just one more child from falling prey to this terrible crime. The Senate has to pass a strong, comprehensive bill that includes prevention and prosecution, but also services for victims. We haven't accomplished as much as we should if we are only able to prosecute the perpetrator after the fact and forget about helping the victim. We have to stop trafficking from happening in the first place; but if it does happen, we have to help the victims. An editorial in the New York Times last week noted that: . . . a consensus is emerging on new initiatives to confront this human-rights problem and help its victims, often runaways or homeless youngsters who have been forced or coerced into prostitution. I agree with that editorial, and I look forward to working with every Senator here to ensure we get this done for the American people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. We talk about the Runaway and Homeless Youth Trafficking and Prevention Act. This is a partial list of the local, State, and national groups which have urged its passage. There are too many to read--this has to be in small type; otherwise, we would have a dozen posters if we put it in larger type. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the complete list.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from Texas on the floor seeking recognition. I wonder if we could suggest the absence of a quorum for just 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. We need to confer for a couple of minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to my good friend from Texas. We have worked together on many pieces of legislation over the years. In fact, I hoped we could have gotten this trafficking bill up during the last Congress, as he knows. Unfortunately, there were objections raised and we couldn't. I hope we are not going to get into a question where we compare apples and oranges and forget what we are supposed to be doing. The distinguished Senator says on the one hand during the debate on the Affordable Care Act, according to him--and I will take him at his word--that this language was in there and every Democrat voted for it-- which meant, of course, that every Republican voted against it. If you are going to use and follow his argument that the language in the Affordable Care Act was voted for by Democrats, it was voted against by Republicans. I am not suggesting they don't care about the Hyde amendment because they voted against it, according to the Senator from Texas. But let's talk about things that should be on appropriations bills. I am one of the few Members of either party in this body who has actually prosecuted child molesters. I am one of the few Members of this body who has actually gone to crime scenes and seen the results of child molestation. I am one of the few people in this body who has prosecuted a child molester, not with evidence from the child, but because the child was dead. The young boy had been raped by the man whom I prosecuted, and molested over a long period of time. So I don't need to have people tell me about the horrors of child molestation. I have seen it. I remember being in a room and looking at that dead child, the same age as one of my children. And I remember the man who did it who would have done anything to escape my prosecution, and I worked day and night around the clock for weeks. I was a young prosecutor in my twenties, and I prosecuted him and convicted him. He went up on appeal to the Supreme Court--our Supreme Court--and I argued that appeal myself, and his conviction was upheld. So I know the need for this. Let's not let political ``gotcha'' games stop us from legislation that might protect these people. The Senator from Texas suggests I want more money. That is not quite what I said. He said he wanted $30 million based on fines. I said I just want to guarantee that $30 million was there. I think again of that child molester, that child murderer. He was just one of the many cases I prosecuted. We could have fined him $1 million or $20 million or $1 billion--or $200--and he would not have been able to pay it and wouldn't have paid it. If the victim had lived, there would be no money. All I want to make sure of--and I would be happy to see--is that if there are fines collected, that they go to help victims as they should. But if no money is collected from fines, I want to make sure there is money. We will prosecute somebody who has been involved with child trafficking or child molestation. We will prosecute them, as we should. They will go to prison and we will spend $25,000 to $35,000 a year of taxpayer dollars to keep them in prison, and we should. But we will say to the victim: I am sorry; we fined him $100,000 to go to the victims' fund, but he is basically judgment proof. I just want you to know we had good intentions. If he had paid that $100,000 fine, we would have given it to you to help you. But, gosh, go in peace. Have a good life. All I am saying is this: If there is money from a fine, sure. The Senator from Texas and I agree that it should be put in the Fund. But if there are no funds, don't promise a $30 million pot of money that will never be filled if there are no fines, if there is no money in it. If there is money from fines, put the money from fines in, but where there is a difference between the amount that is in there and the $30 million, then shouldn't we, as a country that spends trillions of dollars, give the difference between the fines and the actual $30 million? Shouldn't we care about these victims? Shouldn't we care about the people who are victimized? Shouldn't we also do this: If we have the money in there, we could take increased steps to prevent victims from becoming victims in the first place. I would have given anything if there had been some program, some money, to have found out that this child I talked about was being victimized, and then we could have stopped it before the State's attorney got called in to look at the dead body. How much better it would have been if we could have stopped it to begin with. So all I am saying is this: I am happy to work with the senior Senator from Texas on this bill, just as I was last year. We had a bill without this provision, and I was hoping and trying to get consent to bring it up and pass it when we had a bill without this provision. It is important to note, though, that when it didn't have this provision last year, I wish we could have passed it. Now let's work on a bill that will pass. If you want to score political points, do it on something that doesn't involve vulnerable children. Let's work together to get a bill passed that helps them. And let's make sure that on the point I raised, that we address this at some point. If there is going to be $30 million worth of fines that go in there, I am all for it. My guess is that we would be lucky to get a small percentage of that. Back when this came up in the House of Representatives, they rejected this method of funding, and they called it budgetary gimmickry. Actually, what the House did in authorizing the bill--they did what they were supposed to do. They authorized actual funding so we could stand up for the victims of human trafficking, not just stand here trying to score political points. In other words, let's have the money. Let's make sure the money is there. This is like saying: If you commit a crime, we are going to fine you $100 million or $300 million or $1 billion. But if the person never had more than a net worth of $1,000, what difference does it make? Put real teeth in here. Stop the traffickers, and ensure there is money to help the victims. Have money to help the victims. The distinguished Presiding Officer was one of the senators who testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing on human trafficking last month. Other senators testified as well. Their testimony had people tearing people up. The distinguished Presiding Officer was attorney general for her State. She understands the reality of this, as I do and others do. It has been years since I was State's attorney, but, I say to my friend from Texas, I still wake up some nights from nightmares about the crime scenes I went to. I would wake up from them at night when we were debating the Violence Against Women Act, and I am glad that Republicans and Democrats joined together on that both here and in the other body so we could pass it. A victim is a victim is a victim, not a number, not a concept. Those of us who have spent time with victims and those of us who have been at crime scenes of victims understand this. Too often victims could no longer speak, could no longer testify. We would hear about them at their funeral. We can do better. So let's not talk about who scores points or who doesn't score points. There are good people who worked on this, good people in both parties. We are not going to be voting on something tonight, I imagine. Let's spend the time between now and tomorrow sitting down and trying to work out a way forward. Save the political points for something where the most vulnerable in society do not suffer. We can talk about what we will do on stock frauds or who gets taxed or what regulations we will have for corporations. There, raise your points. Make political points there. But for anyone who has seen these victims and anyone who has talked with these victims and anyone who has been with these victims, they know this is not the time for politics. Let's get together this evening or tomorrow. Let's work it out so we can have something that will really protect victims, something that will have real funding to protect them--not something illusion, but real funding. And maybe if we can do that, I might have less nightmares about some of those victims I saw. My friend from Texas was a judge; he certainly saw those cases. The Presiding Officer was attorney general; she saw those cases. We have a number of former prosecutors on both sides here. Any one of us who has handled these cases has to remember every single aspect of them. I remember preparing for trial in these cases, having young children at home. I would work late in the office. I wouldn't bring the materials home at all because I didn't want my kids to see what I was looking at. I will admit there is another reason: I didn't want my children to see their father cry as I read these police investigations. These aren't statistics; these are real people. Let's work together. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will object until I have had a chance to see the modification.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I object. Some Members on my side of the aisle have concerns about certain aspects of the Senator's amendment, so on their behalf, I object to setting aside the pending amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I don't know who is cosponsoring the amendment. Madam President, addressing the Senator through the Chair, as we are required to do by the Senate rules, I would say that my objection is to setting aside the pending amendment. I would further address the Senator from Illinois--but through the Chair--that when the amendment is up, I will be glad to look at it and take a position on it. Of course, he and I have known each other for a long time. I will be happy to tell him whether I will vote for it or not.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to respond to the Senator, I may very well support his amendment. The technical question is, Should the amendment of the Senator from Ohio be set aside so that this one may be the one pending? On that issue, there is objection. When the Senator's amendment is pending before the Senate, it may very well be one I will vote for, and I will be happy to discuss it at that time.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the moment on this side there is an objection to setting aside the pending amendment. I have no objection to the pending amendment being there, but--I have been told there is no objection.

Mr. LEAHY. To my colleague from Ohio, go ahead.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to completely align myself with views of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. This isn't a case of who can score political points for the evening news broadcast. We are talking about potentially the lives of millions of people. We are talking about the possibility of a cataclysmic mistake that could create havoc long after any of us has left this body. I have had the honor of representing Vermont in the Senate beginning at the time when Gerald Ford was President. We have had Presidents I have agreed with--in fact, with every President there have been things I agreed with and with every President, Democratic or Republican, there have been things I have disagreed with. But one thing I have always done when there are such negotiations going on, I am willing to talk to the President privately, but I am not going to state my position, for or against, publicly. We can only have one person negotiating for the United States. Can you imagine if everybody who wanted to rush to the cable news shows to get on TV were to say, well, here is our negotiating position--and we are going to force the President to leave the negotiating table? What do you think those countries that joined us in imposing multilateral sanctions would do? Many of those countries that joined us are doing so at great economic cost to themselves, but they responded--when President Obama went to each of them and asked: Will you join us in imposing sanctions, they agreed. That made the sanctions far more effective. If they think we are not serious, they are going to be very tempted to ask: Why should we join you in supporting sanctions in the future? If the United States were alone in supporting sanctions, no matter what those sanctions are, it would not create any real pressure on Iran. Have we not made enough mistakes in the Middle East? I remember some who said we must go to war in Iraq because it would protect Israel or because they had nuclear weapons or because they had weapons of mass destruction. None of that was true. None of it. I remember people stopping me on the street, angry that I voted against the war in Iraq. They said: We heard Vice President Cheney say they have nuclear weapons. I said: There are none. The senior Senator from Michigan, in quoting Arthur Vandenberg--he was no fan of Franklin Roosevelt, quite the opposite, but he did say, as we were going into World War II, ``politics must stop at the water's edge.'' That has been the view in my own State of both Republicans and Democrats. Let's stop rushing for the cameras and potentially hurting the Senate, potentially hurting the country. Let's think about what is best for the country. I see the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the floor, so I will yield the floor so he can speak.